I've been curious whether this practice will continue to be necessary 
after the OCLC/RLG merger when we have institutional records to choose 
between. I suspect people will be even more prone to forget the linking 
procedure once many versions are linked through an automated process.

I hope that there will be discussion of PCC records in the new post merger 
environment at ALA and on the list because I think we all have a lot of 
questions and uncertainties.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:51:18 -0800
From: Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Dutch language records

BIBCO Libraries,

Please have a look at OCLC record #66740382.  This record was input by a Dutch 
library according to Dutch cataloging rules, and then it was made into a BIBCO 
record, but the 040 still indicates that the language of cataloging is Dutch 
(subfield $b) and that the rules are other than AACR2 ($e fobidrtb).  We have 
found two others like this as well: #71741327 and #71664336.  The same library 
is not responsible for all three.

OCLC policy for catalog records in languages other than English is that we are 
supposed to create a new "parallel" record in English and link to records in 
other languages of cataloging for the same resource by adding a 936 field: see 
OCLC technical bulletin 250: OCLC's Bibliographic 
Formats and Standards also includes instructions on this:

We have created a local policy incorporating OCLC's guidelines:

It may be that some PCC catalogers have forgotten this policy, or that 
libraries switching over from RLIN are unaware of it?  Cynthia Whitacre at OCLC 
has confirmed that OCLC has not changed any of its policies regarding creating 
parallel records.


Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]