I am not one of the LC chrismated who may comment publicly on the first paragraph of Sherman's message, but the second paragraph is a good reminder to former RLIN21 users now in OCLC:

In the RLIN21 system, one could add the lccn of the record to be deleted as an $z subfield to the 010 field of the record to be kept. This caused occasional distribution problems, as some databases (and utilities) cross check the 010$z lccn against 010$a lccns and reject the revised record (and report an error) if the record to be deleted had not yet been deleted in that database.

One should not attempt this in OCLC.


>>> Sherman Clarke <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 4:30 PM >>>
I'd be happy to have my tax money that is currently going to bomb Iraq and pay Blackwater go instead to Coop/CPSO so they could afford another staff member who would do afm all day long. Or maybe we could even afford two new staff members.

Your explanation of why we probably don't want to do the 667 in NARs seems to be spot on. For Art NACO and NYU deletes, I never send you guys the note until the updated keeper record has been redistributed, and I've quit doing anything in the 010.

Sherman Clarke
NYU Libraries
[log in to unmask]