Hi Steven: In responding below, I have abstracted your well-written and comprehensive message without, I hope, any loss of meaning. On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Arakawa, Steven wrote: > We have ... concluded that the ... indicator coding used in 246 could be > simplified to 246 3_ for all ... forms ... BIBCO core policy on 260 field could be interpreted to refer only to the content of the variable field and not to the tagging. It states: "Use judgment in assessing each item or collection and assign a complement of title variants that covers variations deemed important and coded as appropriate. The importance of title variant access information is intended to reflect individual cataloger's judgment and/or local institutional policy" [see http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/core2002.html#30 ] Rather than entirely eliminating the utility of the 2nd indicator, it would be more practical to simplify the definition of 2nd indicator "[blank]" to "no type specified" without the present additional caveats, or to "assume" that those caveats ["Use with $i when ..." and "Use also for ..."] are permissive rather than compulsory [the word "only" is not present]. Any discussion of such issues requires consideration of whether you are creating catalog records that hundreds of libraries and their catalogers (perhaps more than users of the books being cataloged in some cases?) may wish to utilize in collaboration (eg. from OCLC) or records that will be in your own local catalog only (certainly not true of LC records). For the latter, of course, "anything goes." The issue recapitulates a problem apparent in the recent AUTOCAT thread "I heard a rumor re. 440 field ...", e.g., that it takes more time and expense to discuss and devolve the cataloging practice and teach and enforce the change of practice than it does to simply continue to implement the existing practice, *and* the devolvements result in loss of record utility (albeit mostly to catalogers?). The same applies to locally devolving from full-level cataloging to "core" cataloging simply for local monetary benefit. No adequate econometric studies have been done on local practice changes to demonstrate such a benefit, and any such studies involving all libraries affected would show negative economic impacts. Also on "core" cataloging, there was a recent AUTOCAT discussion about the complexity and expense of libraries having to make multiple data upgrades to incomplete and/or inadequate records as opposed to the universal value of original records being full level and correct (OK, that grousing was mainly about vendor records, but the same applies). > Both in committee & when I held training workshops for the department, a > number of working catalogers expressed the opinion that the simplified > coding would make our cataloging more efficient. I just entered 310 260-field 2nd indicators, a year's supply, in the same time it took just to read your original message [grin]. Cheers! John G. Marr Cataloger RMBA, UNMGL Univ. of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"** Martha Watson Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.