A complete discussion of this issue is found in MARC discussion paper no. 

In short, many people have argued that it would be better to have two 
different fields for 1) transcribing the series from the work cataloged 
and 2) supplying the authorized form.   Authorized forms change, and even 
when these are the same at the time of cataloging, automated authority 
control could later change an 8XX as the authority record changes, leaving 
the 490 as part of the description.


Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC   27708-0190
[log in to unmask]

"Joseph, Angelina" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
11/13/2008 08:13 AM
Please respond to
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

[log in to unmask]

Re: [PCCLIST] PCC Guidelines for Field 440

As 440  cannot be controlled in OCLC,  I change it to 830 and the control 
for series  works. So I have a silly question, as to why not use 830 in 
lieu of 440s? That way this 490 1 issue can be avoided. It maybe a change 
the programmers can do without much hassle.
--angelina Joseph
Marquette University Law Library
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Coding for 490 first indicator definitions: 
1 - Series traced in 8XX field 
When value "1" is used, the appropriate field 800-830 is included in the 
bibliographic record to provide the series added entry.
Does this mean that if the series statement is identical to the heading, 
field 8XX is simply repeats field 490 1? This is the way in which LTI 
handles series validation but it certainly makes for an illogical-looking 
and somewhat confusing record. Why was it thought necessary to abolish 
field 440?
Kenneth Dinin 
Senior Cataloger 
Thomas J. Watson Library 
The Metropolitan Museum of Art 
1000 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY  10028-0198 
Voice:     (212) 650-2440 
Fax:         (212) 570-3847 
E-mail:    [log in to unmask]