A complete discussion of this issue is found in MARC discussion paper no. 2008-DP02:


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]