Print

Print


I agree with Amy. Vendor's do deal with all sorts of variations and ignoring a valid, non-authoritized subfield, like 830$x is fairly routine. I would also add, that although it is a great idea to check with other libraries to see what they know, it is always critical to ask your authority vendor whether they think something is an issue. Not only do vendors do things differently sometimes, the same vendor may do something differently now then they did a year or even a month ago.

Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio Texas 78265
1-800-531-7678
[log in to unmask]

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 830 $x

A library should not have to do things like strip valid (or even invalid) subfields to prepare records for an authority vendor.   The vendor's job is to deal with all sorts of variations.   I would be astonished if our vendor, LTI, had any difficulty with the 830 $x, and if they did, I am confident that they would immediately make the necessary changes to their routines.

Amy


Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC

[log in to unmask]



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 830 $x

Well, since the $x isn't part of the authorized form of the series, it appears that it should not be entered in 830.  I'm wondering whether to recommend stripping it when our records are processed by Backstage post-cataloging. Do other libraries find it interferes with authority validation?

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 12:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 830 $x

The documentation that I could find does not make an explicit and absolute statement on this, but from the sources cited below, I would infer that the 830 $x is optional for all types of cataloging.   And I certainly hope so, as I think that if the ISSN is needed for retrieval of individual series statements, it could be supplied from the authority record rather than from having the cataloger copy and paste multiple times.


The BIBCO Standard Record Metadata Application Profile says about the series added entry "If cataloger judgment or local cataloging policy is to trace a series, include in this field the authorized form of the series as established in the LC Name Authority File."


Cf: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR_ImplementationDoc.pdf


OCLC Biblographic Formats and Standards say that the 830 $x is optional at both full and minimal levels.

Cf: http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/8xx/830.shtm













From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 12:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 830 $x

For pcc records, is 830 $x mandatory if applicable if the series added entry is made? Is there some documentation I can refer to regarding the policy?

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]