I think this is a good idea.  We already have procedures for breaking up undifferentiated names (DCM Z1, 008/32),  so I would suggest building on that and using a note like

"Reported for deletion in favor of [LCCN of NAR]."

John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
0000 0000 4028 0917

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert M. TALBOTT <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 15:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 667 to indicate report for complex correction or cancellation

One of the duties that fell into my court oh so many years ago was the reportage of duplicates in the authority file, where it has remained.  I've consequently seen the ebb and flow of response times, and up until recently the deletions always occurred within a reasonable time frame.

"Until recently." Yes, the delay between the time a duplicate or error is reported and the moment the dupe is cancelled/ error corrected has moved from days to months.  A casual glance in my  "pending" file shows unfilled requests for cancellation dating back at least to August 2017.

I am sure that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation  for the delay, and truth be told, even without knowing the exact causes, LC has my sympathies.  No doubt the volume is high and the work thankless. I doubt too that there is an end in sight.  

How then do we prevent (or at least alert) others from using the duplicate or from aggravating the identified complex error while we are waiting for a cancellation or remedy?

The whole point of this email:  I think including a 667 within the affected records  would be an obvious choice, something like:

667  Duplicate heading: [actual heading & maybe the LCCN] reported for cancellation [date].


667  Record reported for cancellation; it duplicates  [heading & maybe LCCN].  The latter heading should be used.


667 Literary number PH3328.21 (range is actually PH3382.21) assigned in error, reported [date].

I don't think this is breaking any new ground.  In fact, I seem to recall that I've seen these sorts of notes once or twice over the years, but who knows?  Maybe I just dreamed it. Still, it seems reasonable to ask before starting to track these things.

So: Is there any reason to not track these sorts of things in a 667?  Perhaps there's a better way to track than a 667?

Any and all responses are welcome.

Thanks & Cheers


Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

I'm just mad about Saffron