If the record is being deleted and merged into another record, is there any reason to keep the field?  The note explains why the Dance Heritage record is Auth status=d, but it won’t be relevant in the other record.  We don’t retain source information for other information that we merge.



John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ehlert, Mark K.
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 20:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 667 "Dance Heritage Coalition" note


Having come across two duplicate authority records, I’m now at the copy data-and-report stage.  The record to be deleted includes this 667 field: “Data contributed by the Dance Heritage Coalition for the New York Public Library Dance Collection.”  This is my first time transferring data between records that include this kind of note.  I’m considering moving it to the retained record and adding “Some…” to its head, as the note will only apply to one 670 field in a record that includes four others.  Or, alternatively, shifting the note down to the relevant 670 $b.


But before I go any further, is there a policy or best practice for handling 667 notes of this sort in a merge record situation?



Mark K. Ehlert                 O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas

  Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue

                               St. Paul, MN 55105


- Alma: NA02 // Primo: MT NA01


  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by

the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of

Verona," Act I, Scene iii



University of St. Thomas : All for the Common Good