Just to confirm that we also add the LCCN after “in favour of”.
Regards
Richard
________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
Sent: 02 May 2018 15:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 667 for authority records reported for deletion
Hello PCCList,
A while ago there was a discussion on this list about the use of a 667 to identify an authority record that has been reported to LC for deletion. Most agreed that the note would be useful to alert catalogers to the status
of the record and redirect them to the correct one. Robert Bremer allowed that the note would be acceptable from a systems perspective. Afterwards, I had an email conversation with Richard Moore and Paul Frank about whether the 667 should have a standard
wording. I have intended for some time to share our conclusions, and now finally I’m getting around to it! We thought that the note didn’t need to be standardized, but if it reliably included a couple of words (like “reported” and “deletion”) it would be
easy to find all of the records so marked, if needed.
So, by way of illustration, but not prescriptive, we use:
British Library:
667 Duplicate record; reported for deletion in favour of
Harvard Library
667 Duplicate record, reported for deletion in favor of [LCCN] ([date])
Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
Harvard Library