> Is there a convention, written or otherwise, for citing PCC records in the
> 670 fields of NACO records?  We have a new record a-borning that cites a
> PCC record, & our best guess is:
>         670 LC in OCLC, 2 July 1999 $b (hdg.: Blons-Pierre, Catherine)

The one question that has gone unanswered so far (unless I've missed it)
is:  Is there a need to make a special citation for a PCC record's

I'd say, no, not really.  (Leaving aside questions of requesting that the
PCC library supply the record.)  A citation of OCLC is just fine, as I
understand it, as the "LC in OCLC" designation is no longer the done.
(Didn't we discuss this just a few weeks ago?)

On the secondary debate, that of creating the NAR or referring it back to
the originating PCC library for the bib record, I'd:
        1)      Create the NAR myself if
                        it was straightforward
                        I had language expertise, etc.
        2)      Refer back to the originating library if condition 1
                        didn't apply.

It's generally faster to just supply the NAR.  I might notify the PCC
library of my having created it.  I suppose we could take a vote on what
sort of procedure BIBCO libraries in particular would like to see
followed.  If, in all cases, they'd prefer to be have the omission
referred back to them, that would work, too.

Daniel CannCasciato,  Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Library
Ellensburg  WA   98926-7548    [log in to unmask]

"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science
requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require
scholarship"    -- Robert Heinlein