Daniel stated:
>...  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?)

Did this NACO person doze off?  I don't remember the discussion
and/or decision.  Can someone please confirm or just refresh my memory?

Originally my thinking was that the answer to Margaretta's question
was indeed contained in Kay Guiles' memo, and that "LC in OCLC" was
both correct and sufficient.

In almost all our actual cases, so far, I would certainly agree with
Daniel (and Margaretta):
>It's generally faster to just supply the NAR.  ...

But, I will certainly notify NACO contacts from now on if that's what
y'all want.

Finally ... in most of our actual situations of this type, we have not
been looking at the same title as cataloged by LC or another PCC/CONSER
library.  In some cases we would not have come up with the same
1XX using just our piece; we would have come up with what turned out
to be a variant.  So a citation of "LC in OCLC ... " was necessary to
explain the choice of heading.

        David Van Hoy, Principal
           Serials Cataloger
             MIT Libraries
               [log in to unmask]