> >
> >"We stopped expecting catalogers to explicitly identify "LC in OCLC"
> >headings years ago because it began to get too complex and have tried to
> >simply have catalogers report BFM if both subfield a and subfield c of
> >the 040 say DLC.  We still do try to provide some BFM guidance with
> >pages 43-48 of Day 1 in the OCLC Training/Trainers' manual devoted to
> >this, but this has no effect on what the 670 citation should/or
> >shouldnot look like."

> I thought this message was unrelated to the NAR 670 "LC in OCLC"
> citation practice (hinted at in the last quoted sentence above).

Hmmm...  I considered it just the opposite, because if you couldn't tell
from the WorldCat records whether or not something was really LC in OCLC
for BFM purposes, then how could you put that same vague info in the 670
of the NAR, which implies certainty AND is more or less permanent?

Any clarification would be appreciated and is needed.  I'm all ears.

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