$x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested
I poled our catalogers and they prefer that the |x not be included in the 8XX field. Anne Bultman System Administrator Naperville Public Library 3015 Cedar Glade Dr. Naperville, IL 60564 630/961-4100 x 4983 Naperville's Neighborhood of Knowledge abultman@naperville-lib.org From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm. With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy Archer MARS Project Manager Backstage Library Works 1-800-288-1265 ext. 254 jarcher@bslw.com<mailto:jarcher@bslw.com>
As others have already indicated, ASU also does not want the $x to appear in the 830. Becky Uhl Science Cataloger/Authority Control Coordinator Arizona State University Libraries (480) 965-9802 buhl@asu.edu From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm. With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy Archer MARS Project Manager Backstage Library Works 1-800-288-1265 ext. 254 jarcher@bslw.com
Here at K-State, we prefer the $x not be allowed in the 8xx fields. As a Voyager library, the $x in the 440 is problematic enough. When doing a left anchored search, if the $x is present, Voyager does not know to ignore the $x. So, if you were looking for Safety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58, you have to type in the $x to find this string. (I believe a lot of other systems are smart enough to ignore the $x in the 440 when using a left-anchored search). I do not want to introduce this problem into the 8xx searches. Having it in the 4xx is bad enough. Also, since OCLC is our primary source for bibliographic records, we prefer to adopt their practices. Margaret Kaus Authorities Coordinator From:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm. With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy ArcherMARS Project ManagerBackstage Library Works1-800-288-1265 ext. 254jarcher@bslw.com-------- Margaret Kaus Associate Professor Original Cataloger KSU Libraries 509 Hale Manhattan, KS 66506-1200 785-532-7263 fax: 785-532-7644 mkaus@ksu.edu
At Meredith College, we would prefer not to have the $x added. First of all, we do not currently index 8xx $x and would have to incur some expense to change that. Second, this information is nearly useless for most users and only slightly less so for library staff. Ted Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Kaus" <mkaus@k-state.edu> To: "Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv" <bslwac@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:26:19 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Here at K-State, we prefer the $x not be allowed in the 8xx fields. As a Voyager library, the $x in the 440 is problematic enough. When doing a left anchored search, if the $x is present, Voyager does not know to ignore the $x. So, if you were looking for Safety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58, you have to type in the $x to find this string. (I believe a lot of other systems are smart enough to ignore the $x in the 440 when using a left-anchored search). I do not want to introduce this problem into the 8xx searches. Having it in the 4xx is bad enough. Also, since OCLC is our primary source for bibliographic records, we prefer to adopt their practices. Margaret Kaus Authorities Coordinator From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields ( http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html ) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm . With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XX s. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings : 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing : 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained " Safety report series ;$vno. 58 ." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy Archer MARS Project Manager Backstage Library Works 1-800-288-1265 ext. 254 jarcher@bslw.com -------- Margaret Kaus Associate Professor Original Cataloger KSU Libraries 509 Hale Manhattan, KS 66506-1200 785-532-7263 fax: 785-532-7644 mkaus@ksu.edu _______________________________________________ BSLWAC mailing list BSLWAC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bslwac
We are a public library and most of our 8xx tags do not contain ISSN info. However, I would rather not have it be allowed for all of the reasons already mentioned by others. Particulary, since OCLC will not be adopting the practice. I really appreciate your asking for our input though. Thanks. Rosemary Groenwald Head of Technical Services Mount Prospect Public Library 10 S. Emerson St. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 847-590-3650 "Opinions expressed are those of the sender and not the Mount Prospect Public Library." ________________________________ From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer [jarcher@bslw.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:01 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm. With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy Archer MARS Project Manager Backstage Library Works 1-800-288-1265 ext. 254 jarcher@bslw.com<mailto:jarcher@bslw.com> ________________________________ [http://www.mppl.org/images/TaglineEMAIL.jpg]
We do not want the issn subfields in 8xxxs for the same reasons other libraries have. Robin Chaney Blinn College Library From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm. With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy Archer MARS Project Manager Backstage Library Works 1-800-288-1265 ext. 254 jarcher@bslw.com<mailto:jarcher@bslw.com>
Along with many others I do not believe this change concerning the $x would be helpful for us. Ruth Webber Associate Librarian Worcester State College Worcester MA ________________________________ From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community: MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm. With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows: original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58. The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX. What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system? Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34 Thanks, Judy -- Judy Archer MARS Project Manager Backstage Library Works 1-800-288-1265 ext. 254 jarcher@bslw.com
I believe that if $x is supplied in the 8XX field, it should be put AFTER the series numbering, if there is any. It should not be preceded by a comma, as there is no AACR2 instruction to punctuate in this way. Therefore, it should always follow the period that ends the series added entry. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax aschiff@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Webber, Ruth wrote:
Along with many others I do not believe this change concerning the $x would be helpful for us.
Ruth Webber
Associate Librarian
Worcester State College
Worcester MA
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested
Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community:
MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm.
With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows:
original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58.
after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58.
The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX.
What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system?
Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34
Thanks, Judy
--
Judy Archer
MARS Project Manager
Backstage Library Works
1-800-288-1265 ext. 254
jarcher@bslw.com
But I think the main reason for adding it in the first place was for easy conversion of 440 to 830. Changing the order of subfields would negate this.
-----Original Message----- From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:32 PM To: Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: Re: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested
I believe that if $x is supplied in the 8XX field, it should be put AFTER the series numbering, if there is any. It should not be preceded by a comma, as there is no AACR2 instruction to punctuate in this way. Therefore, it should always follow the period that ends the series added entry.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax aschiff@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Webber, Ruth wrote:
Along with many others I do not believe this change
concerning the $x would be helpful for us.
Ruth Webber
Associate Librarian
Worcester State College
Worcester MA
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Judy Archer Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:02 PM To: Chad Cluff; Backstage Library Works Authority Contol Listserv Subject: [BSLWAC] $x now valid in 8XX series fields - your feedback requested
Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community:
MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN's be allowed in 8XX fields (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008. Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm.
With LC's switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN subfields in your Bibliographic 8XXs. This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows:
original bib headings: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58.
after processing: 490_1 $aSTI/PUB ;$v1343 490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58 830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58. 830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58.
The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1's. The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained "Safety report series ;$vno. 58." Since it "thought" there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it. Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX.
What is your practice regarding 8XX $x? Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system?
Your feedback would be very welcome and much appreciated. Feel free to respond to this e-mail or talk about it on our Forum at: http://ac.bslw.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34
Thanks, Judy
--
Judy Archer
MARS Project Manager
Backstage Library Works
1-800-288-1265 ext. 254
jarcher@bslw.com
participants (10)
-
Adam L. Schiff -
Anne Bultman -
Carras, Darla Black -
Groenwald, Rosemary -
Judy Archer -
Margaret Kaus -
Rebecca Uhl -
Robin Chaney -
Ted Waller -
Webber, Ruth