[Yulcat-l] Fwd: Series coding proposal

[Joan Swanekamp]

 From Conser and BIBCO lists:

>X-Authentication-Warning: sun8.loc.gov: lhaw owned process doing -bs
>Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:02:25 -0400
>Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <BIBCO at loc.gov>
>Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <BIBCO at loc.gov>
>From: Les Hawkins <lhaw at loc.gov>
>Subject: Series coding proposal
>Comments: To: consrlst at loc.gov, bibco at loc.gov
>Comments: cc: pweiss at UCSD.EDU, mrwatson at UOREGON.EDU
>To: BIBCO at sun8.LOC.GOV
>List-Help: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=BIBCO>,
>            <mailto:LISTSERV at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV?body=INFO BIBCO>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:BIBCO-unsubscribe-request at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:BIBCO-subscribe-request at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
>List-Owner: <mailto:BIBCO-request at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
>List-Archive: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=BIBCO>
>X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlx=0 
>adultscore=0 adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=3.1.0-0606280001 
>definitions=main-0607250011
>X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2c (attachment(s) not renamed)
>X-Yale-Not-Spam: For more info see: 
>http://www.yale.edu/email/spam/content.html
>X-Yale-Spam-Score:  (0)
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.132.50.48
>
>CONSER and BIBCO colleagues, please see the series proposal presented at
>the CONSER At-Large meeting at ALA annual:
>http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/SeriesProposal.pdf. The proposal would allow
>PCC participants the option of always coding the series statement in a 490
>1 field and entering a controlled heading in the appropriate 8XX field.
>Benefits include facilitating local global change utilities and being able
>to take advantage of OCLC's control headings feature.
>
>We felt it important to vet this change with BIBCO, CONSER, and the PCC
>Standards Committee for further comment before making this option
>available to PCC members.
>
>We've talked to the Network Development and MARC Standards Office
>(NDMSO) about the need for MARBI approval. Our understanding from NDMSO is
>that as the proposal states, this is more a matter of program policy
>rather than field redefinition and so probably does not require MARBI
>approval to implement. The proposal for this practice was made several
>years ago and though not approved at the time, it is likely that libraries
>are making use of the practice in ILS implementations.
>
>If adjustments to the description of 490 indicator 1 need to be made, such
>as from "traced differently" to "traced in a different field" (or similar
>language), this could probably be incorporated as a minor editorial change
>in the fall 2006 MARC update.
>
>We would like to receive your comments before September 8th, 2006. Please
>send your comments to the listserv or feel free to send comments directly
>to me or Carolyn Sturtevant.
>
>Thanks
>Les Hawkins
>CONSER Coordinator
>202 707-5185