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/documentati ... efault.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.
Thanks,
Judy
