Judy, one of the project managers would like opinions from multiple librarians on a question we are facing right now. Here’s what she had to say.<\/p>\n
Hello Everyone, we are looking for feedback from our community:<\/p>\n
MARC Proposal No. 2008-06 requested that $x ISSN’s<\/strong> be allowed in 8XX<\/strong> fields (http:\/\/www.loc.gov\/marc\/marbi\/2008\/2008-06.html<\/a>) and the proposal was approved by Library of Congress on October 2, 2008.\u00a0 Just recently OCLC has decided to begin allowing $x too (see their July 2009 Technical Bulletin 257 found at:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.oclc.org\/support\/documentation\/worldcat\/tb\/257\/default.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n With LC’s switch from 440 to 490 and our programming changes to accommodate this, many of you are now getting $x ISSN<\/strong> subfields in your Bibliographic 8XX<\/strong>s.\u00a0 This has been causing some concern and at least in one scenario, it creates a problem situation as follows:<\/p>\n original bib headings<\/span>: after processing<\/span>: The resulting 830s happened this way because the 8XXs must link up with 490-1’s.\u00a0 The system assumes the first 8XX belongs to the first 490-1 so it retained “Safety report series ;$vno. 58<\/em>.”\u00a0 Since it “thought” there was no 8XX for the second 490-1 an 8XX was created for it.\u00a0 Unfortunately it was the first 490-1 that was missing a linking 8XX.<\/p>\n What is your practice regarding 8XX $x?\u00a0 Since this is now an allowable subfield and we follow LC procedures, what will this do to your system?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n490_1 $aSTI\/PUB ;$v1343
\n490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58
\n830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58.<\/p>\n
\n490_1 $aSTI\/PUB ;$v1343
\n490_1 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58
\n830_0 $aSafety reports series ;$vno. 58.
\n830_0 $aSafety reports series,$x1020-6450 ;$vno. 58.<\/p>\n