We recently found out that Connexion will not validate a record with a $x subfield in an 8xx field (at least when it has the required punctuation between the $x and the $v). Upon asking OCLC about this, they provided an email from OCLC’s Robert Bremer that was sent out on the OCLC-CAT list in one August 21^st that recommends, in part:

OCLC recommends that subfield $x in 8xx series tracing

fields be omitted from master records in WorldCat when the same ISSN

already appears in 490.

Therefore, we would like subfield $x to not be added to 8xx fields, so that consistency can be maintained between our original records and our copy records.

Bob Thomas
Integrated Systems Librarian & Principal Cataloger
Western Washington University Libraries
Bellingham, WA

From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chad Cluff
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:35 AM
To: bslwac@mailman.xmission.com
Subject: [BSLWAC] Requesting Feedback in regards to $x in 830 tags

This email never seemed to get properly posted to the listserv, so I'm resending Judy's original email, please read it and help if you can. -Chad

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