Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA36F8.CE97BB7A"

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

_______________________________________________