Chad: I concur that at UWO, we do not want the |x ISSN to appear in the 830 field if it appears in the 490 1 field, or in the 022 field. In our case, when the |x ISSN displays, it creates a misfile in the title index for the series. Of course, we can set up our indexing tables to ignore the |x when filing, but the easier answer is to not put the |x ISSN in the 830 in the first place. Thanks for this email. William Guthrie Western Libraries Elborn College University of Western Ontario London, ON Chad Cluff wrote:

/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 *8XX*s. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ BSLWAC mailing list BSLWAC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bslwac

-- William Guthrie Knowledge Management Librarian Library Information Resources Management The University of Western Ontario London, ON. N6A 3K7 TEL: 519-661-2111 (x84828) E-mail: wguthrie@uwo.ca

Having checked with our Periodicals and Cataloguing staff UEA agrees with other institutions that this would be of no benefit to us and would result in a deterioration of our bibligraphic records Meryl Turner Senior Library Assistant, Systems Library University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: 01603-593472 m.p.turner@uea.ac.uk<mailto:m.p.turner@uea.ac.uk> Information Services ________________________________ From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chad Cluff Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:35 PM 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

We would also prefer not to have the subfield added. If possible, we would like to have it deleted if found. Darla Carras Head, Catalog Management Unit University Library System University of Pittsburgh 412-244-7541 dcarras@pitt.edu ________________________________ From: bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:bslwac-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chad Cluff Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:35 PM 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