Helen,
We are not implementing this at the moment. We are not a PCC member so I
don't feel bound to make this a priority at the moment. The option to
keep legacy data in 440s is useful in this respect. We fully intend to
abandon the 440 at some stage, and I don't want to leave it too long,
but I think there are two conditions I would like to fulfil first:
1. I want to be happy that there are no hidden problems, especially with
the library management system, and especially with authority control. I
don't think there will be, but I think it wise to make sure.
2. The online MARC manual has to be updated.
In the meantime, I don't see a particular need to rush except for our
obligations to consortia to whom we give our records, who deserve
records done according to the current standards as far as possible.
I would be interested to hear what others are doing.
Cheers,
Thomas Meehan
Helen Williams wrote:
> I wondered if others on the list had seen the PCC guidelines for
> implementing the recent decision to make the 440 field obsolete.
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/Field440.pdf
>
> I would be interested to know what others are doing in terms of
> implementing this at their institutions.
>
--
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London
WC1E 6BT
[log in to unmask]
|