Thanks very much to those who have responded.  

Hugh and Thomas have already kindly replied to everyone.

Someone else replied to say that their library was looking to start
using 490 instead of 440 from January 2009 while also considering the
possibility of globally changing 440 information to a 490 field (likely
to depend on the co-operation of the systems vendor).

One other library replied to say that they are working with their
systems vendor in terms of mapping/changing the cataloguing template,
and on search/display formats.  

In the meantime I see that the online Marc manual has now been updated
and that libraries are not expected to start using the new format until
31st Dec 2008.  

I will be meeting with our IT support team to decide, as Hugh suggests,
how this fits with our local system, what organisations related to us
are doing/how this affects us and what we are going to do with existing
data.  

Kind regards

Helen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic standards in UK libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hugh Taylor
Sent: 29 October 2008 16:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Making 440 obsolete

Helen,

Disclaimer: although I am on record as having objected to the MARBI
proposal, I am trying to avoid letter that influence the content of this
message.

PCC, for its own internal needs, wants to make it possible for BIBCO and
CONSER members to implement the 490/830 part of the MARBI proposal. But
in so doing, they've only dealt with half of the proposal - and even
that is not mandatory with immediate effect.

But Thomas is quite right. The "normal" course of events in the most
general of terms for an "approved" proposal is:
1. MARC Advisory Council approves something 2. The national libraries
review and approve it 3. The change is published 4. After a 60-day
waiting period the new/revised coding (or whatever) can start to be used
in records

Right now, this proposal has progressed only through steps 1 and 2. We
can expect the changes to be reflected in Update 9 to the MARC 21 Bib
format - this is likely to have a cover date of October 2008, I suspect,
but even if it does that doesn't mean it will appear in October 2008! 
The next release of Cataloger's Desktop - which many use as their
immediate MARC documentation source - isn't due for 3 months. Even if
the MARC update appears during that time there's no guarantee it will be
ready in time for incorporation into the Feb 2009 issue of Desktop.

In addition to those general steps, there are other considerations,
including (but not exhaustively) 1. How does the change fit with our
local ILS? Do we need to make changes there (to, e.g., indexing,
validation)?
2. What plans do the cooperatives/utilities with which we have a
relationship have for implementation, and how do they affect us?
3. What do we need to do or think about doing regarding existing data?

(In the above, the "we" may be your own institution, an organisation of
which you're a member, a Union Catalogue to which you belong, etc etc.)

Right now I would agree with Thomas. It's too early in the process to be
doing more than you're already doing - i.e. thinking about the issues,
talking to other people. Don't allow yourself to be swayed by the PCC
decision in respect of its own programs (unless you have an
institutional policy to follow BIBCO/CONSER practice even though you're
not members).

I hope this helps. It's basically a more verbose version of the reply
Thomas gave!

Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head, Collection Development and Description Cambridge University
Library West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England

email: [log in to unmask]   fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)

Thomas Meehan said - in whole or part - on 29/10/2008 16:09:
> 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.    
> 
> 

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm