2 messages:
1)--------------------
From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Removal of 510 fields from CONSER records -- Carol Morse
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:37:16
Diagreed- as a reference librarian I have found this information highly
misleading to students, even if accurate. They judge by the length of
the list,
and it
does not discriminate between completely and selectively.
Almost every scientific periodical
in the world is indexed selectively
on at least an occcassional basis by Chemical abstracts, for example.
I recognize its possible utility in other subject areas
where coverage is much more unpredictable.
I cannot immediately see, though, how to make a compromise.
For those who need the info anyway, we do have jake.
Dr. David Goodman
Princeton University Library
and
Palmer School of Library & Information Science, Long Island University
dgoodman@princeton.edu
2)----------------------------
From: "Larmore, Dustin" <dustin.larmore@dsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Removal of 510 fields from CONSER records -- Carol Morse
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:02:51 -0600
I could not agree more!! I wish that they were not removing the
information from existing records.
Dustin Larmore (dustin.larmore@dsu.edu)
Technical Services Librarian
Karl E. Mundt Library
Dakota State University
Madison, SD 57042-1799
(605) 256-5204
http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/larmored
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:07:36 -0800
> From: "Carol Morse" <MorsCa@wwc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Removal of 510 fields from CONSER records -- Jean L.
> Hirons
>
> I think this is an unfortunate decision. When I look to weed older
> titles, that is the first place I look. If it's heavily indexed, I
> think twice about throwing it out. I can understand why the info
> wouldnot be update today, but I don't think it's a good idea to
> remove the
> info from existing records!
> Carol Morse
>
>
********************************************************************************
> Carol Morse Tel.
> 509)527-2684
> Serials Librarian Fax 509)
> 527-2001
> Walla Walla College Library Email morsca@wwc.edu
> 104 S.W. Adams St.
> College Place, WA 99324-1586
>
> Give us strength for the journey and wisdom to know the way.
>
********************************************************************************
>
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:15:23 -0500
> From: "Jean L Hirons" <jhir@loc.gov>
> Subject: Removal of 510 fields from CONSER records
>
>
> This message is being distributed to multiple lists; please excuse the
> duplication.
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In November 2002, the Policy Committee of the Program for Cooperative
> Cataloging voted to remove most of the abstracting and indexing
> coverage
> fields (field 510) from CONSER records. This data was added as part
> of
> a special project during the mid-1980s with the intention that it
> would
> be maintained over time. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
> There are many new services not reflected by CONSER records and there
> has been no means to verify the existing data. However, 510 fields for
> Chemical Abstracts continue to be actively maintained and will be
> retained in CONSER records.
>
> This has been a difficult decision. A CONSER task force some years ago
> queried the library community as to whether 510 fields should be
> deleted
> or retained but results were inclusive, with a 50-50 split. The final
> decision was based on a recognition that the data has served its
> purpose
> well, is now readily available online from other sources, and can
> never
> be actively maintained in CONSER records.
>
> OCLC plans to begin the systematic removal of the 510 fields at the
> end
> of February and will continue this process through the spring.
>
>
>
> Jean Hirons
> CONSER Coordinator
> Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave. SE
> Washington, DC 20540-4160
> voice: 202-707-5947
> fax: 202-707-1778
> email: jhir@loc.gov
>
