2 messages, 42 lines:
-------------------------

Date:         Mon, 13 Jul 1992 20:29:00 EST
From:         "JUDITH HOPKINS AT SUNY BUFFALO" <ULCJH@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order of notes

In response to Kay Teel's question about 533 (Reproduction note)
coming before 546 (Language),  I would say to input the notes relating
to the original work first, THEN the 533 and any other notes relating
to the reproduction.   With this approach, the 546 would go before
the 533.

Judith Hopkins                          Voice:  (716) 636-2796
Tech Srvs Research & Analysis Officer   FAX:    (716) 636-5955
Central Technical Services              BITNET: ulcjh@ubvms
State University of NY at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY  14260              Internet: ulcjh@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:31:35 CDT
From:         KRANDAL@NUACVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Order of notes

I, too, have wondered about the order of notes in CONSER:  why is it done
that way?  My feeling is that it's just a way of speeding up the cataloging
by not having the cataloger "agonize" over which note goes where.  I would
say that if you're not a CONSER library, input the notes in the order
suggested by AACR2.

The order of notes is also bothering me as we make the local transition to
NOTIS 5.0, which has a labelled OPAC display.  Our current version of NOTIS
lets notes display in the order in which they are input, whereas NOTIS 5.0
will have them display in the order in which they are defined for the
labels.  Some records are very much "tailored" to fit the situation, and some
notes may make sense only when they display in a certain order; the new OPAC
may make that a problem (as well might the CONSER guidelines).

Do other libraries' local systems do "funny" things with the 5XX fields?

Kevin M. Randall
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Northwestern University Library