Please reply to CPSO@mail.loc.gov, not to SERIALST. Thanks. --ed.
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This message is being posted to several lists.
Notice from CCC Task Group on the 670 Field in Name and Series
Authority Records:
In the recent surveys conducted by the Cooperative
Cataloging Council's Task Group on Authorities addressing the
issue of barriers to cooperation, one of the elements in
authority records many people identified as needlessly complex
was the "Sources found" or 670 field. The recent addition of
British Library records, with their abbreviated 670 fields, to
the LC name authority file heightened the discussion at Library
of Congress and in the cooperative cataloging community.
One task given to the CCC 670 group was rebroadcasting the
recent changes to the 670 field. These changes were announced
through the Library of Congress Descriptive Cataloging Manual
document Z1 (referred to as the "yellow pages") when the document
was updated and reformulated for use with the USMARC Authority
Format.
In an effort to minimize the amount of time spent creating
the 670 field, the following changes were instituted in March
1993:
1. Citing the main entry for the work being cataloged
is no longer required.
2. Giving the general material designation (GMD) is no
longer required.
However, we feel the real change is the movement to allow
catalogers greater freedom to use judgment and common sense in
construction of this field. NACO reviewers now allow NACO
participants more flexibility in regard to details of 670
construction, style, fullness, and punctuation. In current NACO
training, LC emphasizes the fact that punctuation and style used
in 670s represent a set of conventions understood by all
catalogers. These conventions may be ignored as long as
information supplied is clearly identified.
The task group is currently conducting a survey on various
lists asking for more input from the cataloging community to
determine whether libraries using automation to generate
authority heading lists or authority records from bibliographic
records include or omit 670 fields. Results of this survey will
add information to the discussion of further simplification or
elimination of the 670 field.
The task group will issue its report for ALA Annual
Conference, summarizing uses of the 670 field by various
constituencies, incorporating findings of the survey, and
including recommendations to LC about additional simplifications
(even omission) of the field if possible.
Please send any comments to CPSO@mail.loc.gov
Donna Collins (NAL), Ana Cristan (LC), and Judy Kuhagen (LC)
