[ List Archives Home ] [ Thread index for 2008 ] [ Date index for 2008 ] [ Author index for 2008 ]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Amie,

Our catalog label for the 785 field with a second indicator of 6 is -
Split into.  This will appear in front of both titles and shouldn't be
confusing.

However, 785 with a second indicator of 7 is problematic.  Our catalog
label displays as Merged with, which is correct for the first title but
not for the second one.  I've copied below some text from our Procedures
Manual, which shows the bib record label for the different indicators in
the 780 and 785 fields, and the OCLC equivalent.  We are, unfortunately,
limited by the number of characters allowed by the labels (12, I believe).
 
Virginia

       WOLFPAC Label            OCLC Designation
       -------------            ----------------
780 00 Former title             Continues
    01 Former title             Continues in part
    02 Supersedes               Supersedes
    03 Supersedes               Supersedes in part
    04 Formed by                Formed by the union of __ and __
    05 Absorbed                 Absorbed
    06 Absorbed                 Absorbed in part
    07 Former title             Separated from

785 00 Later title              Continued by
    01 Later title              Continued in part by
    02 Suprseded by             Superseded by
    03 Suprseded by             Superseded in part by
    04 Absorbed by              Absorbed by
    05 Absorbed by              Absorbed in part by
    06 Split into               Split into __ and __
    07 Merged with              Merged with __ to form __
    08 Later title              Changed back to



On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Amie S. Pifer wrote:

> Has anyone ever used the second indicator for a 785 of 6 or 7.  I know
> that you must use to separate 785 entries (one of each of the merging
> titles).  It is supposed to show up in the OPAC as: Merged with_______
> to form ______.  When I do this it will show the "merged with" portion
> but I cannot get it to show the "to form" portion.
> 
> Can someone let me know if this is an innopac default or if the Bib
> formats and standards manual is not up to date.
> Amie Pifer
>