[ 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]
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:25:40 -0800 (PST)
- From: Virginia Scheschy <scheschy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Title mergers
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02 Suprseded by Superseded by
03 Suprseded by Superseded in part by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
>