New coding for form subdivisions now in effect

[Weitz,Jay]

LC's "Subject Cataloging Manual" (especially H 1075 and H 1095) should be
able to tell us most of what we need to know about coding of the form
subdivision.  In the vast majority of cases, the choice between subfield $x
for topical subdivisions and subfield $v for form subdivisions will be
unambiguous.  SCM H 1075 does try to make the distinction clear (including
cases where there are multiple form subdivisions), but if you feel that LC
has not adequately explained things, the Cataloging Policy and Support
Office will take comments and questions (via e-mail at cpso at mail.loc.gov).
Sharing such questions and answers with the Enhance community could also be
valuable, and this list could be a place for certain ambiguities to be
worked out.

For retrospective work, many of the ambiguities result from not having the
item itself in hand.  Whether an item, for example, IS a collection of
source material ($v Sources) or IS ABOUT such source material ($x Sources),
may or may not be clear from the bibliographic record alone.  When we
consider any possible machine conversion of existing bibliographic records,
the ambiguities (and the possibility of incorrect choices) are greater,
given the absence of human intervention in each individual decision.  This
should be less of a problem for current cataloging done with item in hand.

The subfield $v was published as part of USMARC Update No. 1 in March 1995.
OCLC validated the subfield as part of Format Integration Phase 2 in March
1996 (announced in Technical Bulletin 212 in January 1996).  Extensive
revisions to the "Subject Cataloging Manual" to accommodate and explain the
form subdivision were published by LC as part of SCM 1998 Update No. 2, in
August 1998.  LC actually implemented the subfield in February 1999.  This
gradual introduction over the course of four years was deliberate, at least
in part because of the significant change in practice that it represented.

Jay Weitz
Consulting Database Specialist
OCLC Online Computer Library Center
MC 741
6565 Frantz Road
Dublin, Ohio  43017-3395

Phone:	614-764-6156
Fax: 	614-718-7195
E-mail:	jay_weitz at oclc.org
WWW:	http://www.oclc.org/
	http://innerart.com/performancespace/index.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Clarence Brown [mailto:cbrown at macc.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 10:50 AM
To: OCLC Enhance Libraries
Subject: Re: New coding for form subdivisions now in effect


Are there going to be better guidelines on the use of the subfield v than
those
LC has so far provided??  There's a lot of confusion here about how to apply
the subfield v when there is more than one form subdivision on a subject
heading  (the possibility that one of them may be a topical rather than a
form
subdivision in such cases)  I understand  there is a lot of debate amongst
catalogers at other institutions, on how to implement this change (someone
e-mailed me recently that there is "more heat than light" shed on this
subject
on the internet.  It is my understanding that LC sees the need to offer
special
training to Bibco participants on the use of subfield v, so why are we
suddenly
expected to implement this now for new records (especially when you admit 
below that there can indeed be confusion for retro over the distinction
betwseen form and topical  subheadings?   

At 10:10 AM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
>New coding for form subdivisions now in effect
>
>On February 17, 1999, Library of Congress started to use the new coding for
>form subdivisions ($v) in subject headings.  It is OCLC's policy that any
>current cataloging entered in WorldCat (the OCLC Online Union Catalog)
>reflect LC practice as to tagging and coding.  In other words, libraries
>entering new records that have form subdivisions should be using the new
>coding. If local systems can not handle the new $v, users should enter the
>information with the correct coding, add the record to WorldCat by doing
the
>update command, and then edit the record for local practices.
>
>Libraries entering records for retrospective conversion projects may
>continue to use the old coding if it is not clear that the subdivision
>represents a form or a topic.  OCLC does not require that users change the
>older $x coding to $v when doing copy cataloging.  Each library will need
to
>decide at what rate they will adapt their existing catalogs.  OCLC is
>investigating doing a conversion of older WorldCat records to the new
coding
>practice; however, no schedule has been set for this project.
>
>Guidelines in the online version of "Bibliographic Formats and Standards"
>will be updated to reflect this change.  Specifically, restrictions in the
>600, 610, 611, 630, 650 and 651 fields saying not to use the $v are no
>longer applicable.  Corrections to the printed version will follow as part
>of the regular update cycle.
>
>--Linda Gabel
>Cataloging Services Section, OCLC
>Phone: (800)848-5878, ext. 6374
>Fax: (614)718-7196
>Internet:  gabell at oclc.org
>