The following table lists how a subgroup of the auth-dev group -- namely, Sarah, Stephen, Ray, Wayne, and David -- would characterize the various situations in which MIT's authority records are unavoidably different from NACO's. This list was drawn up based on meetings of the subgroup on Dec. 4 and 8, 1997, and by additional information subsequently provided by David.
The terms in the Description column mean:
| Situation | Description | Rationale/Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| MIT traces all series | Sustainable | |
| MIT's locally established form of heading differs from NACO's (e.g. MIT has established a series heading without the qualifier used by NACO, or vice versa, or both have a qualifier but not the same one) | Cleanup | |
| MIT treats a title as an analyzed series but NACO treats it as a serial, or vice versa | Acceptable | |
| NACO treats something as a series-like phrase but MIT does not | Acceptable | |
| MIT has established a made-up series that NACO has not | Sustainable | |
| MIT classes together the titles in a made-up series | Not a problem | |
| MIT has more information than NACO does | Not a problem; Sustainable | For the 1XX heading and the fields in the record in which MIT can preserve local information by using subfield $5, this should not pose a problem. For those fields to which the subfield $5 cannot be added (i.e. non-repeatable fields) -- notably the 008 -- this difference is sustainable, with MIT either simply accepting the fact that the 008 contains NACO information that may not fully reflect local MIT practices, or accepting this but in addition defining a 9XX field which can reflect MIT practices. |
| MIT treats a series as numbered but NACO treats it as unnumbered, or vice versa | Sustainable | As above. |
| MIT classes together the titles in a series but NACO classes separately, or vice versa | Sustainable | The local MIT practice could be preserved by adding a subfield $5 to the 640 field. |
| MIT creates headings for access points which are needed by MIT users but not by NACO | Sustainable | |
| There is an error in the NACO record | Cleanup | MIT would correct the error (names) or report the error to NACO (series). |
| MIT has established series for journal supplements, both those that are actual series (8XX) and those that are not (7XX) | As the differences between the two types are not always obvious or quickly determined, a record of MIT practice aids consistency and speedier cataloging with later receipts. | |
| MIT has established series for technical reports | Many of these, particularly more recent ones, have been annotated with
a cataloger's decision on whether to record the t.r. number in MARC
027 or in MARC 088/500. |
|
| MIT has not made authority records for analyzed periodicals, but LC has | ||
| MIT has generally not made authority records for partial analytics | ||
| MIT authority records record when the same call number is not used for all titles in the same series | Typical cases are: different MIT libraries use different call numbers; one library uses different call numbers over time; one library uses a different call number for selected issues of a serial; different libraries use different analysis practices. | |
| MIT has treated the numbering on U.S. document alpha-numeric and technical report-like series as technical report numbers, but NACO has treated them as quoted notes | ||
| MIT authority records for U.S. document series may indicate whether the series is classed in LC or in SuDocs classification | ||
| MIT did not change its treatment of most series with the introduction of AACR2, but NACO did | ||
| MIT has not distinguished between monographic series and multi-part item authority records |