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)