Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Resource Description Procedures & Guidelines: Specific Issues

Unit Statistics Links

Specific Issues when Copy Cataloging

Structure of the Number

The LCCN takes on different looks based on whether it is printed on the item or keyed into a new bib record. All forms indicate the same information.

For LCCNs assigned prior to 2001, the system prefers the machine readable form of an 8 digit number with zero’s inserted in place of the hyphen to fill in for missing digits when fewer than eight are present: 73-33725 has seven digits so one zero is inserted in place of the hyphen: 010 [space][space]73033725

Source: 73-33725

Keying into a bib record: [space][space]73033725

For LCCNs assigned after 2000, all four digits of the year being indicated in the LC number are included, so a 10 digit number with zero’s inserted in place of the hyphen to fill in for missing digits when fewer than ten are present should be entered: 2001-87428 has nine digits so one zero is inserted in place of the hyphen: 010 [space][space]2001087428.

Source: 2001-87428

Keying into a bib record: [space][space]2001087428

From: Penn State University Libraries


100 vs. 700 field

100 field – This is a personal name used as a main entry. It should be the first listed author on the title page.

700 field – This is a personal name as an added entry. Authors listed after the first will be in the 700 field. Editors always go in the 700 field – never the 100. Writers of introductions, forewords or prefaces (esp. if they are well known), illustrators, curators, etc., if they are noted on the title page, are sometimes traced here.

How the title page, the 245 field and the 100/700 fields relate to one another:

The 245 field should match the title page exactly in regard to personal names. If the names in the 245 don’t match exactly with the 100/700 fields, there a few things to consider.

The Library of Congress Name Authority File is “a comprehensive controlled vocabulary (established list of preferred terms, with cross references), primarily of names and jurisdictions, used by thousands of institutions to describe and index persons or bodies who are the subject of, or responsible for the intellectual content of library and archival material.”

The 100/700 fields are authority controlled fields and great care must be taken with them because a patron’s ability to find a work through the author (or editor, etc.) depends on their accuracy.

First, if the names in the 245 don’t match the 100/700, determine in what way they don’t match and if any action needs to be taken.

No action is needed if the 100/700 reads: ‘Anderson, Kevin B.’ and the 245 reads: ‘Anderson, Kevin’, the patron will be able to successfully look up the book by author regardless of which form (with or without the middle initial) of the name they know, because the authority field is inclusive of both.

If the situation were reversed and The 100/700 read: ‘Anderson, Kevin’ and the 245 read: ‘Anderson, Kevin B.’, the patron would fail to retrieve the record by searching ‘Anderson, Kevin B.’ unless the authority record contained a cross reference that included his middle initial.

There are other instances when the authority record needs to be looked at to make sure the appropriate cross references exist. (In these cases, if there is no authority record, the cataloger will download it from Connexion.)

Compound and prefixed names:

See examples here

Newton-John, Olivia

Moreno Acevedo, Antonio

Baer, Karl Ernst von

Craen, Pete Van de.

Al-Rabadi, Anas N.

Name order unclear – sometimes the name order in the 100 field will differ from the 245 – the authority record needs to reflect this:

Mukherjee, Chandan

Lee, Boon Thong

As of June 2008, the 440 field is obsolete.

Discussion Paper 2008-DP02 described making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry) obsolete. The intention of the proposal is to resolve the long-standing problem of field 440 being both a descriptive field and a controlled access point. Separating the two functions will result in a more reliable description and easier maintenance through authority control over time.

The MARC Advisory Committee discussed the paper at the Midwinter meetings in January 2008, and many participants felt that dealing with legacy data and the repetition of data in fields 440 and 490 were issues that needed discussion. One option suggested was that making field 440 obsolete could be treated as an implementation policy issue, rather than a change to the bibliographic format. The paper also discussed adding a subfield $x for the ISSN (and perhaps additional subfields for other standard identifiers) in the 8XX fields, since it is available only in fields 440 and 490. The Committee requested that two proposals be considered separating the issue of making field 440 obsolete and adding subfields to the 8XX fields; the proposal to add subfields in the 8XX fields is MARC Proposal No. 2008-06. 2 DISCUSSION 2.1 Making 440 obsolete

Some comments on 2008-DP02 expressed concern about repetition of data in the 490 and 8XX fields. The benefits of a simplified decision process without an adverse impact on local systems or OCLC may outweigh the minimal consequences of repetition of fields. Simplified decision-making would also assist in training new staff and enhance series work-flows in libraries.

There were also concerns that some local systems would not be able to convert field 440 into field 490. On the other hand, it was pointed out that based on MARC principles, obsolete data fields are allowed to remain in records.

The discussion paper made the assumption that OCLC will investigate changing existing records in WorldCat to move data from the 440 field to the 490 and 8XX fields if the proposal is approved. This will support the ability to control all series headings in WorldCat bibliographic records. Parameters for selecting which records to change automatically, handling differences in the use of non-filing indicators in 440 and 830 fields, and any conflicts with existing PCC guidelines still need to be discussed with OCLC. 2.2 Redefining 490 first indicator value “1” versus making the first indicator value obsolete.

Comments on 2008-DP02 indicated a discernable preference for redefining first indicator value “1” to “series traced in 8XX field” in field 490 over making the indicator obsolete. Redefining the first indicator value “1” is more compatible with the indexing decisions many libraries make based on the coding of indicator value “0” and “1.”

The first indicator in field 490 is currently defined as follows:

  • 1st indicator–Series tracing policy
    The series has no corresponding added entry (not traced) or has a corresponding 800-830 series added entry field (traced differently).
  •  0 – Series not traced
  •    No series added entry is desired for the series.
  •  1 – Series traced differently
    Controlled form of entry for the series in the series added entry differs from that in the series statement. When value "1" is used, the appropriate field 800-830 is included in the bibliographic record to provide the series added entry.

The proposal is to redefine first indicator value “1” as follows:

  •  1 – Series traced in 8XX field
    When value "1" is used, the appropriate field 800-830 is included in the bibliographic record to provide the series added entry.


The field definition and scope information will be revised to reflect this change, and it will be noted that field 8XX may appear with or without field 490.