Suppressed cover record vs. "phantom"
Could someone take a look at the following exchange and just confirm that I gave Victoria the correct information? Should the item record note be deleted (or at least modified?) Thanks. / Daniel(Incidentally, the Bib record number she provided is incorrect. But the barcode number works though.)
Vicky Gardner wrote:
> One of my staff members from the past worked on this record (Bib
> 4003010, b/c39002031944185). He discharged it, though it was charged
> to Binding/SML. He called it a phantom record in the item note,
> though I am not sure it really is. The Bib record says it is
> Suppressed. There is no call number. Can you fix this to today's
> standards and let me know what you've done in case I find one in the
> future?
I responded:
"This looks like a suppressed cover record for a series that's been fully analyzed and classed separately. I believe it is correct for it to be suppressed (because the public can retrieve all volumes through 4xx/8xx fields) and not classified (given the fact that its constituent volumes are classed separately).So I'm not sure anything really needs to be done. I'll check with my colleagues, though, and let you know if I'm missing something."
Read more!
posted by Daniel @ 5:51 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home