cwulfman
commented
7 years ago Joyce Bell wrote on 2016-09-19:
The second issue is connected to the cataloging practice of using a single record for print and reproduction which was a common way to catalog certain reproductions for a long time. The record reflected the print version in all but a few aspects. For the most part these should also be pretty easy—you can strip out the 007 and 533 fields. Some might have a value (probably “a”) in the 008 byte 22 which should be replaced with a blank. Were there more than just these two? If so, I should check them to make sure that they are also straightforward. You will have to make these changes in the file you are sending them, because these are not changes appropriate for our catalog record.
Joyce
From Dana Jemison:
In addition, I found several microform description records which will need to be swapped out for the print description record. Note that in case one, there are three OCLC numbers, two for the print description record, and one for the microform description record:
001 202730 (3 OCLC – one microfilm, two print) 035 \$a(OCoLC)ocm01537507 035 \$a(OCoLC)17271265 (microfilm) 035 \$a(OCoLC)1537507 (print) 533 \$aMicrofilm.$bPrinceton, N.J. :$cPrinceton University Library,$d19--.$e1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm.
001 1112475 (Microfilm) 007 hduafb---baca 035 \$a(OCoLC)4886080 533 \$aMicrofilm.$bNew Haven, Conn. :$cResearch Publications.$d1972.$e2 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.$f(Fin-de-siècle)$7d18901893ctuuua