DCRM(S) pt. 0A addendum

[Patrick Russell]

Seems to me a serial is a serial.  Yes, there is a grey area! But I agree
that it is misleading to the user to treat a "serial" as a "monograph"
because (e.g.) only a single issue is in hand, especially in view of the
very desirable ability to qualify searches by the form "serial".  Also
format affects display in many systems; it would not be desirable to have
an item labelled "monograph" when in fact it is a serial.

Patrick

At 02:36 PM 2/5/01 -0700, Robert L. Maxwell wrote:
>In addition to the convenience of the cataloger as a point in favor of 
>cataloging these as a serial, which Jane explained well, I would like to 
>put in a plug for the user of the library--a whole bunch of issues of 
>serials all cataloged as monographs are quite confusing to the user when 
>he/she does (e.g.) a title search--what the serial is and what the library 
>has are much clearer when treated as a serial. At least that is the 
>perspective of this non-serial cataloger.
>
>Bob
>
>At 02:35 PM 2/5/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>Yes, thanks. --DJL
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jane Gillis [mailto:jane.gillis@yale.edu]
>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:02 PM
>>To: dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
>>Subject: RE: DCRM(S) pt. 0A addendum
>>
>>
>>At 11:42 AM 2/5/01 Monday-0500, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>> >I think I understand. I look forward to seeing your re-write, though.
>> >
>> >As for it being very easy to catalog something as a serial when you
>>have
>> >only one issue: for monographs catalogers, it is not easier to catalog
>> >something as a serial than as a monograph. And what is the advantage of
>> >cataloging a single issue as a serial? --DJL
>>
>>
>>When you only have one issue of a serial, and you catalog it as a
>>serial,  when
>>you get a second issue, you only have to add to the holdings.  Of course
>>if the
>>second issue has many things that are different, you have to make notes.
>>
>>
>>I think that this is the central point of why catalog anything as a
>>serial--because so many parts of the record are the same, you can deal
>>with
>>many issues with much less cataloging than doing all as monographs.
>>
>>If I get an almanac or city directory to catalog and after searching
>>local
>>databases and RLIN, I find no other issues with the same title, I will
>>probably
>>catalog the item as a monograph, unless there is some indication of
>>numbering
>>other than "first", e.g., Fifth annual directory for the city of ...
>>
>>If I get a single issue of a periodical or newspaper and I find no
>>cataloging
>>record, I will almost always (if not always) catalog the item as a
>>serial.
>>Certainly, if an issue has something like vol. 2, no. 3, or no. 7, I
>>will
>>always catalog as a serial.  When other issues arrive, I add the
>>holdings (and
>>any notes).  I am also building a publications record of the serial and
>>can see
>>what issues are wanting.
>>
>>Does this make it clearer?
>>
>>Jane
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Robert L. Maxwell
>Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
>6430 Harold B. Lee Library
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 378-5568
>robert_maxwell@byu.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>