<html>
<font size=3>At 1/24/04 09:35 PM, Deborah Leslie
wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="georgia" size=2>I'm
toying with the idea of considering collections of printed materials
analogous more to monographic series than to archives. The effect would
be to confirm our original proposal, to only give a name main entry
when all items of the "series" are by the same person or
emanate from the same body.</font></blockquote><font size=3><br>
Deborah's analogy between collections of printed materials and series was
just what we had in mind at Brown in establishing local guidelines for
the creation of "collection set records":<br><br>
"A set is defined in the <i>ALA glossary</i> as 'two or more
documents in any physical form published, issued, or treated as an
entity, and as such forming the basis for a single bibliographic
description'. Such a description is referred to as a 'set record'. If a
set is analyzed, i.e. the component items are cataloged individually, the
set record functions as a kind of umbrella for the individual records.
This treatment has usually been applied to materials published or issued
as sets: monographic series, multipart items, microform sets,
etc.<br><br>
"By providing each of our 'special' collections with a single
bibliographic description, we are, for cataloging purposes, defining them
as 'sets' on the basis of treatment. Collection set records provide
description and indexing based on attributes that define the
collection--including the circumstances of its collection and information
about the collector(s)--as well as subject analysis at a level of
generality inapplicable to individual items. While they are meant to
serve as an umbrella for item-level records of fully cataloged materials,
they can also function as adjuncts or substitutes for item-level
in-process records of materials in backlogs." --
<a href="http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/Catalog/setrecords.html" eudora="autourl">http</a><a href="http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/Catalog/setrecords.html" eudora="autourl">://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/Catalog/setrecords.html</a><br><br>
When I was researching other libraries' guidelines for collection
records, McGill seemed to be the only other institution that explicitly
provided for the creation, or more properly the retention of collection
records for such purposes:<br><br>
"<u>Temporary collection level records</u> ... This type of record
is temporary because the long-term goal is to catalogue each item in the
collection individually. In the meantime, this record indicates the
existence and location of the collection as a whole. After the collection
is completely catalogued, there must be a decision either to drop the
collection level record or to retain it because it still provides useful
access. If the record is retained, it must be edited to include
information about access to the individual items, e.g., NOTES: The
collection has been completely catalogued and the individual titles are
accessible through MUSE." --
<a href="http://www.library.mcgill.ca/techserv/cataloguing/collectionlevelrecords.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.library.mcgill.ca/techserv/cataloguing/collectionlevelrecords.htm</a>
<br><br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</font></html>