DCRM(S) pt. 0A addendum

[Deborah J. Leslie]

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Gillis [mailto:jane.gillis at yale.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 2:54 PM
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: DCRM(S) pt. 0A addendum


At 11:27 AM 1/30/01 Tuesday-0500, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>Perhaps this would be a good place to insert something like:
>
>Do you only have one issue of a serial? If so, consider cataloging it
as
>a monograph.
 
After seeing comments from Bob and Deborah, I can  tell that what we are
trying
to say is getting lost.  

If you have only one issue of a serial, it's usually very easy to
catalog it as
a serial--nothing changes.  If it is an almanac, a city directory, it
*could*
be cataloged as a monographic

What we were talking about, though, in that paragraph, is when you have
an
almanac, with issues over several years.  These are usually, if not all
the
time,  annuals.  When you have issues for the same year that are
different
(e.g., pagination, publisher, person who does the calculations), then it
is a
good time to consider treating all the issues as monographs.  Another
consideration is if the individual issues are in bibliographies (Shaw $
Shoemaker, Evans, Drake's American almanacs) and there are several
listed under
each year.

Do people understand what I am getting at here?

Jane