DCRM(S) pt. 0A addendum

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Yes, thanks. --DJL

-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Gillis [mailto:jane.gillis at yale.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:02 PM
To: dcrb-l at 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