DCRM(S) pt. 0A addendum

[Patrick Russell]

Problem here is also "practical" needs of a small collection vs. not only
the research library, but also the existence of such "monographic records"
for serials in a utility/database such as UTLAS, OCLC, or RLIN.  I do not
believe this (using BK for SE) would be allowed; though possibly that is an
issue in  some utilities dependent on the contract.

Patrick

At 04:59 PM 1/31/01 -0500, Eric Holzenberg wrote:
>I agree that separately-catalogued issues of serials may well be a nuisance
>in situations where the library has substantial runs of that same serial
>titles already; but monographic cataloging of distinct serial issues I
>think should be an option in cases where a single issue is all the library
>has, and all it is ever likely to have. 
>
>Jane is assuming that a single issue of a rare serial will (if one is
>patient) nearly always followed eventually by another issue of the same
>periodical, and in a large dynamic research library that may be true; but
>there are lots of small, static collections where that is unlikely to be
>the case.
>
>Eric
>
>At 02:36 PM 2/5/01 -0700, you 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 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
>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>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 at byu.edu
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>