DCRM(S) Area 3

[Ann Copeland]

I think that formatting to be consistent with standard serial practice 
actually facilitates the understanding of rare serial records by the larger 
serial audience. We have not shied away from other A2/MARC formatting 
conventions (such as 1E3 where we instruct catalogers to transpose a 
statement of responsibility "to its required position".) In formatting the 
362, as long as all the elements of the designation are recorded, I see no 
conflict in adapting the transcription to the convention of: Numeration 
(Chronological Designation).

In 3C3, the statement is made that marks of omission should be used to 
indicate the presence of another designation on the piece - maybe such 
marks should be added to the example?

Ann Copeland
Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
The Pennsylvania State University Libraries


  At 05:02 PM 4/15/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>I guess my question is why was the decision made in this manner?  If there
>is a reason to transcribe the information, such as the fact that the form
>might help someone distinguish two states, issues or even editions of a
>serial, then it would make sense to do so.  If we are formatting just to
>be consistent with regular serials cataloging, I am not so sure that we
>should routinely format.  I would like to see a clear basis for non-rare
>serials and for rare book catalogers who are not used to serials to make
>their decision to format or transcribe information.
>         Larry
>
>Laurence S. Creider
>Head, General Cataloging Unit
>New Mexico State University
>Las Cruces, NM  88011
>Work: 505-646-4707
>Fax: 505-646-7477
>lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu
>
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Jane Gillis wrote:
>
> > To the DCRB Revision List.
> >
> > For the next week we will be discussing Area 3, Numbering Area.  For those
> > of you who catalog only monographs, this is something new.  For those of
> > you who catalog serials, the rules vary from AACR2, mainly calling for
> > transcription, even though we do call for formatting the
> > information.    This has been mentioned as an inconsistency--if on the
> > piece is No. 3 Saturday the 18th of June 1776 Volume IV, and we transpose
> > this information to Volume IV, no. 3 (Saturday the 18th of June 1776).  We
> > do have the option of transcribing exactly what is written, but the rule
> > says that the information should be formatted: Numeration (chronological
> > information).
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this?  We would like to follow AACR2 in the
> > formatting but not in how the information is stated.
> >
> >
> > Jane and Juliet
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Juliet McLaren
> > Project Head, Early Serials
> > English Short-Title Catalogue
> > Center for Bibliographical Studies and Research
> > University of California - Riverside
> > e-mail: juliet at citrus.ucr.edu FAX: (909) 787-4120 Tel: (909) 787-5841
> >
> >
> > Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|  Sterling Memorial Library
> > Yale University | New Haven CT  06520
> > (203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis at yale.edu
> >
> >