David Van Hoy wrote some very good questions. He wrote in part:
> This raises the issue of monograph treatment versus serial treatment
> of the same publications of an ongoing conference in PCC. In short,
> there is not supposed to be conflicting treatment--either it's a serial
> or it's a monograph.
> This leads me (finally ;-) ) to two questions:
> 1) Is an authority record policy providing one course of action
> for LC/NACO and another course of action for LC/CONSER, without
> the two policies coming into conflict for ongoing conference
> names, a workable approach?
I think the proposed revision does lead to conflict, or at least
Those of us who are NACO but not BIBCO or CONSER could easily choose to
catalog something as a monograph, when there's a serial record for the
ongoing proceedings. The proposed revision does need some clarification
for our divided practices.
If the NAR already exists (without number, date etc., so follows CONSER
practice), would I then follow NACO monographic practice and create an NAR
for the conference WITH the specific number, date, etc.? That would be my
inclination. We'd end up with a "base" NAR and a specific NAR (or
multiple specific NARs). Is that acceptable?
Some clarification needs to be added to address these types of situations.
Perhaps the NOTE section should address this.
Daniel CannCasciato, Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Library
Ellensburg WA 98926-7548 [log in to unmask]
"If you do a little every day, you can let the enormity of the project
gradually overwhelm you."