On Sep 24, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Bruce, if you keep thinking like this you're going to turn into a
> cataloger -- you might not want that.
> A series is a serial, so if you do a record for a series you code it as
> a serial. An archival collection isn't "serial" in that sense it's a
> finite unit.
OK, and my point that series and collection could both thought of as
belonging to a more abstract class of relatedItem?
It just seems to me that "host" is appropriate here, but series is not
(because that information should be captured within the relatedItem).