As John Hostage pointed out, and as John Espley's publication pattern
that you referenced in your message illustrates, the logic of using this
type of pattern is for those serial publications that publish more than
one issue per year and use the chronological designation (i.e., the
year) as the base level of enumeration. In other words, the second level
of enumeration (with or without a caption) is internal to, or dependent
upon, the year designation. Many government documents use this type of
numbering designation -- I tried to find a specific example to cite, but
of course was unable to think of one.
In the CONSER Editing Guide, p. 2 of the section on the 362 field (near
the bottom of the page), there is an example of this type of numbering:
362 0# 72/1 (Feb 1972)-
This example happens to have a chronological parallel, but this is often
not the case. [This example also represents serial numbering during that
wild and crazy, pre-Y2K bug period when publishers were often quite
happy to refer to year designations with only two digits!)
Such numbering then proceeds based on the journal's frequency (72/2,
72/3, 72/4, etc.) and rolls over with the calendar year (so 72/5, 72/6,
73/1, 73/2, etc. for a bimonthly).
Citations to journals bearing such numbering require all levels of
numbering because the numbering at the second level of enumeration
repeats. So if a user simply went looking for no. 3, they would have no
idea which no. 3 to retrieve (i.e., was that the no. 3 from 1972 or
1973? Or 1983, etc.?)
I hope this is helpful.
New York University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
212 998 2488
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:15 am
Subject: Re: serial patterns
> The logic of the system and of the pattern requires that the year
> treated as the first level of enumeration. Functionally, it's no
> different than if it said "volume" on the piece.
> Example 19 in Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items
> Z39.71-1999) uses such a pattern (not in MARC format, of course).
> Judy Levi wrote:
> > I would like clarification of serial pattern conventions, for
> > where the serial is lacking first level of enumeration. This is
> NOT the
> > same as serial which has only chronological designation.
> > John Espley's examples (http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/853-
> > includes the following, which mixes chronology and enumeration:
> > Chronology highest enumeration, with the numbers
> restarting each
> > year. After the 4th number, the year increments.
> > $8 5 $a (year) $b no. $u 4 $v r $w 4
> > I have not been able to find documentation the supports the above
> example.> At the CONSER site
> (http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/conserhold/guidelines6.html#188.8.131.52) I
> > find stated
> > "If the piece has* only* a chronological designation, input it
> using the
> > larger, more inclusive division (normally a year) in the first
> > i.e. subfield $a, followed by internal divisions in subfields $b
> > following. Use numeric equivalents for months, seasons, and days
> in the
> > enumeration subfields."
> > At the MARC site
> > (http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/echdcapt.html#mrchcap) I find
> > "When only chronology captions are used on an item (that is, the
> > carries no enumeration), the chronology captions are contained in
> > relevant enumeration caption subfields ($a-$h). If a chronology
> > is not to be used in a display of the enumeration and chronology
> > (863-865), it is enclosed in parentheses, for example,/ (year)/."
> > Both CONSER and MARC HOLDINGS refer to "no enumeration", I have
> > unable to find reference to a mixture of
> > chronology-instead-of-enumeration + enumeration.
> John Hostage Authorities Librarian
> Langdell Hall [log in to unmask]
> Harvard Law School Library (617) 495-3974 (voice)
> Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 496-4409 (fax)