J. McRee Elrod wrote:

>>North American practice does not employ multilevel description very 
>>much, and therefore the MARC practice is not highly developed.
> 
>  
> It *would* be nice to have UKMARC's 248 for constituent titles,
> leaving 740 as related works, also allowing direct access by title as
> opposed to 700$a$t.

I'm not aquainted with 248, but I looked it up i UKMARC, and 
it looks like it would solve the problem. But it doesn't 
solve my problem because I am supposed to use MARC 21.

Anyway, this 248 practice raises a lot of questions. It 
(UKMARC) says that for the multi-level technique, a separate 
record is created for each part. I find this good, but I 
suppose it means that information in Leader and control 
fields, classification and subject headings, should be 
related to the parts, and not the whole. And what about the 
levels between? Will they also need separate records? Will 
also a separate record for the whole be needed? This means 
that for 20 volumes you need at least 21 records. And what 
about the indexing. Since the whole is recorded in 245, etc. 
do you index information relating to the whole 20 (or 21?) 
times.

Anne Munkebyaune

> 
> 
>>There are libraries (mostly special) that do significant cataloging
>>of >offprints, analytics, separates, etc., usually using homegrown
>>techniques. Various MARC fields have been used for this, including
>>773, other 76X-78X fields, 4XX/8XX with larger work treated as
>>series,
> 
> 
> Our customers prefer the 440/8XX approach, since all their ILS's can
> handle that, they sometimes do not have the master record for the 7XX
> linking fields to link to, as well as many ILS's making a mess of
> using them.
> 
> 
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>