I think an example for handling multipart monographs would be helpful here. Unlike serials, multipart descriptive cataloging includes the publication date(s) in 260 subfield c, so simply recording volume numbers is not helpful, especially since the $c is not repeatable in the subsequent 260 fields e.g.
260 __ ‡3 v. 1: ‡a Darmstadt : ‡b Primus, ‡c c2007-2009.
260 3_ ‡3 v. 2: ‡a Münster : ‡b Lit
Multiparts are frequently published out of volume order, so one can't infer when v.1 and v.2 were issued.
Prefer (if published in volume order):
260 __ ‡3 v. 1 (c2007): ‡a Darmstadt : ‡b Primus, ‡c c2007-2009.
260 3_ ‡3 v. 2 (2009): ‡a Münster : ‡b Lit
(if published out of volume order):
260 __ ‡3 v. 2 (c2007): ‡a Darmstadt : ‡b Primus, ‡c c2007-2009.
260 3_ ‡3 v. 1 (2009): ‡a Münster : ‡b Lit
Also, the indicator 3 (current publisher) seems to make more sense for serials; when the set is complete there really is no "current" publisher (v. 2 could be out of print for all we know). Wouldn't it be better to leave indicator as blank in such cases?
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Les Hawkins
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Punctuation used with $3 and $x in 260, 490, 8XX Fields: PCC guidelines
PCC guidelines for punctuation associated with newly implemented subfields
have been posted: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/punctuation.pdf. The
guidelines were developed in cooperation with the PCC Standing Committee
on Standards, OCLC staff, and LC's Policy and Standards Division. There
are links to the document from LC's Cataloging and Acquisitions web
page: http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/policy/#marc and the PCC home
Library of Congress
v. 202 707-5185
[log in to unmask]