LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  August 2013

PCCTG1 August 2013

Subject:

Re: cm and csr

From:

Ed Jones <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:39:59 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

Adolfo
Here is my thinking: I suppose a program could ingest such a record and display the data in the 8XX field in area 6 for serials and ongoing integrating resources (but not monographs or "monographic" integrating resources) or create a duplicate 4XX when these conditions applied, but does any program do so? And why develop such a program rather than just cutting-and-pasting the 8XX into the 4XX if a display of area 6 is desired? 

Also we would have to acknowledge not all libraries have such systems--mine doesn't anyway--so recording the period in a particular case would become contingent on whether or not your library's system did so, rather than on a general principle. 

It's better, I think, to assume the rumors are true, and our systems are fairly primitive in such matters. When CONSER decided to record series only in 8XX, we implicitly got rid of area 6 of the description. 

Assuming that area 6 is kaput in CONSER records has the added advantage that we avoid the agony of having to calculate whether or not to add the point in any given case, and can consequently watch with equanimity as our monographic brethren struggle with this question again and again. :-)

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 24, 2013, at 14:33, "Tarango, Adolfo" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Is that really the case? True, we aren't recording the series statement in a 4XX field, but the resource presents us area 6 data. It's just that when recording the series statement following CSR practice and using the MARC format, we choose to record the series statement only in an 8XX field when the authorized form and the form on the piece are the same. Isn't this really a data "output" question: in cases where we record the series statement only in an 8XX, does the series statement "print" or "display" as area 6 data? If so, then the point is needed.
> 
> Adolfo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 9:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] cm and csr
> 
> Beth
> 
> You are correct. The period is part of the "point-space-dash-space" prescribed punctuation that precedes the series area (area 6) in the description. Since there is no area 6 in these circumstances, there is no preceding prescribed punctuation, and hence no period. 
> 
> The dash can be supplied by program on output, and theoretically--since RDA removes the period that formerly followed "cm" under AACR2--the whole "point-space-dash could have been supplied by program on records coded $e rda, obviating the need for that part of your chart. Maybe some day...
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 24, 2013, at 8:11, "Beth Thornton" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everybody,
>> 
>> I'm working on a little chart which may or may not become part of module 21. Well actually I have been working on a chart and today I sat down to revise some cataloging I did. It was a bare-bones record so I converted to RDA. And upon looking again I realized that I forgot to delete the period after cm. No series statement.
>> 
>> So I went back to my chart to add that, because there are, maybe, people like me, who might need a reminder. I know that if there is a series statement, then the period is retained because it's isbd punctuation. 
>> 
>> What if it's a CSR record and the series on the piece is the same as the authorized form and so  is only given in an 8xx field? 
>> 
>> My feeling is that in that case there is no series statement in the record, and therefore no period.
>> 
>> Correct? Way off base? 
>> 
>> Long-windedly yours,
>> Beth
>> UGA 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Beth Thornton

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager