EXCELLENT rundown of the arguments in favor of retaining the core-ness of the series statement, Chris!
Thank you!!
Kevin
P.S. While we may have left the 440 to "float gently", my wish was to tie it to a concrete block and let it sink to the bottom.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRISTOPHER WALKER
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 6:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] cm and csr
>
> Colleagues,
>
> As God is my witness </Georgia accent> I will never comment again
> about the damned period.
>
> I don't favor any development of a flow-chart approach
> to deciding whether or not the cataloger should record the series
> statement,
> depending on whether or not s/he is going to enter an authorized access
> point in an 8xx field.
>
> 1) As a trainer, I think this approach is unwieldy.
> 2) That's more or less what the 440 was for, and we cast that adrift to float
> gently
> to the shore of the Island of Lost Toys.
> 3) Most significantly, we have colleagues in institutions where series work
> is discouraged,
> who are not even supposed to cross-check in LCAF to see if the series they
> see on the piece
> is, or isn't, established. (Don't we?) The CCM has to work for them, too.
>
> The series statement is CORE (2.12).
> LC-PCC practice says it must be recorded unless,
> in the judgment of the cataloger, the series-like statement they see
> is not a "true series" (that's the LC-PCC PS wording, not mine).
>
> If the real objection is that the 490 is redundant when it matches the
> series access point,
> I'm sorry, the objection that a descriptive element is redundant was buried
> in the back yard
> with no headstone, when we began insisting on repetitive 588s citing
> first-seen and last-seen issues
> that duplicate the information in the 362. That novelty was cited and sold
> as a training issue.
>
> Finally, as serialists, we know that the series statement and the authorized
> access point for it
> quite often will diverge as more issues come to hand.
> Recording the series statement is important for the identification of the
> resource
> and the identification of the best surrogate record for it.
>
>
> Christopher H. Walker
> Serials Cataloging Librarian
> Penn State's representative to the CONSER Operations Committee
> Member at Large, ALCTS CRS Executive Committee 2013/2016
> 126 Paterno Library
> The Pennsylvania State University
> University Park, PA 16802-1812
> (814) 865-4212
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eugene H Dickerson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:43:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] cm and csr
>
>
> I neglected to comment on Kevin’s point about the series statement. I
> think that we should consider changing the policy statement to make
> recording the series statement (MARC field 490) optional if the cataloger
> is making an authorized access point for the series (assuming that the
> form of the series title on the resource is the same as the authorized
> access point or is reflected in the series authority record as a variant
> access point). If the cataloger chooses not to make an authorized access
> point for the series (for example, the library’s policy is not to create series
> authority records), then the cataloger should record the series statement
> as it appears on the resource (use MARC field 490). I believe that this is
> the same as the CONSER Standard Record policy. I was just reiterating it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gene
>
> Eugene Dickerson
> Lead Librarian for Cataloging
> Ralph J. Bunche Library
> U.S. Dept. of State
> 2201 C Street NW, Rm. 2438
> A/GIS/IPS/LIBR
> Washington, DC 20520
> (202) 647-2191 voice
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dickerson, Eugene H
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] cm and csr
>
> Hi, Kevin.
>
>
> I agree with everything you’re saying in your “rant”. We should either
> make the guideline ALWAYS add the period or NEVER add the period. (I
> vote for NEVER.) I think we should have stopped coding ISBD punctuation
> completely with the implementation of RDA, but I guess people just
> couldn’t let it go. (Robert Bremer made a great case for not coding ISBD
> punctuation in OCLC MARC records, but the RDA “powers that be” didn’t
> embrace the idea.)
>
>
> We need to focus on the description and subject analysis when creating
> or maintaining records and not spend time agonizing over punctuation.
>
>
> Who would have thought that some people would spend even more time
> agonizing about punctuation in RDA than they did in AACR2 (which was
> bad enough)?!
>
>
> Gene
>
> Eugene Dickerson
> Lead Librarian for Cataloging
> Ralph J. Bunche Library
> U.S. Dept. of State
> 2201 C Street NW, Rm. 2438
> A/GIS/IPS/LIBR
> Washington, DC 20520
> (202) 647-2191 voice
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] cm and csr
>
> Area 6 was never "kaput" in CONSER. It was turned into an *option* in the
> CSR. (Remember the floor vs. ceiling mantra...) Moreover, that was under
> AACR2, and the status of Area 6 under RDA for CONSER seems to be in
> limbo. The PS for 2.12 currently makes no mention at all of the series
> statement being optional for serials. This is an apparent oversight, and is
> something that needs to be resolved.
>
> <rant>All that being said, I want to reiterate my point that I have made in
> some other discussion lists: the whole period-or-no-period-after-"cm"
> controversy is PROFOUNDLY ridiculous. The PCC policy is based ENTIRELY
> on an assumption that the records are being constructed specifically for
> display in OPACs that are following ***OLD*** ISBD punctuation
> guidelines, AND a specific kind of ISBD display (starting a new paragraph
> with Area 7). The current ISBD Consolidated Edition clearly says that
> there's going to be a period at the end of Area 5 regardless, according to
> A.3.2.3: "Each area of the description other than the first is preceded by a
> point, space, dash, space (. - ), unless that area is clearly separated from
> the preceding area by paragraphing, in which case the point, space, dash,
> space may be replaced by a point (.) given at the end of the preceding
> area." We should either say NEVER use a period after "cm" (because it's a
> symbol, not an abbreviation), or say ALWAYS use a period after "cm"
> when it's the end of the 300 field, because it's the end of an area. But of
> course, inconsistency is rule number one when it comes to putting ISBD
> punctuation into MARC records...</rant>
>
> Kevin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> > [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
> > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:40 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] cm and csr
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
|