LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  August 2014

PCCLIST August 2014

Subject:

Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

From:

Jenifer K Marquardt <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:03:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (205 lines)

This is certainly the way I have always thought about series and SARs.  Is there something we could emphasize in the training materials that would help with consistently coding the fixed field accurately?  This is especially important if we hope to be able, at some point, to provide 380 fields automatically, based on the fixed field data.


Jenifer 

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Robert Maxwell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 8:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

The Interim Report does not in any way recommend broadening the definition of series. That definition reads: "A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole." This definition encompasses both monographic series and the type of multipart monographs we typically make series authority records for. There is no reason either to expand or contract this definition.

It is true that not all multipart monographs are series (e.g. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which does not fit the definition because although it has a collective title applying to the group as a whole, the individual volumes do not bear their own titles proper) but we do not make series authority records for multipart monographs that are not series. That's why they're called *series* authority records.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Cuneo, Mary Jane <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 1:59:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Yes, I would much rather rely on 008/12 than on 380, that is if it were coded correctly.  (So many SARs have code "a" in this byte when they should have "b" or "z.")

I don't think that the definition of series in RDA applies to all multipart monographs--just some.  For example, it applies to the Chronicles of Narnia because that collective work consists of separate resources, and each has its own title proper.  At the other end of the spectrum would be a multipart work containing one part called "Appendices."  That's not a separate resource, and one could argue too that Appendices doesn't rate as a title proper.  One would need to look  at each multipart, to see if the series definition applies or not.

The Interim Report recommends broadening the definition of series so that everything that has an SAR is automatically considered to have the form of work series.  (We'd have to ignore the parts of the definition that say "separate resources" and "each resource bears ... its own title".)

I am suggesting that we narrow the definition of series so that it covers only monographic series (008/12 = a, assuming good coding); monographic series fit the definition well and consistently.  That will leave out the eligible multiparts like Chronicles of Narnia, but I have yet to see a good explanation of why form of work = series is desirable as an attribute for them; there are better alternatives.

The middle road--to say all monographic series are series, all analyzed periodicals/annuals are not, and we'll decide about multipart monographs on a case-by-case basis--isn't practical.

So it looks like we must either broaden or narrow the definition.  I think narrowing it gives more useful results.

MJ Cuneo
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

I haven't had a chance to study this report yet, but I would like to observe that the subject heading Series (Publications) has nothing to do with the kind of resources for which we create series authority records.  (It is closer to the kind of thing for which some public librarians wish we made series entries, but we usually don't.)  Also, the definition of series in the RDA glossary is very broad: "A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole. The individual resources may or may not be numbered."  This is broader than monographic series and includes multipart monographs.

That's aside from the fact that LCSH is not a vocabulary of types of publications, but 008/12 does have a useful vocabulary.  That makes 380 unnecessary for series.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jenifer K Marquardt [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 14:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Good afternoon, Mary Jane,

I agree that classing is a local decision.    I guess that I was just wondering about a clear definition of what would not get Series (Publications)  Or, rather, if we could list defined categories for which we might create a SAR that is not for a work which is a series.

The recommendation suggests

Series (Publications) |a Monographic series |2 lcsh

or the combo of two sep. 380s

Series (Publications) |2 lcsh
Multipart monograph

What you would like to suggest is that the first suggestion stand as is, but that the second be changed to remove the 380 which has Series (Publications), right?

Instead, when we create a series

- with a personal name + title AAP
- for a periodical/annual/biennial (always with or sometimes with analyzable titles)
-  or for a monograph with a defined end/defined number of volumes (Encyclopedia, etc.)

then we would only add the 380  Multipart monograph  -  That makes sense for the first and third categories, at least.  Would we need another 380 for the Periodical/annual/biennial category?

Are there other categories?

I asked my question about numbering because I don't work with periodicals very often.  And periodical has had a fluid meaning where I work.  I would want to be clear about what serials are considered to be periodicals (and therefore not Series) and what serials are considered series.

I think that the SAR AAP created for Newsweek (in your example) would still HAVE TO MATCH the pcc serial record.  That is what would tell you that you have the same resource.  But, I agree, the 380 Series (Publications) could be confusing.

Jenifer

Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Cuneo, Mary Jane [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 4:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Hi Jenifer,

The resources that I think don't qualify for Form of work = Series include (1) periodicals/annuals/biennials with some analyzable titles--these would be numbered (or they would have chronological designations); and (2) multipart monographs with some or all analyzable parts--which could be numbered or not.  A made-up example of the latter might be:

The songbirds of North America (in 3 vols.):
A-M
N-Z
Sightings and migration patterns of songbirds in North America, 1970-2010

The 3 volumes aren't numbered; a library might want to analyze the third volume, and make an SAR.  I wouldn't say its form of work is series--it's better described as a multipart monograph, a monograph, a set of books, or a book in 3 parts.

Similarly, I think Newsweek isn't a series, though some of its issues might be eligible for MARC series treatment.  It's better described as a periodical or magazine.

As to classing, that seems like a local decision which wouldn't affect what the form of a work is.(?)

Does this clarify things, as you hoped?

It sounds like you have something in mind--let me know what you're thinking!

mjc

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jenifer K Marquardt <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Good morning!

I'd just like to make sure I understand fully, Mary Jane, though I know we have talked about this before. :-)

When you say:

"Can a resource be a series for one institution, and not for another?"  and mention Newsweek magazine

I assume, by implication, that you are talking about ANY NUMBERED work that  might be treated as a classed together serial or moonset or which might be classed separately.

Is that correct?

Thanks for clarifying this for me,

Jenifer



Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Cuneo, Mary Jane [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Hello List colleagues,

I’ve written about the following issue before, and don’t wish to flog it; but because the PCC Series Policy Task Force is recommending (and SCS seems inclined to approve) something I think will be problematic, I bring it to you again during the comment period for the proposals on series policy.

On p. 53 of the Interim report, the Task Force recommends:

LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3. PCC practice: Record form of work in all work-level series authority records using the 380 field.  At a minimum in all series authority records, include

380  $a Series (Publications) $2 lcsh

[the recommendation continues, but that is the gist of it.]  On pages 6-7 there is discussion of this.  An SCS comment says “Agree with the conclusion that multipart monographs and monographic series can both be considered series.”

Aside from the question of whether we should be required to hand-code information that could easily be supplied via automation (I believe routines will be written when the need grows more pressing; that work has already begun)—here are my concerns:

First:  380, Form of work, applies to Monographic series, but not to Multipart monographs and Other analyzable serials.  For them, the underlined parts of the definition for Series do not reliably apply:

     Series: A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole.

Often a multipart monograph or a periodical will have some analyzable parts alongside others that do not bear the dual titles that identify a form of work as Series.  The non-analyzable parts do not present themselves as separate resources.

Second, while analysis of monographic series is essentially universal, analysis of multiparts and periodicals is a local decision.  Can a resource be a series for one institution, and not for another?  What do we mean by Form of the work—is it something intrinsic to the work, or can it apply/not apply according to local practices?  I’d say the former.  As one of my colleagues remarked today, before we require that Form of the work be assigned to an entire category of authority records, we should first clarify what we understand it to be.

Third, there is a fundamental difference between monographic series and the other kinds of resources that get MARC series treatment (490/8XX and an SAR).  With monographic series, the focus of bibliographic description is the individual part, while providing access to the comprehensive work (the series) is optional.  The opposite is true for multipart monographs and analyzable periodicals.  For them, the focus of bibliographic description is the comprehensive work, while providing access to the part(s) is optional.  We have become accustomed to calling them “series” because the 490/8XX + SAR treatment has been a practical method under MARC for managing the part/whole relationships at play.  This doesn’t mean their form of work is series.

Fourth, attributes like 380 are used to identify a work by distinguishing it from other works with the same or similar titles.  If applied to a multipart monograph or an analyzed periodical, it will introduce confusion by suggesting that this work differs from another one might recognize, when in reality it is the same as that other work.  For example, suppose an issue of Newsweek has a special title that I wished to analyze, so I make an SAR.  If it must have 380 Series (Publications) $2 lcsh, many will take that as a signal that my SAR is for another publication called Newsweek, not the familiar magazine.

Fifth, as we move into a more diverse bibliographic environment, the usual library-level of granularity in metadata creation is breaking down.  Now our descriptions of books co-exist with tables of contents, records for journal articles, photographs, online resources that contain within themselves other online resources, and so on.  If we code everything we analyze as being a Series, then the term quickly becomes useless.  It will be much more helpful, in the new environment, to talk about part/whole relationships.

Thanks much to those who responded when I raised these issues a while back.  For everyone else who wants to weigh in, now is the time, either here on the lists or in communication directly with SCS, as policy is a-making.

Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
Harvard Library

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

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager