I wonder if perhaps the problem is that we have just gotten lazy and referred to any authority record for a multivolume or serial work as a "series authority record" or "SAR". When in actuality it's just an authority record representing a work and/or an expression and/or a manifestation of a bibliographic resource regardless of what type of bibliographic resource it actually is. How about "bibliographic authority record"? (Although that would probably end up causing some people problems as well, I suppose...)
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force:
> LC-PCC PS 188.8.131.52
> I must disagree with a couple of things Robert says below. Examples
> seem called for, so I'll include some.
> "The Interim Report does not in any way recommend broadening the
> definition of series."
> While the Report does not recommend changing the language of the
> definition, it does recommend identifying all resources represented by
> SARs as series though many do not conform to the definition. (p. 53: LC-
> PCC PS 184.108.40.206. PCC Practice: Record form of work in all work-level series
> authority records using the 380 field.) For example:
> Aperture (San Francisco, Calif.) no 99084305
> Some of the issues of this quarterly journal are analyzable, but others lack
> a title of their own. (See http://aperture.org/shop/magazine/) Aperture
> isn't a series because many of its parts carry only the collective title and
> cannot stand as separate resources. When SARs are made for analyzed
> periodicals, this is usually the case, so there are many such examples.
> "... we do not make series authority records for multipart monographs that
> are not series."
> But we do. For example:
> Corpus antiquitatum Americanensium. $p Argentina no 98039741
> Not all of the parts of this work are analyzable (have their own title); see
> Hemingway, Ernest, $d 1899-1961. $t Correspondence. $f 2011
> The first two volumes of this work are called: 1907-1922, and: 1923-1925.
> It's not clear that these are titles, or that the volumes are separate
> Further, multipart monographs may be cataloged in a variety of different
> ways, according to local preference. Especially if all of the parts were
> issued at the same time, they may be viewed as a single resource, and
> some may choose to record the titles of the parts in a contents note rather
> than to analyze them:
> Background paper (Willamette Basin Land Use Study) no2014024003
> Bib. Rec.: oclc # 10194543
> In the above case, whether one treats this as a series or not may depend
> not only upon local preference, but also upon which of the parts one has
> Sargon, $b II, $c King of Assyria, $d -705 B.C. $t Correspondence. $l
> English & Akkadian n 92001689
> (not RDA yet)
> Bib. Rec.: oclc # 417166575
> This is yet another alternative to series treatment: collective title in 245 $a,
> individual title in 245 $p.
> The Interim Report, in section IV.6, p. 41-42, recognizes the legitimacy of
> different approaches to multipart monographs, and demonstrates how
> they render the use of the qualifier (Series) problematic. The use of 380
> Series (Publications) is equally problematic for the same reasons.
> In short, if we add 380 Series (Publications) to all SARs (except those for
> series-like phrases), we will be including some works that are not series,
> though they can get series treatment in MARC-which is a different thing.
> Mary Jane Cuneo
> Series cataloging and NACO
> Harvard Library
> (opinions expressed are my own and do not represent HL)