The word "serial" itself is the problem. "SAR" is fine as a term, since it refers only to "series" and not "serials." "SARs" are not made for pure "serials" (consistently classed-together not-analyzed) because their bibliographical records serve that purpose. Some "series" are received as would be "serials" (e.g. via standing orders), but they are not cataloged as "serials" (classed-together not analyzed). Some "serials" are partially (or wholly) analyzed, making them partly (or wholly) "series" (some (or all) parts classed together but individually cataloged as monographs.
So, what confuses the discussion is any broad definition of "serials" based upon how something is issued or ordered rather than how it is cataloged.
John G. Marr
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]
**"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 184.108.40.206
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 220.127.116.11
> 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 18.104.22.168. 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 644.
> 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 seen.
> 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)