Steven posted (quoted?):

>My proposal for a SeriesTitle is to say that an Instance has a >Title
that refers to a Series resource, modifying the Instance and
>referring to the Series.

Would that in Bibframe series would *always* be <bf:seriesTitle>!
  
Currently in MARC, many SLC clients do not like 800/810/811 series,
saying their patrons think of series by title, that if Jim Jones
authored all present titles in a series we don't know who will author
the next one; that the 800/810/811$a duplicate the 100/110/111 creating
confusing hitlists, and that 800/810/811$t (by which patrons search)
is poorly indexed in their ILS.

When serials switched to almost always title main entry (remember when
Journal of the American Medical Association was entered under the
Association?), the same should have happened with series.  One
library's series is another library's serial.

This is a matter of rules; for the present Bibframe would have to cope
with this inconsistent entry of series, not only the difference
between transcribed series and series entry; which of these two is
<bf:seriesTitle>?

The mapping LC has posted for post September CIP Data Block has 8XX at
both Names: and Titles:.  I assume that would be 800/810/811$a$t for
Names, and 830 for Titles.  I've no idea if 800/810/811Et will also be
given as a Title; I assume not, since 7XX$t is not repeated as a
Title, but look silly above title proper.

The bottom line is, our inconsistent complicated rules make a simple
coding system as well as OPAC indexing and display difficult.  I
wonder if perhaps Bibframe should wait for greater rationality in RDA,
or whatever replaces it?  I think there should be some feedback from
coding complexities to rule simplification.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________