On Nov 18, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> … The possibilities are:
> (1) 245 12 A history of…. $n Volume III / $c Julie Leonard.
> (2) 245 12 A history of… . $n Volume III / $c Julie Leonard.
> (3) 245 12 A history of… $n Volume III / $c Julie Leonard.
> … So, collective wisdom, do you agree that we should record the 245 above in option 1? Or do you disagree and prefer one of the other options above or some other one?
I prefer the first option in that follows the spirit of ISBD A.3.2.7, if not the letter. I don’t find this any different from a title rendered as:
245 10 Surprise!. $p Introduction / $c …
The “. $p” acts as a separating unit, and I would argue the same for the “. $n” in the ellipsis’d sample further above, taking into account all other records in catalogs with 245 $a + “. $n".
Plus, mixing a period with an ellipsis is common enough in at least English text that it’s unsurprising when the reader encounters it. At the same time I see "Chicago Manual of Style" 13.51 describes the period as coming before the ellipsis. Either way it’s four dots in a row.
Mark K. Ehlert O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
Cataloging and Metadata University of St. Thomas
Librarian 2115 Summit Avenue
Phone: 651-962-5488 St. Paul, MN 55105
"Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii