Print

Print


It seems that "monographic" and "monograph" are somewhat different.
Journal articles are considered "monographic components" in the MARC
record (see definition of Leader /07). So it's saying that the article
is a single item within a larger item. Journal articles and chapters get
the same coding in MARC, BTW. But I've never felt that MARC was fully
developed for "parts of larger things" since libraries spend very little
time cataloging at that level.

kc

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 11:55, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> I just want to double-check something with the library people.  This
> definition of monograph (from TEI), is incorrect; right?
>
> > In common library practice a clear distinction is made between an
> > individual item within a larger collection and a free-standing book,
> > journal, or collection. Similarly a book in a series is distinguished
> > sharply from the series within which it appears. An article forming
> > part
> > of a collection which itself appears in a series thus has a
> > bibliographic description with three quite distinct levels of
> > information:
> >
> >    1. the analytic level, giving the title, author, etc., of the
> >    article;
> >
> >    2. the monographic level, giving the title, editor, etc., of the
> >    collection;
> >
> >    3. the series level, giving the title of the series, possibly the
> >    names of its editors, etc., and the number of the volume within that
> >    series.
> >
> > In the same way, an article in a journal requires at least two levels
> > of
> > information: the analytic level describing the article itself, and the
> > monographic level describing the journal.
>
> My understanding is that a monograph is also defined by its issuance as
> much as its standalone quality, and that one also needs a notion of
> serial (the two are collapsed here it seems to me).
>
> Bruce
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------