 |
 |
Bruce, if you keep thinking like this you're going to turn into a cataloger -- you might not want that. A series is a serial, so if you do a record for a series you code it as a serial. An archival collection isn't "serial" in that sense it's a finite unit. So the better analogy would be that an item in a series is like an article in journal. But in fact, they are all different things. The archival "collection" has special meaning to archivists; collections can be oddly arbitrary but have meaning in the context of the archive. I've had archivists try to explain it to me, but there's something esoteric about it that I cannot grasp. Note that archivists have their own cataloging rules and generally use a metadata format of their own, not MARC. kc On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 05:59, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > I've been trying figure out archival documents, and may have stumbled > on something: > > I've been thinking of archival docs as items that have a relatedItem > "host" that is a collection. > > I don't think this is right, however, and my hint at this came in > reading through the NISO Z39.29-200X spec, which has three levels: > > analytic > monographic > collective > > I really dislike this model in general (the analytic/monographic > thing), but I do like collective, which is rather more general and > structural than series. > > This brings me to my point: shouldn't relatedItem "series" really be > something like "collective"? > > In that case, a manuscript in a collection and a book in a series both > share the same relatedItem structure? It never did make much sense to > me that collection is coded in an attribute value on typeOfResource. > > Even if I'm wrong, I'd like some clarification so I can understand this > better. > > Bruce -- ------------------------------------- Karen Coyle Digital Library Specialist http://www.kcoyle.net Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913 --------------------------------------