Anne Munkebyaune asked:

>Will also a separate record for the whole be needed? This means 
>that for 20 volumes you need at least 21 records.
Our customers demand a simpler approach than some take.  They want no
more that one record per item.  If recording the parts of one physical
item they wish a 505 with 740's (if the 700 would be the same as the
100), 700$a$t if not.  (Rules would call for 700$a$t in both cases.)  

Few have OPAC's which can make use of the formatted contents note
(505$tTitle$rStatement of responsibility), and the problem of title
initial articles remains even if they could map 505$t to the title
index, as well as the author in 505$r being in direct order.

If there is more than one physical item (as in your case), they want
one record if the volumes do not have distinctive titles.  If the
volumes have distinctive titles, they want a record for each volume
with the set title in 440, and no record for the set.  In other words,
they don't like a record with no corresponding item.  This of course
does not prevent *classing* the volumes to stand together.  (The
presence of a set index volume always has us class to stand together.)  
If each volume has its own index, we are more likely to class each
volume as a monograph.
In terms of that 440, if the set would have a 100 main entry, rules
call for a 490 1/800$a$t, but that is very unpopular with our
customers.  They think of series as being a title.

In your case, we would make one record with a 505/7XX, or 20 records
with 4XX/8XX, never 21.

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