 |
 |
I wonder if perhaps the problem is that we have just gotten lazy and referred to any authority record for a multivolume or serial work as a "series authority record" or "SAR". When in actuality it's just an authority record representing a work and/or an expression and/or a manifestation of a bibliographic resource regardless of what type of bibliographic resource it actually is. How about "bibliographic authority record"? (Although that would probably end up causing some people problems as well, I suppose...) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [log in to unmask] (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -----Original Message----- > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:08 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: > LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3 > > I must disagree with a couple of things Robert says below. Examples > seem called for, so I'll include some. > > "The Interim Report does not in any way recommend broadening the > definition of series." > > While the Report does not recommend changing the language of the > definition, it does recommend identifying all resources represented by > SARs as series though many do not conform to the definition. (p. 53: LC- > PCC PS 6.3.1.3. PCC Practice: Record form of work in all work-level series > authority records using the 380 field.) For example: > > Aperture (San Francisco, Calif.) no 99084305 > Some of the issues of this quarterly journal are analyzable, but others lack > a title of their own. (See http://aperture.org/shop/magazine/) Aperture > isn't a series because many of its parts carry only the collective title and > cannot stand as separate resources. When SARs are made for analyzed > periodicals, this is usually the case, so there are many such examples. > > "... we do not make series authority records for multipart monographs that > are not series." > > But we do. For example: > > Corpus antiquitatum Americanensium. $p Argentina no 98039741 > Not all of the parts of this work are analyzable (have their own title); see > 644. > > Hemingway, Ernest, $d 1899-1961. $t Correspondence. $f 2011 > no2012076561 > > The first two volumes of this work are called: 1907-1922, and: 1923-1925. > It's not clear that these are titles, or that the volumes are separate > resources. > > Further, multipart monographs may be cataloged in a variety of different > ways, according to local preference. Especially if all of the parts were > issued at the same time, they may be viewed as a single resource, and > some may choose to record the titles of the parts in a contents note rather > than to analyze them: > > Background paper (Willamette Basin Land Use Study) no2014024003 > Bib. Rec.: oclc # 10194543 > > In the above case, whether one treats this as a series or not may depend > not only upon local preference, but also upon which of the parts one has > seen. > > Sargon, $b II, $c King of Assyria, $d -705 B.C. $t Correspondence. $l > English & Akkadian n 92001689 > (not RDA yet) > Bib. Rec.: oclc # 417166575 > > This is yet another alternative to series treatment: collective title in 245 $a, > individual title in 245 $p. > > The Interim Report, in section IV.6, p. 41-42, recognizes the legitimacy of > different approaches to multipart monographs, and demonstrates how > they render the use of the qualifier (Series) problematic. The use of 380 > Series (Publications) is equally problematic for the same reasons. > > In short, if we add 380 Series (Publications) to all SARs (except those for > series-like phrases), we will be including some works that are not series, > though they can get series treatment in MARC-which is a different thing. > > Mary Jane Cuneo > Series cataloging and NACO > Harvard Library > (opinions expressed are my own and do not represent HL)