Print

Print


The authorized access point, Aperture (San Francisco, Calif.) refers to the work as a whole--all of the issues published to date.  
The definition of series says that each part bears [two titles], and that the work is a group of separate resources.  It's incorrect to say of Aperture that "each issue bears two titles"; and those issues lacking their own titles do not present as separate resources.  

To say that "The fact that not all parts of an aggregate work are analyzable does not mean that the aggregate work is not a series" is to ignore the words "each"  and "separate" in the definition of series.

What is a series relationship?  It could be expressed as "x is in series y."  To be a series, the whole of y must be so; y cannot be a series for winter 2007, then not for spring 2008, then it's a series again the next quarter.  That's a recipe for confusing patrons, and librarians also.  When some parts of the work bear both the collective and an individual title while others do not, it's more accurate, straightforward and useful to express the relationship as "x is a part of y."  Maybe, when we get to linked data, we won't say "x is in series y"; maybe we'll say "x is a part of y," and also, when it applies, "y is a series.")

Robert, you seem to be saying that whenever a resource is represented by an SAR, ipso facto it is a series.  Is that your view?  (If so, how do you reconcile it with the above-mentioned words in the definition of series?) 
I think that series as a form of work and series treatment in MARC are not equivalent--maybe this is the essence of our debate.

mjc
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Mary Jane,

Aperture does conform to the definition. The resource cited in the 670 on the SAR for Aperture, _Moments of grace_ (1998) is a resource that bears its own title proper (Moments of grace) as well as a collective title (Aperture) applying to the group as a whole. This falls squarely within the definition of series. Relative to the resource _Moments of grace_, _Aperture_ is in fact a series according to the RDA definition. I would say the same thing about the other examples you cite. The report contemplates no expansion of the definition of series. The fact that not all parts of an aggregate work are analyzable does not mean that the aggregate work is not a series, nor does it mean that there is not a series relationship to those parts that are.

Note: I agree that Aperture is a serial. That doesn't stop it from also being a series. Works can have more than one type.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 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)

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 8:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

The Interim Report does not in any way recommend broadening the definition of series. That definition reads: "A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole." This definition encompasses both monographic series and the type of multipart monographs we typically make series authority records for. There is no reason either to expand or contract this definition.

It is true that not all multipart monographs are series (e.g. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which does not fit the definition because although it has a collective title applying to the group as a whole, the individual volumes do not bear their own titles proper) but we do not make series authority records for multipart monographs that are not series. That's why they're called *series* authority records.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Cuneo, Mary Jane <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 1:59:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Yes, I would much rather rely on 008/12 than on 380, that is if it were coded correctly.  (So many SARs have code "a" in this byte when they should have "b" or "z.")

I don't think that the definition of series in RDA applies to all multipart monographs--just some.  For example, it applies to the Chronicles of Narnia because that collective work consists of separate resources, and each has its own title proper.  At the other end of the spectrum would be a multipart work containing one part called "Appendices."  That's not a separate resource, and one could argue too that Appendices doesn't rate as a title proper.  One would need to look  at each multipart, to see if the series definition applies or not.

The Interim Report recommends broadening the definition of series so that everything that has an SAR is automatically considered to have the form of work series.  (We'd have to ignore the parts of the definition that say "separate resources" and "each resource bears ... its own title".)

I am suggesting that we narrow the definition of series so that it covers only monographic series (008/12 = a, assuming good coding); monographic series fit the definition well and consistently.  That will leave out the eligible multiparts like Chronicles of Narnia, but I have yet to see a good explanation of why form of work = series is desirable as an attribute for them; there are better alternatives.

The middle road--to say all monographic series are series, all analyzed periodicals/annuals are not, and we'll decide about multipart monographs on a case-by-case basis--isn't practical.

So it looks like we must either broaden or narrow the definition.  I think narrowing it gives more useful results.

MJ Cuneo
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

I haven't had a chance to study this report yet, but I would like to observe that the subject heading Series (Publications) has nothing to do with the kind of resources for which we create series authority records.  (It is closer to the kind of thing for which some public librarians wish we made series entries, but we usually don't.)  Also, the definition of series in the RDA glossary is very broad: "A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole. The individual resources may or may not be numbered."  This is broader than monographic series and includes multipart monographs.

That's aside from the fact that LCSH is not a vocabulary of types of publications, but 008/12 does have a useful vocabulary.  That makes 380 unnecessary for series.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 [log in to unmask]
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jenifer K Marquardt [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 14:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Good afternoon, Mary Jane,

I agree that classing is a local decision.    I guess that I was just wondering about a clear definition of what would not get Series (Publications)  Or, rather, if we could list defined categories for which we might create a SAR that is not for a work which is a series.

The recommendation suggests

Series (Publications) |a Monographic series |2 lcsh

or the combo of two sep. 380s

Series (Publications) |2 lcsh
Multipart monograph

What you would like to suggest is that the first suggestion stand as is, but that the second be changed to remove the 380 which has Series (Publications), right?

Instead, when we create a series

- with a personal name + title AAP
- for a periodical/annual/biennial (always with or sometimes with analyzable titles)
-  or for a monograph with a defined end/defined number of volumes (Encyclopedia, etc.)

then we would only add the 380  Multipart monograph  -  That makes sense for the first and third categories, at least.  Would we need another 380 for the Periodical/annual/biennial category?

Are there other categories?

I asked my question about numbering because I don't work with periodicals very often.  And periodical has had a fluid meaning where I work.  I would want to be clear about what serials are considered to be periodicals (and therefore not Series) and what serials are considered series.

I think that the SAR AAP created for Newsweek (in your example) would still HAVE TO MATCH the pcc serial record.  That is what would tell you that you have the same resource.  But, I agree, the 380 Series (Publications) could be confusing.

Jenifer

Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Cuneo, Mary Jane [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 4:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Hi Jenifer,

The resources that I think don't qualify for Form of work = Series include (1) periodicals/annuals/biennials with some analyzable titles--these would be numbered (or they would have chronological designations); and (2) multipart monographs with some or all analyzable parts--which could be numbered or not.  A made-up example of the latter might be:

The songbirds of North America (in 3 vols.):
A-M
N-Z
Sightings and migration patterns of songbirds in North America, 1970-2010

The 3 volumes aren't numbered; a library might want to analyze the third volume, and make an SAR.  I wouldn't say its form of work is series--it's better described as a multipart monograph, a monograph, a set of books, or a book in 3 parts.

Similarly, I think Newsweek isn't a series, though some of its issues might be eligible for MARC series treatment.  It's better described as a periodical or magazine.

As to classing, that seems like a local decision which wouldn't affect what the form of a work is.(?)

Does this clarify things, as you hoped?

It sounds like you have something in mind--let me know what you're thinking!

mjc

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jenifer K Marquardt <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Good morning!

I'd just like to make sure I understand fully, Mary Jane, though I know we have talked about this before. :-)

When you say:

"Can a resource be a series for one institution, and not for another?"  and mention Newsweek magazine

I assume, by implication, that you are talking about ANY NUMBERED work that  might be treated as a classed together serial or moonset or which might be classed separately.

Is that correct?

Thanks for clarifying this for me,

Jenifer



Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Cuneo, Mary Jane [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Hello List colleagues,

I've written about the following issue before, and don't wish to flog it; but because the PCC Series Policy Task Force is recommending (and SCS seems inclined to approve) something I think will be problematic, I bring it to you again during the comment period for the proposals on series policy.

On p. 53 of the Interim report, the Task Force recommends:

LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3. PCC practice: Record form of work in all work-level series authority records using the 380 field.  At a minimum in all series authority records, include

380  $a Series (Publications) $2 lcsh

[the recommendation continues, but that is the gist of it.]  On pages 6-7 there is discussion of this.  An SCS comment says "Agree with the conclusion that multipart monographs and monographic series can both be considered series."

Aside from the question of whether we should be required to hand-code information that could easily be supplied via automation (I believe routines will be written when the need grows more pressing; that work has already begun)-here are my concerns:

First:  380, Form of work, applies to Monographic series, but not to Multipart monographs and Other analyzable serials.  For them, the underlined parts of the definition for Series do not reliably apply:

     Series: A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole.

Often a multipart monograph or a periodical will have some analyzable parts alongside others that do not bear the dual titles that identify a form of work as Series.  The non-analyzable parts do not present themselves as separate resources.

Second, while analysis of monographic series is essentially universal, analysis of multiparts and periodicals is a local decision.  Can a resource be a series for one institution, and not for another?  What do we mean by Form of the work-is it something intrinsic to the work, or can it apply/not apply according to local practices?  I'd say the former.  As one of my colleagues remarked today, before we require that Form of the work be assigned to an entire category of authority records, we should first clarify what we understand it to be.

Third, there is a fundamental difference between monographic series and the other kinds of resources that get MARC series treatment (490/8XX and an SAR).  With monographic series, the focus of bibliographic description is the individual part, while providing access to the comprehensive work (the series) is optional.  The opposite is true for multipart monographs and analyzable periodicals.  For them, the focus of bibliographic description is the comprehensive work, while providing access to the part(s) is optional.  We have become accustomed to calling them "series" because the 490/8XX + SAR treatment has been a practical method under MARC for managing the part/whole relationships at play.  This doesn't mean their form of work is series.

Fourth, attributes like 380 are used to identify a work by distinguishing it from other works with the same or similar titles.  If applied to a multipart monograph or an analyzed periodical, it will introduce confusion by suggesting that this work differs from another one might recognize, when in reality it is the same as that other work.  For example, suppose an issue of Newsweek has a special title that I wished to analyze, so I make an SAR.  If it must have 380 Series (Publications) $2 lcsh, many will take that as a signal that my SAR is for another publication called Newsweek, not the familiar magazine.

Fifth, as we move into a more diverse bibliographic environment, the usual library-level of granularity in metadata creation is breaking down.  Now our descriptions of books co-exist with tables of contents, records for journal articles, photographs, online resources that contain within themselves other online resources, and so on.  If we code everything we analyze as being a Series, then the term quickly becomes useless.  It will be much more helpful, in the new environment, to talk about part/whole relationships.

Thanks much to those who responded when I raised these issues a while back.  For everyone else who wants to weigh in, now is the time, either here on the lists or in communication directly with SCS, as policy is a-making.

Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
Harvard Library