Print

Print


Yes, MARC definitions are specific terminology for our field. Rather than serial, the term we use is continuing resources and 008/21 has several categories, including periodicals. I think this specific definition may have been designed when there used to be indications in the bib records (510s) showing where the title was indexed. Anyway, I suppose we'll see how the definitions evolve over time.

Karen

21 - Type of continuing resource (006/04)
p - Periodical
Separate articles, stories, other writings, etc. that are published or distributed generally more frequently than annual.



Sent from my iPhone

On 2014-08-11, at 5:30 PM, "John Gordon Marr" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hi Steven:

Sorry? Don't be. I would be sorry, however if we could not work together to stabilize terminology.

Let's take "periodical" for example. The basic definition is "published at regular intervals", which could be understood to include "annuals." So, 1st problem: librarians have different definitions than dictionaries, but not out of necessity.

Then there is the word "serial", which AACR2 took to include monographic series. Fine as far as the particular AACR2 definition goes, but what we need is a simple term to distinguish between those types of "serials" always covered by "SARs" (will "series" do?) and those never covered by "SARs " ("serials" [including "annuals"] classed together, not analyzed, and published at regular intervals)."

Cheers!

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

        **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                            Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.




-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven C Shadle
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

Sorry but world of serials includes more than just periodicals and [monographic] series.  Revised works (eg, annual directories) as well as resources that aren't considered 'periodicals' (eg, annual statistical reports).  Dumping the word 'serial' is throwing out the baby with the bathwater imo.

Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian            [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Box 352900 - University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900                             Phone: (206) 685-3983

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, John Gordon Marr wrote:


Perhaps we’d be better off dumping the word “serial” altogether *in cataloging* and just distinguish between “periodicals” and [monographic] “series.”



PS: the term “monographic series” is redundant if you consider all series to be represented by monographic catalog records.



Cheers!



John G. Marr

DACS

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>



         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson



Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.







From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task
Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3



I'm not very familiar with this, but when talking about serials and monographic series, don't we mean the mode of issuance which pertains to the manifestation, and not "Form of work" (MARC 380)?

Matt



On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, John Gordon Marr <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

The word "serial" itself is the problem. "SAR" is fine as a term,
since it refers only to "series" and not "serials." "SARs" are not
made for pure "serials" (consistently classed-together not-analyzed) because their bibliographical records serve that purpose. Some "series" are received as would be "serials" (e.g. via standing orders), but they are not cataloged as "serials" (classed-together not analyzed). Some "serials" are partially (or wholly) analyzed, making them partly (or wholly) "series" (some (or all) parts classed together but individually cataloged as monographs.

So, what confuses the discussion is any broad definition of "serials" based upon how something is issued or ordered rather than how it is cataloged.

Cheers!

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.




-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task
Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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)




--