I’m chair of the task force looking into PS 2.12. Sorry to respond late but I was on vacation and am catching up on email. (Adam, thanks for the quick response.) I just wanted to add that I’d be interested in hearing any thoughts you have on PS 2.12. The task force will be coming up with documentation for how to deal with situations, such as yours, where the current PS 2.12 is not helpful. If you have any thoughts on this, or any further examples of where alternative strategies to PS 2.12 would be more helpful for patrons and catalogers, please send them to me.
Thanks for bringing this to the list.
The Standing Committee on Standards has created a task force to look into the problems with the current LC-PCC PS 2.12. It recognizes that what’s there now just doesn’t work well in many cases. In many cases you just can’t record a series statement or even construct an RDA series access point. Instead while the task force does its work and until its recommendations get implemented, I suggest that you focus on the relationship that needs to be expressed. What you have is a resource that relates to v. 37 of Simiolus. I’d probably use this:
730 0_ $i Supplement to (work): $a Simiolus. $n V. 37.
Dear Cataloging Community,
I’ve run across a problem to which LC-PCC PS 2.12 (Supplements and Special Numbers to Serials section) applies.
We’ve got an unnumbered “Special Edition,” with analyzable title, that relates to v. 37 of the periodical Simiolus. On the piece, no verbiage connects “Simiolus” and “Special edition.” It looks like PS 2.12 would have us record this information as a series statement on the record for the monograph:
490:1 : Simiolus. Special edition
Unfortunately I don’t know where to record the fact that the special edition relates specifically to volume 37 (which came out in 3 numbers, so “volume 37” doesn’t actually specify a single issue).
My main question, however is this. The PS seems to suggest, though not say, that we would make an accompanying 830:
830: 0: Similous. $p Special edition
for which a NACO series authority would need to be made if we were coding a record PCC.
Is this in fact correct?
I kind of like the instructions in LCRI 21.30G better, as I gather some others do as well.
The PCC Standing Committee on Standards is aware that the section of LC-PCC PS for 2.12 dealing with supplements and special numbers contradicts other PCC instructions, including other sections of RDA. A task group to look into the supplements and special issues that come with serials is in the process of being formed.
I hope to serve on this task force, so if you have any further thoughts or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
There seems to be no settled RDA best practice for unnumbered supplements to serials. The section of LC-PCC PS for 2.12 dealing with supplements and special numbers to serials is contradicted by the instructions in Series Training for PCC Participants. Series Statements and Series Authority Records. Session 11: Analyzed Special Numbers and Supplements, dated Dec. 2015, available from the Catalogers Learning Workshop website. The instruction here continues the AACR2/LCRI view that unnumbered supplements to serials should not be considered to be series. The current CONSER practice as stated in the CONSER Cataloging Manual also appears to treat these unnumbered supplements not as series, since added entries on bibliographic records for them are not constructed as series access points. My review of recent WorldCat records shows that many catalogers are continuing the practice outlined in LCRI 21.30G, which still makes good sense to me for those unnumbered supplements, special numbers, etc. that are cataloged as monographs.
Discovery Services Division
[log in to unmask] | 202.633.1642
I don’t think LCRI 21.30G made it into RDA or a PS. LC-PCC PS for 2.12 covers transcription aspects, and it kind of implies there would be no special treatment for entries of supplements and special numbers.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
From: CONSER Cataloging Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Julian Everett Allgood
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions about serial supplements
Hi -- Steven's message about Supplements and Serials reminded me of a familiar AACR2 rule and Library of Congress Rule Interpretation (LCRI) that I am not positive made it into RDA. (??)
(Or perhaps I just haven't found it yet -- guidance gratefully accepted (smile!)
AACR2 Instruction 21.30G and the related LCRI section addressing "Unnumbered Supplement or Special Number to a Serial" is one that we apply often here at New York University (NYU). Because of our processing lines, when a supplement to a specific issue or volume is Received/Checked-In in the Serials Unit , the Monographs Unit often does the descriptive cataloging for the Supplement or Analytic volume.
The Serials Unit has a specific set of instructions reminding Monographs catalogers to provide an additional access point/tracing to the Serial in the form:
730 0 Algerie litterature/action. $n No 149/152 (Supplement)
.... rather than the more familiar Series added entry:
830 0 Algerie litterature/action ; $v no 149/152
So yes, as Steven, Regina, Kevin and others have pointed out, supplements to Serials get complicated quickly. They come in many shapes and sizes, and individual libraries often develop their own distinctive decision-making and workflows to process them.
I agree with Steven that it would be helpful for many catalogers if CONSER were to develop explicit processing guidance and instructions for as many of these serial supplement situations as possible.
Oh, and if anyone can point me to where AACR2 21.30G and the LCRI lives in RDA (or if it has made the RDA transition yet), I would be most appreciative. (As would all of those Monographs Copy Catalogers here at NYU I keep pointing to an old AACR2 instruction (smile!)).