---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:45:23 +0200
From: Jan Lahmeyer <J.Lahmeyer@library.uu.nl>
Subject: Relations of mergers and splits in annotations in Web-opacs

Dear serialists,

For our web-opac we want to make relations between serial titles
(such as: "Continues: ..." or: "Continued by".)

That's quite easy in case of "simple" title changes, if you take
AACR2 and USMARC books with the codes in fields 780 and 785.

Since we are using a new system since November last year, these
relationships can be made and it's very useful for clients and
librarians. Because when records are linked there's no need to
make another search action again, just click on the "link-button" ...
and you are in the next - or former - title!

However, in our system some problems occur when title changes
are the product of mergers or splits. The relations to more than one
title can not be made in the same linking-field, because unique
record numbers are not repeatable in one such field. So we have to
make more linking-fields when more titles are involved.

But then the text in the linking notes preceding those titles of
mergers or splits gives us some (deep) thoughts.
Can we use the texts "Continues in part:" // "Continued in part by:"
and maybe for instance "Absorbed in part" // "Absorbed in part by"?

Could there be no (or little) confusion in the client's mind when
he/she is reading the fomulation of these texts and maybe then
wonder where the diffrence lies between simple continuations and
mergers or splits? Or are we thinking much too far?

Is there really a need to make more slight differences in the
formulations when:

Title A is merged with Title B and continued as Title C.
Linking notes: A "continued in part by:" B + C /and/
B (and C) "Continues in part:" A

Title D is split into Title E and Title F.
Linking notes: D "Continued in part by:" E + F /and/
E (and F) "Continues in part:" D

Title G is separated from Title H (which last one still appears).
Linking notes: G "Separated from:??" H /and/
H: "Continued in part by": ?? G??

Thanks in advance for your comments and ideas,
Jan Lahmeyer