---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:21:21 -0400
From: Biserka Mrzljak <bmrzljak@LIB.UWO.CA>
Subject: Re: Relations of mergers and splits in annotations in Web-opacs

At University of Western Ontario, we have resolved this relations, by
always providing:

580 note indicating a relationship, and
780 1st indicator always 0
    2nd indicator, values 1,3,4,6,7 - are provided with a note RELATED,
and are always hypertext-linked
785 1st indicator always 0
785 2nd indicator, values 1,3,5,6,7, - are provided with a note RELATED,
and are always hypertext-linked.

This decision was deliberately done to avoid confusion with simple notes
CONTINUES, and CONTINUED BY in cases of mergers and splits, and the
system did not allow for longer more specific Note Displays.

I think, I am not wrong to ascertain, that libraries have to adjust the
US-MARC/CONSER specifications depending on a system they use, and that
it is not prohibitive to make the appropriate adjustments to Display
Constants in your library system unless you are Conser member.

It would be interesting to hear some other views on this issue.

Biserka Mrzljak                                E-Mail:
bmrzljak@lib.uwo.ca
Cataloguing Liaison Librarian for Serials      Phone: 519-661-2111 ext.
84829
UWO Library System                             Fax : 519-661-3503
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario Canada
N6A 3K7

> ---------- 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