Although this message was originally posted to AUTOCAT, I felt that
Serials catalogers who subscribe to SERIALST (but not AUTOCAT) might
be able to answer Robert's question. I apologize in advance for the
duplication.
-- Mitch

Robert,

   Approximately 30 years ago, I worked for CONSER.  At the time we
were trained in great detail on the MARC format for serials, and I
remember the instruction regarding the 362 field as your technical
monitor does.  It was, as I recall, if an entire volume was complete
within one calendar year and it began in January, then you need only
go to the volume level to describe the coverage date in the 362.

e.g. Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan/Mar 2001)-v. 4, no.4 (Oct/Dec 2004)  (quarterly)
     SHOULD BE:  Vol. 1 (2001)-v. 4 (2004).

or,  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan 2001)-v.4, no.12 (Dec. 2004)         (monthly)
     SHOULD BE:  Vol. 1 (2001)-v. 4 (2004)

However, this should only be done where the level below volume is
complete for the entire volume. (i.e. 12 issues for one year, not
crossing calendar years, for a monthly; 4 issues for a quarterly,
starting with the first quarter (Jan/March) of the year and ending
with the last quarter of the same year (Oct/Dec).

e.g. Vol. 1., no. 2 (April/June 2001)-  is the first issue issue
(title change), then you definitely must start/end down to the lowest
level where the numbering is not complete for the volume.
   and NOT:  Vol. 1 (2001)-

Also,                      Vol. 1, no. 1 (April/June 2001)
should NOT appear as:      Vol. 1 (2001)-

If a title ceased publication/changed title before the volume was
complete, the enumeration/chronology should display the volume/issue
level at the point it stopped,

e.g. Vol. 1 (2001)- v. 4, no. 3 (July/Sept 2004)            (quarterly)

It seemed to only work when the volume started in January and was
complete by December within one year.  Anything outside the "normal"
annual publication pattern did not work with this "volume-level
without numbers" model.

Ideally publishers should start new volumes and/or title changes at
the beginning of a new calendar year, but it is just as often done
differently.

Please note: this is from memory.  I can neither find this in my
current copy of the CONSER EDITING GUIDE (which has not been updated
in many years) nor in the CONSER Cataloging Manual (which I also
haven't updated in several years).  Nonetheless, I was taught as
described above and do not remember if this was in the CONSER EDITING
GUIDE; AACR2; or the Library of Congress rule interpretations.  I can
not find the original source where it may have been (CONSER EDITING
GUIDE 1st edition?). The rules may have changed since then.

If you search enough serial examples that were cataloged in the 1970s
and 80s, you will see examples of the above.  However, if the rules
changed, you should follow the current practice as in the CONSER
Cataloging Manual and AACR2.

Anyone out there who remembers this practice of volume-level
designation in the 362 besides me?

-- Mitch Turitz

  _^_                                                 _^_
(___)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ( ___ )
|   |                                               |   |
|   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
|   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
|   |     voice: (415) 338-7883                     |   |
|   |     CFA:   (415) 338-6232                     |   |
|   |                                               |   |
|   |                                               |   |
(___)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==- ( ___ )
   V                                                   V
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:37:29 -0500
From:    Robert K Koepke <KoepkeR@gao.gov>
Subject: Format of 362 for ceased serials

A question has come up about the proper format for the dates of
publication (362 field) for a serial which has ceased publication.

For the title in question, I entered the 362 as: Vol. 1, no. 1 (winter
1959)-v. 39, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1997).  However, our technical monitor
remembers being told that when all issues of a volume have been
published (this was a bimonthly title), that it should be formatted with
the volume information only (i.e., Vol. 1 (1959)-v. 39 (1997)).

I can't find anything mentioning this as a rule or practice in AACR2 or
in the AUTOCAT archives.

Can anyone shed some light onto this issue?

Robert K. Koepke
Library Support Services
Government Accountability Office
441 G St. NW
Rm. 7435
Washington, D.C. 20548
Phone: 202.512.9755
E-mail: KoepkeR@gao.gov

------------------------------

--