Robert -- I'm thinking the practice you are mentioning for 362 0^ is pre-AACR2 transcription of numbering. I don't see a specific statement in AACR (1967) which instructs cataloger to collapse numbering and dates as possible but all of the examples follow the practice that is shown below. There is a statement that "the [numbering] statement consists of the designation of the first and last volumes or parts, followed by the dates of the first and last volumes or parts." Current practice is to transcribe the entire designation as specified in the CCM. --Steve Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian ***** shadle@u.washington.edu University of Washington Libraries *** Phone: (206) 685-3983 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * Fax: (206) 543-0854 On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Mitch Turitz wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > -- >
