Yes, current standards argue for identifying what issues you have, not what you lack.  (fyi, see:  ANSI/NISO- Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items, http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards?step=2&gid=None&project_key%3Austring%3Aiso-8859-1=62662591f07c456daf42070f32b4a1dec5761eb4)  Admittedly, this does make for some complicated holdings strings, but, hopefully, local systems can crunch them down to a summary statement to increase the user-friendliness factor.  I attended a session at ALA Midwinter in Denver, where one of the speakers questioned the necessity for full enumeration -- particularly for holdings for electronic serials.  The serial folks in the room had a VARIED response to the question!

Cecelia
__________________________

Cecelia N. Boone, Asst to the Director
MINITEX Library Information Network
(minitex.umn.edu)
University of Minnesota
15 Andersen Library
222 21st Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
Office:  612-624-6353
Wats:  800-462-5348
Fax:  612-624-4508

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Joyce, Kelly
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:07 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Readability of serials displays

Hi Kelly:  I've always done it this way (using 853/863 OR multiple 866s)
v.30:no.2 (1994:Jan.)
v.30:no.4-7 (1994:Mar.-June)
v.30:no.9-12 (1994:Sept.-Dec.)
v.31-32 (1995-1996)
v.33:no.4-12 (1997:Apr.-Dec.)
v.34-38 (1998-2002
v.39:no.8 (2003:Sept.-Dec.)
v.40 (2004)
etc.

By displaying vertically, I think it's easier to read, as well as keeping enumerations on left and chronologies on right.

Of course, you can separate out missing issues as well, but in the back of my mind, I think that I was taught to say what you have, not what you don't (of course, this was 20+ years ago, so could have changed by now).

I've always done it "formally", using full enum. & chron., but would be interested to see what others say on this.

 - (another) Kelly

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Smith2, Kelly
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:54 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] Readability of serials displays

O.K.  So I have a problem with the way bound serial holdings runs are often displayed.  Here is an example:

Library has: v.30:no.2 (1994:Jan.),v.30:no.4 (1994:Mar.)-v.30:no.7 (1994:June),v.30:no.9 (1994:Sept.)-v.33:no.2 (1997:Feb.),v.33:no.4 (1997:Apr.)-v.38 (2002),v.39:no.8 (2003:Sept.)-v.41:no.1 (2005:Jan.),v.41:no.3 (2005:Mar.)-v.44 (2007) [Bound volumes]

What normal patron is going to be able to read through all that to figure out what we have?  Even my eyes glaze over trying to figure it out.

I'm thinking about moving toward a simplified display by leaving out the months to help it scan better and separating out the missing issues in a separate line:

Library has: v. 30, no. 2 (1994)  v. 44 (2007) [Bound volumes]
Missing issues: 30:3(1994), 30:8(1994), 33:3(1997), 39:1-7(2003), 41:2(2005)

Any thoughts?  How does your library approach this issue?

~Kelly

Kelly A. Smith
Electronic Resources Collection Librarian
kelly.smith2@eku.edu