Actually, z39.71 replaced that.

http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/hdapndxd.html

Mykie

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Ginanni, Katy
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:23 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Readability of serials displays

Thanks, Kelly, for asking the question.  We have been grappling with this, too, as we migrate to a new system and have the opportunity for clean-up.

And thanks, Kelly, for sharing your approach.  I like it -- a lot!

For those interested in adhering strictly to the NISO standard set for holdings statements for serials, it is ANSI Z39.44.  I don't have this lodged in my head; it's sitting on my desk.  :)

Happy Friday, all!

Katy G.

Katy Ginanni
E-Access & Serials Librarian and liaison to Soc/Anth & WAGS
Elizabeth Huth Coates Library
Trinity University
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
1-210-999-7613 ph.
1-210-999-8182 fax
katy.ginanni@trinity.edu
"The time is always right to do what is right." -- MLK, Jr.
 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

-----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