We have been on NOTIS since 1984 and have had circulation up since it was
available (i.e. I don't remember how long--as someone on one of the lists
said, time flies when you're going crazy).  We do not currently have all
our retrospective volumes barcoded and item-recorded, but we have started
on that now that the monographs are essentially done.

We bar-code anything which could circulate.  Since we do not normally
circulate unbound volumes, there would be no point in creating an item
record for periodicals, etc., until these are bound.  We continue to use
a bindery specification card to record bindery pattern, and this is set
up after cataloging is complete.  When periodicals, etc., are sent to the
bindery, the bindery preparation unit creates an item record and charges
the volume out to "Mr.Binder"; we use a piggyback barcode, which remains
on the bindery slip until the volume returns and is discharged--then the
top barcode is removed and placed in the volume.  Bindery preparation, a
work unit of the serials department, is responsible for correcting any
errors which can be traced to them.

Serials which are purchased already bound are called "adds" here and are
normally barcoded in serials cataloging by the person whose position was
previously responsible for adding the items to the shelf-list.  We have
a sort of catalog maintenance sub-unit in serials cataloging work unit,
which handles things like retention decisions, transfers, NST & CAS
notification, etc., and these individuals in serials department are
responsible for fixing any generic problems and usually end up linking
any unlinked item records created by circulation dept.

We are hopeful that the implementation of MFHL on NOTIS will eventually
allow us to enter the bindery pattern information there, but for now
we maintain it both in card form and in our separate bindery software
(CompuSystem II).

We have had a great deal of trouble with retrospective runs in terms of
entering the data into the item record any which way but no problem with
new titles.  We still have some differences as to how the retrospective
holdings should be item-recorded: I maintain we should either use the
information exactly as it is on the spine or relabel to match what we
intend to put into the item record, in order to avoid confusing
circulation; some others would like to avoid relabelling but still enter
the data in exactly the same way on each item record regardless of how
it appears on the spine.  I admit this is easier to read, but the
potential service problems are not pretty to think about.

We have a new problem looming as we will probably change the way we label
volumes to match the order of information used in MFHL.  How that will
be resolved is hard to tell.

Thomas Sanders, Serials, Auburn University,AL (tsanders@auducvax)