3 messages, 109 lines: ---------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 17:40:47 -0500 From: Rolfe Gjellstad <REG@herald.divinity.yale.edu> Subject: classifying serials Our library decided not to classify periodicals about 60 years ago. Since I have only been here about 17 years, I'm not sure why, but I suspect that the decision was based on 2 assumptions: 1. Not all materials deserve classification, especially low-use non-scholarly popular or primary source periodicals. 2. Many library users find it easier to retrieve periodicals directly by title rather than indirectly by first looking up a classification number. Unless you have some very strong reasons for classifying all your periodicals, I suggest that you would find it a lot less work to relabel the volumes that were bound under superseded titles. Large labels & clear label protectors should make rebinding unnecessary. Classification, on the other hand, would require a considerable amount of subject analysis and call number assignment, plus the labeling of every single volume. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 17:47:06 -0400 From: JUDITH HOPKINS AT SUNY BUFFALO <ULCJH@UBVMS.BITNET> Subject: Re: clarification on serials question X-To: AUTOCAT@UVMVM.BITNET <ed. note: cf. Mitch Turitz's 22 Sept. 1992 message to AUTOCAT, "classifying serials" for additional info. -bml> Mitch Turitz' reply to the original message reminded me of some points that I had not mentioned in my previous response. Our public services staff also objected to interfiling the classified periodicals with the combined classified monographs/serials collection, for many of the reasons that Mitch gave. We therefore continue to shelve our periodicals in a separate shelving sequence, only now arranged by call number rather than by title/main entry. To facilitate reshelving in the correct sections of the libraries we precede the call numbers on the spines of the periodicals with the letters PER to distinguish them from the volumes to be shelved in the main stack sequences in our various libraries. Judith Hopkins VOICE: (716) 645-2796 Technical Services Research and Analysis Officer Central Technical Services FAX: (716) 645-5955 Lockwood Library Building State University of New York at Buffalo BITNET: ulcjh@ubvm (OR, ubvms) Buffalo, NY 14260-2200 INTERNET: ulcjh@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue 22, Sept 1992 20:46:06 From: Birdie MacLennan <BMACLENN@UVMVM> Subject: classifying serials I seem to recall a NASIG workshop a couple of years back (Brock, 1990) that dealt with "Improving Physical Access to Periodicals Collections: Cataloging and Management Considerations." If I recall correctly, the workshop leaders polled the participants in regard to shelving arrangements for periodicals in their libraries and the results were evenly mixed between those who favored arrangement by class no. vs. arrangement by title or main entry ... a case could be made for either (cf. Proceedings for NASIG's 5th Annual Conference, pp. 199-201 for the workshop summary (Serials Librarian 19, nos.3/4). The workshop stands out because during the summer of 1990, a decision was made at the University of Vermont to classify the library's *current periodicals* only (bound vols. were left alone in their arrangement by main entry). Serials Cataloging classed approx. 3700 current titles over the course of the summer -- using numbers that already existed in the 050/090 fields of the MARC records (when available) or creating our own numbers as needed. We resurrected and re-vamped the paper shelflist (unused for a number of years since the 1987 conversion to automated shelflisting on NOTIS) to keep tabs on call number arrangements and a few local decisions during the process of shelf reassignments. Re-labelling all the current issues was no small task! Circulation crew was brought in for the actual physical part of reshelving (additional shelving was needed to allow room for the shifting). The long and short of it is that we now have two different arrangements for periodicals (other serials with annual or less frequencies are classed with monographs in the main stacks or in the reference col- lection): One for bound periodicals and one for current issues. This has caused some major concerns with display of holdings information in the current version of NOTIS in that it is difficult to display both locations in one copy holdings statement in a manner that is easily comprehensible to the public. Reactions to the shift were mixed -- the biggest complaint about the classed arrangement being that, now, patrons have to look in the OPAC to find the location, whereas before, they could just go to the shelves with their title -- also a consideration in citations to journal literature, which do NOT cite class numbers. We still scratch our heads over the benefits and drawbacks of our rather unique arrangement -- particularly since, some years back (before the classification project), the public's response to a local survey re. the benefits and drawbacks of arrangement by classification vs. title was pretty evenly split, 50-50, down the middle. My advice as a serials cataloger, however, is use ONE arrangement for your periodicals, if you can, and stick to it. It will spare your public services staff a few headaches! Birdie MacLennan Serials Cataloger University of Vermont bmaclenn@uvmvm.bitnet bmaclenn@uvmvm.uvm.edu
