This is in reply to Kevin Randall's query about using compressed Level 4
statements. I agree with Susan Davis' answers to his questions about which
options they would use. However, I always like to know where in the
documentation these options are supported for future reference. Since I no
longer have the original message to simply reply, I'll outline each question
and give the location of supporting info. in the ANSI Z39.44-1986.

The first question was how to describe a volume that comprises only part of a
year, like Newsweek which is published in 2 vols. a year. The options were:

        v.107 (1986:Jan.-June) or v.107 (1986:Jan./June)

Susan replied that they would simply use v.107 (1986). This is addressed in
the standard in 8.3.2, which states:

        If within a level there are no gaps, enumeration/chronology data can be
        further compressed to eliminate an unnecessary, subordinate level of
        detail. For example: v.1:no.1 (1976:Jan.)-v.1:no.12 (1976:Dec.) would
        become: v.1 (1976).

On the second question, regarding a volume comprised of >1 issue which covers
a noncalendar year, would you use: v.1 (1993:July-1994:June), or v.1
(1993:July/1994:June), or v.1 (1993/1994). Susan said to use the 3rd option,
but felt that the 2nd might be correct too, mentioning that this question
might be open to interpretation at the local level. (Susan, I hope I'm not
misrepresenting your statements).  This is addressed in the standard in
4.6.2.2, example (3):

        A diagonal (/) shall be used as a separator if the chronology data for
        a single bibliographic unit spans a noncalendar year or more than one
        year. For example:  1969/1970- [for a noncalendar date or biennial], and
        1980/1982, [for a triennial publication].

As to the 3rd question regarding microform holdings, I can't find anything in
the standard either relating to this question, but again concur with Susan in
using v.1:no.1 (1993:Jan.)-v.1:no.6 (1993:June), so that there is parallel
construction on either side of the hyphen.

Hope this is of help to you, Kevin (and other interested subscribers). I find
myself going back to the standard often, especially since we use different
levels of holdings statements for our OPAC and for union listing. For our
library has statements in the OPAC, we use level 4 detailed holdings, except
that our lib has statements in checkin records are left open-ended. For LDR's
reported to OCLC we use level 3 (summary) holdings. Again, Susan, I apologize
if I misrepresented any of your statements.

Kathy Peterson
Library Assistant
Serials Dept.
Burling Library
Grinnell College
Grinnell, Iowa
peterson@ac.grin.edu