---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 13:26:20 -0800
From: Mitch Turitz <turitz@SFSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reprint cataloging (Kevin Randall)
Kevin:
My interpretation is that the rules assume that you only have the
version of the reproduction in hand so you must catalog from what you
have, not attempt to catalog from the original (which the rules assume
that you do NOT have in hand).
Unfortunately, the rules are really designed to work on different
versions of MONOGRAPHS and do not adequately address the issues
concerning serials and mixed holdings which most libraries would prefer
to combine into one record.
I hope I am interpretating your situation correctly. As I see it, you
only have the reprint, not the original, and you can only find OCLC copy
for the original serial, not the reprint. If this is the case, you can
use the record for the original on OCLC to create a "new" version which
will copy most of the fields into the new record. Your "Description based
on 2nd ser, no. 1" note should cite the EARLIEST issue that you have if it
is not the first. Then, instead of a 362 0, you would have a 362 1 "Began
with ..." note.
The CONSER EDITING GUDE and the CONSER CATALOGING CATALOGING MANUAL
should answer the rest of your questions.
I hope that helps.
-- Mitch
On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, Marcia Tuttle wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:46:33 -0600
> From: Kevin M. Randall <kmr@NWU.EDU>
> Subject: Reprint cataloging
>
> At Northwestern, we very rarely get reprint editions of serials that we
> catalog in a separate bibliographic record. Unfortunately, it happens to be
> one of those times, and I think it's the first time that I have not found an
> OCLC record for the reprint.
>
> The publication is WORKS ISSUED BY THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY, reprinted by Kraus
> Reprint. (Why hasn't anyone else already cataloged this as a serial???) We
> did not receive the entire run, just several vols. beginning with 2nd ser.,
> no. 1. And now I find myself wondering what the intentions of AACR2, the
> LCRIs, and CONSER are regarding the description.
>
> When we are instructed to describe from the first reprinted issue, is the
> idea to describe *the entire publication* or to describe *only what was
> reprinted*? My own common sense tells me that we should do the former, but
> I have this feeling that the rules want us to do the latter (just because
> the rules often like to go against common sense, I suppose). We don't have
> anything before 2nd ser., no. 1 in the reprint, and I don't know if Kraus
> reprinted all the way back to the beginning. But we *do* have the original,
> and I would like to just copy the data from that record. In an attempt to
> follow the rules and interpretations, so far I'm left with a record for the
> reprint that has no 362 and no "Description based on:" note. And that looks
> really stupid sitting right next to a fairly complete record for the original.
>
> Perhaps I'm just missing something in reading the rules and CONSER stuff.
> If anyone can help here, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Head, Serials Cataloging Section
> Northwestern University Library
> Evanston, IL 60208-2300
>
> internet: kmr@nwu.edu
> phone: (708) 491-2939
> fax: (708) 491-7637
>
_^_ _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
| | | |
| | Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian | |
| | San Francisco State University Library | |
| | Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu | |
| | | |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
V V
"Outsourcing is a desperate remedy for management failure,
not the criticism of catalogers." -- Michael Gorman,
"Crisis in Subject Cataloging and Retrieval"
June 25, 1995, ALA Conference, Chicago
