I strongly support the WESP approach, which seems to parallel the
recommendations in the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of
Reproductions (ALCTS, 1995).

As for the "incidental" volumes, I believe you are speaking of
analytics.  In the U.S., the common practice is to make a serial record
as well as analytics when the volumes are classified together but to
forego the serial record when the analytics are not
classified together.  (This is the Library of Congress practice, but it
is a local decision and there are many institutions which have different
practices, notably NSDP and Duke).

In both cases a series authority record would be
created.  I don't think the fact that the volumes are reprints should
influence the decision to make a serial record; rather an institution
should follow its normal practice for analytics.

Crystal Graham
Serials Librarian
University of California, San Diego
cgraham@ucsd.edu

On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Anneke Houtkamp wrote:

> In reply to Kevin Randall:
>
> As a member of the Dutch Working Group on Serial Publication (WESP) I can
> tell you that WESP has recently constructed a proposal for the national
> cataloguing committee on the matter of fotomechanical reprod. of serial
> publications, in order to clarify, rectify, expand the rules to cover present
> situation and needs.
>
> As a member of the Hakluyt Society, I can tell you that only those vols. from
> the second series that are no longer in print or in stock with the Society
> are reprinted by Kraus Reprint.
>
> For the serial description:
> If a library has a serial record for this title, and reprints are acquired to
> fill in the gaps of the holding, WESP's proposal is: use the record of the
> original, and add in the holding annotation which volume/s is/are in
> fotomech. reprod.
> If a library has no serial record for this title, and has more than one
> volume (all of them in reprod.), and wants a serial record, then again the
> serial record for the original is made, with holding annotation accordingly.
> In a shared catalogue, each individual library would add its own holding
> blocks, there would be just the one serial record.
>
> Question: If only incidental volumes are acquired,  would you (have to)
> bother with a serial record, or would you only make monograph descriptions?
>
> For the description of the monograph one would have to start with the actual
> publication, in this case the fotomech. reprod., and describe it as such
> (with ed. field, impression, date of the reprint, and annotation: fotomech.
> reprod. of....)
>
> The series field would be related to the main title of the serial record
> (whether through index, or codes depends on the technical possibilities of
> the system I suppose)
>
> Hope this is of any help to you.
> Greetings,
>
> Anneke Houtkamp
>
> ***************************
>   JHM.Houtkamp@ubvu.vu.nl
>      tel. 020-4445152
> ***************************
>