Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:51:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Riemer <JRIEMER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Manuscript serials and format integration (Frieda Rosenberg)

Frieda,
I believe that if there is such a thing as a personal-author main entry
serial (RI21.1A2), which is merely *intended* to continue indefinitely,
then any person or body can be responsible for a manuscript serial.

Using _Format Integration and Its Effect on the USMARC Bibliographic
Format_ (LC: 1995), p. 5, I think your New Zealand document is basically
textual.  Leader/06 = t  (for mss. language material)
          Leader/07 = s  (for serial)
          Leader/08 = blank  (not under archival control)
Nothing prevents the serial and manuscript concepts from coming together
here, and no 006 field appears necessary.

You would catalog the microform in the same fashion as the original
(above), only with 008/23 = b  (microfiche).  (I used CONSER Editing
Guide, app. M.)

  John J. Riemer
  Head of Serials Cataloging
  University of Georgia Libraries
  Athens, GA  30602
  (706)542-0591  (706)542-4144fax
  jriemer@uga.cc.uga.edu

>Serialist colleagues,
>
>In cataloging a number of microfiche sets of colonial "blue
>books"--accounts, statistics, lists of officials, some annual, some
>irregular--from the nineteenth century, I have run across one title
>(New Zealand's "Blue Book, financial") with the date 1840, with text
>completely in longhand.  I am curious about how to treat this title
>under the rules of format integration.  The longhand (which is lovely)
>even has the notation "Triplicate" in the upper left corner, so we know
>how many copies there were, if not how they were made.
>
>It seems illogical to me that because this one title is not typeset, I
>may not treat it as a serial, but instead must (?) treat it as a book
>with the type code "t" for manuscript and add a serial 006, while all the
>others, which may have had just as limited a distribution, are serials.
>I'm absolutely certain that this is not the first serial MS that we
>have cataloged.
>
>On the other hand, it's really all one format, right?  To cloud the
>issue further, one could say that since I have only one volume of this
>particular title, I can't make an absolute judgment that the other
>volumes were in longhand, or even that there WERE other volumes.  Am I
>missing something here, or did MARBI make an assumption that the
>concepts of "serial" and "manuscript" would never occur together?  Any
>thoughts?
>
>Regards,
>Frieda Rosenberg
>Serials Cataloger, Davis Library
>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>friedat@email.unc.edu