Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 14:41:12 -0400
From: "Bremer,Robert" <bremerr@OCLC.ORG>
Subject: Re: Manuscript serial?

Ian Fairclough wrote:

"AACR2R's definition of a serial reads in part:  'A publication in any
medium issued in successive parts bearing numeric or chronological
designations ...'

Does the word "publication" preclude cataloging a manuscript as a serial,
even when it bears a chronological designation?"

My response:

This question is one which I and some of my colleagues at OCLC have given a
lot of thought.  We believe that the word "publication" in the AACR2
definition of serial is intentional and does preclude cataloging a
manuscript as a serial.  Most definitions in the glossary of AACR2 use the
word "item" rather than "publication".  The English language definition of
publication is in part an item which has been published.  Manuscripts are
not published, while serials must be per the AACR2 glossary definition, so
that calling an item a manuscript serial is really a contradiction in
terms--at least as defined within AACR2.

The question of seriality of manuscript items is really part of the larger
issue of inadequate descriptive cataloging rules to cover ongoing works,
manuscript or published, paper or electronic, textual or graphic or sound.
 The AACR2 definition of serial is very restrictive, i.e., published,
successively issued, containing numeric/chronological designations, and
intended to continue indefinitely.  When you're missing anyone of these
attributes, you no longer have a serial, but clearly the description of
items that have some of these attributes would benefit from the application
of some serial cataloging rules.  AACR2 needs to be adjusted to clarify when
and how to apply various serial cataloging rules all types of ongoing
publications.  The paper that Jean Hirons and Crystal Graham will present at
the upcoming Toronto conference deals with many of these issues and will
hopefully begin the process of needed change.

Clarification is needed, not only for serial catalogers, but for the entire
cataloging community.  The almshouse ledgers described in the original
message would be just as likely viewed and cataloged as a manuscript
collection by our colleagues who work with manuscript materials.  So where
does one draw the line?  If I have a set of diaries by one person that bear
the same title, should those also be cataloged as a serial even though this
material also lacks the intended-to-continue attribute.  If the titles are
less than consistent within a set of ledgers, does one do successive-entry
records especially when the actual titles for manuscript items are often
unimportant for the catalog user who simply needs to know that the record
represents the ledgers of almshouse X for the period 1787-1887?

The end result of treating the same kind materials one way by one library
and another way by another library does lead to many problems in shared
databases, both for searchers and those involved with attempting to process
those records.  Our view is that there needs to be agreement on changing the
rules before proceeding to catalog anything as a serial that does not meet
the current definition.

Robert Bremer
Database Specialist, OCLC
bremerr@oclc.org