6 messages:
1)____
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:18:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Borries <MSBBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Issue Specific Holdings Question (Allen Williams)
I believe the 515 field in the MARC record is intended to deal with this
problem, among others. If this happens too many times, of course, the
note gets rather lengthy and almost unreadable; in those cases I have used
a general note, e.g., "Many issues not published." Also, if it happens
very often, a note in the 310 field can be used, e.g. "Monthly (irregular)"
with more detailed information in the 515.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
555 West 57th Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
msbbh@cunyvm.cuny.edu
(212) 541-0376
2)_____
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:54:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Bud Sonka <bsonka@nunic.nu.edu>
Subject: Re: Issue Specific Holdings Question (Allen Williams)
Allen,
I have serials collections in nine libraries scattered around California,
and we depend heavily on ILL for resource sharing amoung them, so specific
holdings statements are essential to us. Based on our experience, I
would agree that your use of the semicolon is misleading because it is
unnecessary. If it is known that seven issues complete a volume of a
title that is normally 12 issues per volume, it is still a complete
volume.
There are two reasons for indicating broken volumes: the first
is so that library users will know you don't have missing issues; the
second is so that you know to account for the missing issues when (or if)
you bind the volume. But your case should be considered by taking the
scenario back a couple of steps. If an issue never existed, it will never
be cited in a footnote or bibliography or citational database. If it is
never cited, it will not be sought by researchers. So why go out of your
way to point out nonexistent issues in your holdings statement? To avoid
the potential for confusion of the sort you are experiencing, in our
system we add explanatory notes for our technical staff as well as an OPAC
note saying simply "v. x n. x - z never published".
Bud Sonka
Head, NULS Serials Unit
National University Library System
3)_____
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:19:15 -0500
From: Karen Nadeski <knadeski@MEDUSA.SBS.UMASS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Issue Specific Holdings Question (Allen Williams)
I do not have a problem with using the semicolon to show breaks in
your holdings, but I would not use it to reflect publishing
irregularities. I would place this information in a 515 field as you
have suggested and leave the holdings statement open, i.e., v. 45:
no. 1 (1995: Jan.)-
Karen Nadeski
4)_____
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:45:45 +0000
From: Kathy Bowersox <bowersox@SUBR.CMQ.COM>
Subject: Re: Issue Specific Holdings Question (Allen Williams)
Allen,
I recently completed a serials conversion project at a different
university which used the item-specific level 4 holdings statements.
This is the type of reasoning/solution I came up with for these
punctuation problems:
The semicolon with no spaces indicates a significant change (e.g.,
new series) as opposed to a gap in holdings. The use of semicolon
can be confusing, even when properly used to signal a change, so I
don't use it unless absolutely necessary. Say your journal
(which you hold complete save for the last issue of v.44) used only
month and year from 1951-1990, decided to add voluming (calling it
v.41) in Jan. 1991. This is not considered significant change; do
not give any special treatment. The condensed MHLD would read:
1951-v.44:no.11(1994:Nov.), v.45(1995)-
Gaps in holdings are indicated with the comma-space. If the
publisher can't decide how many issues will make up a volume but
continues to send you complete volumes, the most precise statement of
your holdings would simply show the truth . You "have it all."
v.45:no.1(1995:Jan.)-
Yes, some kind of mention must be made of those
"not-really-missing" issues. The bib record has a wonderful note
field (515 Numbering Peculiarities) which is used for actual
numbering oddities. I'm leaning toward a 500 note (Vol. 46 complete
in 7 issues) for this issuance hiccup. Think of the bib record as
holding the interesting (embarrassing?) information so that the more
public holdings statement need not make mention of the publisher's
"difficulties" .
Could we call this "discreet accuracy"?
Kathy "Sox" -- the serials cataloger from hell --
Kathy Bowersox bowersox@subr.cmq.com
Cataloging Librarian Office: (504) 771-2863
John B. Cade Library Fax: (504) 771-41-13
Southern University
Baton Rouge, LA 70813
5)_____
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:30:07 -0500
From: Jerri Handy <jhandy@CTS.EDU>
Subject: Issue level holdings.
As I see it there are two parts to Allen Williams question.
1. What are the needs of the patrons.
In this instance listing the holdings as complete is all they need to
know. When they look at the holdings record to see if there is a
particular issue they will be looking for something that is referenced
somewhere. There will not be a reference for issues that were not published.
2. What are the needs of the Serials Librarian.
We look at things differently. When we look at our holdings on the shelf
we see things like having a different number of issues in a volume and
notice the difference. We want to know are we missing something? Did the
publisher change something? Is this a permanent change or an unexplained
temporary change? For Us, there is a need to know the particulars for
changes in publication cycles. It affects our check in program, claiming,
and causes us to wonder how to note our discovery so that those behind us
do not have to figure out what happened with this particular publication.
The short answer....Do both. List the discovery in a 5xx field and show the
holdings as complete for the patrons. It takes both to accurately reflect
the particulars of this publication.
6)_____
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:56:11 -0500
From: kpetsche@CHAMPION.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: Issue Specific Holdings Question (Allen Williams)
Allen,
I wouldn't change my holdings to reflect a gap, since there is no
gap. Adding a 515 note such as: "Vol. 45 (1996) contains only 7 issues."
(as best as I can do off the top of my head). I also thought of adding a
321 note to show a change of frequency (e.g. 7 no. a year, |b 1996) but if
the publisher just had a "problem", then I think a 515 note would be more
appropriate. Hope this helps. Kevin
Kevin Petsche
Copy Cataloger
IUPUI
Indianapolis, IN
