I am going way back to my days as a serial cataloger.  At the time, the concept of what was a serial was expanding to where it is today, and LC (and I) preferred serial treatment for conference proceedings.  The idea was do it once and you don’t have to do it again.

 

I still like this idea, but it really does depend on the conference.  As you noted with the single record, there can be frequent title changes and frequent changes in the name of the conference.  And Leah makes an excellent point about URLs.  And if you have both electric and print, or some electric and some print, it’s probably best to have some consistency in treatment for the same conference.

 

Another plus in cataloging conference publications separately is that you can include a contents note for the individual papers presented at the conference, which may help access.  On the other hand, the titles of these papers may be indexed in other resources available to users.

 

So, I would say that decisions need to be made on a case by case basis, based on the considerations above.  And there may be others that I have not thought of.

 

 

 

I am all for the single record except in situations where you have online access and the content is located at different URLs.  I then prefer using separate records with the relevant URL in each one.  But if it’s just for print and/or all of the content is at the same URL, I would use the single record.

 

-Leah

 

Leah Donley

Information Specialist

Research Library

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Upton, NY

donley@bnl.gov

 

 

I am working with the Serials department in cataloging a set of ACM conference proceedings for which there are 13 separate records in WorldCat for the various title changes.  These are all “pcc” records, except for one.

 

There is also a single record in WorldCat for the conference proceedings – OCLC # 505744110 -  coded as successive entry, with multiple 246 fields for the title variations.

 

Some here feel we should use the above single record (created in 1984, with encoding level “L” Full-level input added from a batch process) rather than the 13 separate records.  There are 8 libraries with holdings attached to the record.  What would the arguments be for and against using this record? 

 

Thank you for your input!

 

Mavis B. Molto

Serials Cataloger

Merrill-Cazier Library

Utah State University

Logan, UT 84322-3000

(435) 797-2751

mavis.molto@usu.edu

 

***********************************************
* You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum)
* To unsubscribe, send an email to the server address: LISTSERV@LIST.UVM.EDU . Do NOT include a subject line. Type as an email message these two words: SIGNOFF SERIALST
* Have questions or need help? Contact: SERIALST-REQUEST@LIST.UVM.EDU
* For additional information, see SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines.
***********************************************

***********************************************
* You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum)
* To unsubscribe, send an email to the server address: LISTSERV@LIST.UVM.EDU . Do NOT include a subject line. Type as an email message these two words: SIGNOFF SERIALST
* For additional information, see SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines.
***********************************************