Hi Silvana – Responses inline. 

 

I'm a long time rare monographs and maps cataloger that also does the odd serial now and then. And every time they confound me! Right now I'm working on a single issue (no. 12, Nov. 30 to Dec. 7, 1647) for Mercurius pragmaticus (London, England : 1647).

 

Question on 588: I learned in a serials cataloging work that the 588 is a required field in serials, but is that for original records, or also for already existing records that cover the whole run? So, do I still include the 588 for my no. 12 issue in hand, even though the record I found is based on the earliest issue?

 

It depends on which cataloging code was used to create the original serial record.  With pre-AACR2 cataloging, there was no requirement for Description based on (DBO) or Latest issue consulted (LIC) notes, although it was an understood practice (perhaps LC?) that an issue date of issue in hand was recorded in the 936 field.  With AACR2, a formatted 362 (meaning not a textual note) indicated that the first and/or last issue was in hand.  So

 

362 0    Vol. 1, no. 1 (Mar. 1990)-

 

Indicates the cataloger actually had the March 1990 issue in hand while:

 

362 1    Began with: Vol. 1, no. 1 (Mar. 1990)

362 0   -vol. 10, no. 1 (Dec. 1999).

500       Description based on: Vol. 3, no. 1 (Mar. 1992)

 

Indicates cataloger didn’t not have March 1990 issue in hand but did have both the March 1992 issue (used as the basis of transcription) and the final issue (December 1999) in hand.

 

About ten years ago, CONSER adopted a practice of requiring the DBO and the LIC to both be explicitly noted (even if either of these was the first and/or last issue) and to always have both a DBO and LIC (so that if the cataloger had only one issue in hand, the DBO and LIC would cite the same issue).  Under current practice, the title above would appear as:

 

362 1    Began with: Vol. 1, no. 1 (Mar. 1990); ceased with vol. 10, no. 1 (Dec. 1999).

588      Description based on: Vol. 3, no. 1 (Mar. 1992); title from ….

588     Latest issue consulted: V. 10, no. 1 (Dec. 1999).

 

In terms of what to do with the existing record, it’s up to you.  If it was cataloged under earlier rules, then you can either edit it per those earlier rules (which in your case would mean adding an LIC for your latest issue in hand or update the record to RDA.  My own practice is if it’s clear the description is based on an earlier issue that I don’t have in hand (so I can’t verify the original sources to support recataloging) then I’ll leave as is and edit the record per earlier rules (but then that’s easy for me because I’ve been cataloging serials 26 years (GASP!)).