As I recall, you could do this everywhere, as Mitch says below, but in
the 362 field.  You could do it with frequencies, in the 500 note field,
but in the 362 area you had to be exact in all cases, recording vol. 1,
no. 1 (Jan. 1999), not vol. 1 (1999).  All the same, as with Mitch, I'm
only talking from memory.

John Radencich
Library-Cataloging Dept.
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199

Mitch Turitz wrote:

> Although this message was originally posted to AUTOCAT, I felt that
> Serials catalogers who subscribe to SERIALST (but not AUTOCAT) might
> be able to answer Robert's question. I apologize in advance for the
> duplication.
> -- Mitch
>
>
> Robert,
>
>   Approximately 30 years ago, I worked for CONSER.  At the time we
> were trained in great detail on the MARC format for serials, and I
> remember the instruction regarding the 362 field as your technical
> monitor does.  It was, as I recall, if an entire volume was complete
> within one calendar year and it began in January, then you need only
> go to the volume level to describe the coverage date in the 362.
>
> e.g. Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan/Mar 2001)-v. 4, no.4 (Oct/Dec 2004)  (quarterly)
>     SHOULD BE:  Vol. 1 (2001)-v. 4 (2004).
>
> or,  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan 2001)-v.4, no.12 (Dec. 2004)         (monthly)
>     SHOULD BE:  Vol. 1 (2001)-v. 4 (2004)
>
>
> However, this should only be done where the level below volume is
> complete for the entire volume. (i.e. 12 issues for one year, not
> crossing calendar years, for a monthly; 4 issues for a quarterly,
> starting with the first quarter (Jan/March) of the year and ending
> with the last quarter of the same year (Oct/Dec).
>
> e.g. Vol. 1., no. 2 (April/June 2001)-  is the first issue issue
> (title change), then you definitely must start/end down to the lowest
> level where the numbering is not complete for the volume.
>   and NOT:  Vol. 1 (2001)-
>
> Also,                      Vol. 1, no. 1 (April/June 2001)
> should NOT appear as:      Vol. 1 (2001)-
>
> If a title ceased publication/changed title before the volume was
> complete, the enumeration/chronology should display the volume/issue
> level at the point it stopped,
>
> e.g. Vol. 1 (2001)- v. 4, no. 3 (July/Sept 2004)            (quarterly)
>
>
> It seemed to only work when the volume started in January and was
> complete by December within one year.  Anything outside the "normal"
> annual publication pattern did not work with this "volume-level
> without numbers" model.
>
> Ideally publishers should start new volumes and/or title changes at
> the beginning of a new calendar year, but it is just as often done
> differently.
>
> Please note: this is from memory.  I can neither find this in my
> current copy of the CONSER EDITING GUIDE (which has not been updated
> in many years) nor in the CONSER Cataloging Manual (which I also
> haven't updated in several years).  Nonetheless, I was taught as
> described above and do not remember if this was in the CONSER EDITING
> GUIDE; AACR2; or the Library of Congress rule interpretations.  I can
> not find the original source where it may have been (CONSER EDITING
> GUIDE 1st edition?). The rules may have changed since then.
>
> If you search enough serial examples that were cataloged in the 1970s
> and 80s, you will see examples of the above.  However, if the rules
> changed, you should follow the current practice as in the CONSER
> Cataloging Manual and AACR2.
>
> Anyone out there who remembers this practice of volume-level
> designation in the 362 besides me?
>
> -- Mitch Turitz
>
>  _^_                                                 _^_
> (___)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ( ___ )
> |   |                                               |   |
> |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
> |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
> |   |     voice: (415) 338-7883                     |   |
> |   |     CFA:   (415) 338-6232                     |   |
> |   |                                               |   |
> |   |                                               |   |
> (___)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==- ( ___ )
>   V                                                   V
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:37:29 -0500
> From:    Robert K Koepke <KoepkeR@gao.gov>
> Subject: Format of 362 for ceased serials
>
> A question has come up about the proper format for the dates of
> publication (362 field) for a serial which has ceased publication.
>
> For the title in question, I entered the 362 as: Vol. 1, no. 1 (winter
> 1959)-v. 39, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1997).  However, our technical monitor
> remembers being told that when all issues of a volume have been
> published (this was a bimonthly title), that it should be formatted with
> the volume information only (i.e., Vol. 1 (1959)-v. 39 (1997)).
>
> I can't find anything mentioning this as a rule or practice in AACR2 or
> in the AUTOCAT archives.
>
> Can anyone shed some light onto this issue?
>
> Robert K. Koepke
> Library Support Services
> Government Accountability Office
> 441 G St. NW
> Rm. 7435
> Washington, D.C. 20548
> Phone: 202.512.9755
> E-mail: KoepkeR@gao.gov
>
> ------------------------------
>