Technically, the holdings standards call for repeating all levels of chronology for each issue cited. Some consider this overkill, and omit one or more of the higher elements when recording a string of issues for which they are the same. Usually the result is fairly clear to one reading the statement, but occasionally, as with your example, the waters get a bit muddied when higher elements of the hierarchy are left out.
I would suggest two changes which would improve the readability of your statement:
1) Break out each year into a separate 866 field
2) Always give month ahead of day, even if it is the same month as the previous issue cited
3) Record issues covering spanned dates with a forward slash (/) rather than a hyphen (-).
Assuming that you are recording two separate catalogs for Sept. 1976 and March and Nov. 1977 and a single one covering spanned dates in Nov. 1985, this would result in:
866 41 1976:Feb.11, May 27, June 23, Sept.8, Sept.22, Oct.23
866 41 1977:Mar.16, Mar.23, Nov.18, Nov.21, Dec.2
866 41 1985:Nov.16/19
I changed the first indicator from "5' to "4" because the statement you shared doesn't include identifying numbers for each issue recorded (piece designation).
Senior Serials Specialist
Library of Congress
>>> Robert Kruse <kruse@BOSTONATHENAEUM.ORG> 12/12/2009 9:24 AM >>>
Being relatively new to constructing 866 holdings statements, a co-worker
and I question the syntax of the following statement for scattered holdings
of sales catalogs identified only by date.
866 5 1 1976: Feb. 11, May 27, June 23, Sept. 8, 22, Oct. 23, 1977:
March 16, 23, Nov. 18, 21, Dec. 2, 1985: Nov. 16-19
The months and days follow the year: and that seems clear. What we find to
be very confusing, if not downright unintelligible are the commas following
the last date held in a given year, followed by the next year:
e.g. Oct. 23, 1977: appears to be Oct. 23, 1977 but in fact, Oct. 23 belongs
to 1976 and the 1977: begins the holdings March 16, etc.
Is there another way to separate a break in holdings other than the comma?
Or are we on the wrong track entirely in the construction of this holdings
Any advise would be appreciated.
N.E.H. Head of Technical Services
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108-3777
P Please consider the environment before printing this email