3 messages, 81 lines:
--------------------------

Date:         Wed, 23 Sep 92 08:50:31 EDT
From:         Cindy Hepfer <HSLCINDY@UBVM>
Subject:      Classifying serials

     The NASIG workshop that Birdie mentioned was also followed up
with a paper in SERIALS REVIEW.  Citation:

      Glenda Ann Thornton.  "Physical Access to Perodical Literature:
The Dilemma Revisited and a Brief Look at the Future."  SERIALS REVIEW
17:4 (1991): p.33-42.  In the article, Glenda discusses the U. of N. Texas'
review of its alphabetically arranged periodical collections and a
proposal to classify them.  She developed the topic into a 1990 NASIG
workshop which included a participant survey.  This article covers the
survey results and ideas for improving physical access to periodicals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 22 Sep 1992 23:56:41 -0400
From:         JUDITH HOPKINS AT SUNY BUFFALO <ULCJH@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Classifying Serials

I must admit to some bemusement at reading about the Univ. of Vermont's
decision to classify its current, unbound periodicals and not the bound
volumes.   It is with current issues that the value of being able to go
directly to the title of interest to browse is greatest without having
to take the intermediate step of checking the catalog to find out the
call number.  In small departmental collections the range of call numbers
would be rather limited.  Unbound current issues do not raise the problem
of changed titles (but not changed scope) which is one of the reasons for
classifying bound volumes.

In the General Libraries of the University at Buffalo when we decided to
classify the periodicals, that decision applied only to the bound volumes
in the stacks.  The current issues in the current periodicals reading room
are still arranged alphabetically by title.  However, on the shelf label
that is provided for each title we give, in addition to the title, the
call number.  In that way a user interested in following some thread from
a current issue to the back volumes of that same title is provided with
the call number without having to go to the catalog.

Judith Hopkins                            VOICE: (716) 645-2796
Technical Services Research and Analysis Officer
Central Technical Services                FAX:   (716) 645-5955
Lockwood Library Building
State University of New York at Buffalo   BITNET: ulcjh@ubvm (OR, ubvms)
Buffalo, NY  14260-2200              INTERNET: ulcjh@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 23 Sep 1992 10:15:07
From:         Birdie MacLennan <BMACLENN@UVMVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Classifying serials

Actually, Judith Hopkins just made me realize that our original
intention in shifting current issues to a classed arrangement was
precisely for the reason of increased browsability (I forgot to
mention that in my previous message, I think because I've been
preoccupied by the difficult holdings locations displays of the
two shelving arrangements in our OPAC -- basically the same location
"PER" ... current issues by call #; bound vols. by title on one
NOTIS copy holdings statement -- not easily comprehensible to the
public, as I mentioned earlier).  But browsability is one of the
nice features of the arrangement.  As a librarian, it's wonderful
to find all our journals in one area with the Z's, as it is to find
all literature with the P's, art with the N's, etc.

But, do I need to remind folks that the <LC> classification schedules
are not infallible or perfect?  Witness, for example, the classification
arrangement for mathematics.  Most of them are with "Q" ... however,
there are a number of instances where materials about statistics have
been classed with the HA's.  The Mathematics Dept. at UVM was one
of our primary motivators for a classed arrangement ... and they
were not happy when we had to explain to them why some of their journals
were here (under Q), and some were there (under H).

Probably no system is perfect -- no matter how you look at it.  Though
if someone *has* worked out the ideal arrangement, I'd love to hear
about it!

Birdie MacLennan
University of Vermont