Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: designations & dates (Deborah Harrell) Ann Ercelawn 30 Jul 1996 20:15 UTC

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:44:39 -0400
From: Deborah Harrell <dharrell@WESTGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: designations & dates (Patricia Fogler)

Although I am not the Serial fact I don't even work in
Cataloging...I am in charge of updating Serials records in OCLC.  So I do
work directly with these records.

A problem our students encounter with the way we input the records is
that the cataloger uses the 362 field, and also uses a 500 field.  Unless
the patron pays attention, he will see the 362 field and believe that
our holdings begin with the vol/date listed there, when in fact, we have
only a portion of that data.  To complicate matters further, the Z39.50
rules (as I understand them) means the 500 fields may get stripped off
and not display!  What to do?

I have decided to leave the records as they are and hope patrons
pay attention!


Debbie Harrell
Ingram Library, State University of West Georgia
phone: 770-836-6498
fax: 770-836-6626

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 14:28:45 CDT
> From: Fogler Patty <pfogler@MAX1.AU.AF.MIL>
> Subject: designations & dates
> Greetings-
>         I catalog serials for our library... I've been working with
> serials for about 6 months now and have a question that will probably seem
> quite obvious, but I'd appreciate any insight into the reasoning involved
> here. A lot of my serials cataloging is not from a first issue of a
> serial.  For example I have a 1994 copy of the title Legislative review
> activities of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on my desk.  The OCLC
> record (with GPO and DLC holdings among others) that matches it (8750019)
> shows this title beginning in 1980.  We've recently become a depository
> library, I understand, so we will be getting many later issues of these
> type of titles.  This situation is also true for non-depository serials
> that I catalog.
>         My question then, is:  is it really necessary to remove all
> dating/designation information that I can't personally verify?  If I don't
> have the first issue in hand (or know personally what it is) the way I
> read CONSER is that I must remove the 362 and use only a 500 Description
> based on: note.  It seems to me that if I were to keep the 362 and/or
> change it to an unformatted tag (with either a ? mark or perhaps to read:
> 362 1b Began in 198u) that the patron would have at least some information
> concerning the dating of the item.  Any thoughts on how others handle this
> situation would be much appreciated.
> Patricia Fogler
> Cataloger
> Air University Library