SERIALITY, WAS: Re: Serial or Monograph? (Again!) Mitch Turitz 05 Feb 1998 19:25 UTC
(I am posting this reply to both SERIALST and AUTOCAT because I thought it would be relevant to both listservs. Sorry for the duplication. -- Mitch -------------------- Actually, as a direct result of the Crystal Graham/Jean Hirons paper presented at the recent INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE PRINCIPLES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF AACR (see http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/index.htm ) the issue of "Seriality" is about to change. It was reported that of the papers presented at that conference the one on "Seriality" was the most widely accepted. At ALA Midwinter in New Orleans, Jean Hirons (editor of the CONSER Editing Guide) asked for volunteers for several Task Forces to look at the revision of Chapter 12 and other parts of AACR2 to change it as per her and Crystal Graham's paper. (This was a charge put to ALA from JSC the Joint Steering Committee for the revision of AACR2, not an independent decision). Also rule 0.24, which is the heart of AACR2 ("Catalog from the piece in hand") is being looked at for changes. This will likely change the entire concept of AACR2 (e.g. we may no longer be required to have separate bibliographic records for different versions - but that's just my speculation) The implications of this will be far-reaching. The term serial will very likely be extended to include loose-leafs, web pages, and other things of an ongoing nature which were not considered serials previously. Now for my opinion: We also need to look at WHY we catalog something as a serial: so that when the next issue/piece arrives, we would (hopefully) only need to check the piece in, and not do all new cataloging for every piece. If we are doing successive entry cataloging for every new piece, it might serve us better to catalog it as a monograph (e.g. a directory which is revised every few years). Think of the check-in person and what s/he has to go through with the title the next time you catalog that thing in your hands. -- Mitch ---------------YOU SAID---------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:47:33 -0500 From: New York Society Library <nysl@IX.NETCOM.COM> Subject: Re: Serial or Monograph? (Again!) On Thursday, Jan. 29th, Regina Beach wrote, > The rules for what constitutes a serial are in Chapter 12 of AACR2. Actually, they're not there (except for the brief definition in Appendix D). The collection of policy determinations (similar in scope to the LC rule interpretations) that define a serial are in the CONSER cataloging manual. > In order to be a serial, an item has to completely change in content. > This is why looseleafs and databases are monographs technically, even > though they act an awful lot like serials. I don't know about a complete change of content. In the CCM 2.4.3. it says: "Consider the contents and nature of the publication. Does the publication contain the type of information that is likely to be issued on a continuing basis? Statistics, directories, reports of activities or research are all types of information that are likely to be issued regularly. If the topic seems finite, of a limited duration, or very specific, it is best to treat as a monograph." This seems to suggest that the aggregate information can vary slightly or be updated (like a directory that varies slightly from year to year), without the necessity of wholesale changes found in journals with brand-new content every issue. With something like What color is your parachute?, the format remains the same, some significant part of the text probably remains constant, but each edition contains new information, sources, contacts, (insights?) into the job market. After all this time, one can assume that the publisher plans to continue publication 'indefinitely' (as long as the product will sell, but isn't that a criteria for virtually all commercial publications?). It makes sense to me to take a bunch of essentially similar monographic records (all with virtually identical subject headings) and make one nice neat serial record. > However, for now, a book that is constantly revised is a monograph > according to AACR2. Again, AACR2 is inadequate to determine seriality. I'd use the CCM. Steven Baumholtz Head of Technical Services New York Society Library 53 East 79th St. New York, NY 10021 (voice) 212.288.6900 (e-mail) email@example.com ------------------------------ _^_ _^_ ( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ ) | | | | | | Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian | | | | San Francisco State University Library | | | | Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org | | | | http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~turitz | | | | | | ( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ ) V V Rule #1: Don't sweat the small stuff. Rule #2: It's ALL small stuff.