Thank you Trina for bringing to my attention that the single record has now been collapsed with another record (covering 1975-1980). That solves the problem, since there will be no option now for using a single
record.
I have found resistance at my institution at times in using multiple records for title changes. That is what triggered my query, so you are right it is the issue of successive vs latest entry.
I sent another message yesterday to the SERIALST but it did not appear so I will repeat it below.
Thanks!
Mavis
********************************************
Thank you for all of your responses thus far! This information will be useful when I meet with others here to make a decision about this. USU was asked recently to be the repository for the ACM publications
and we have received a large shipment of volumes that we are now cataloging. As we have discovered the multiple title changes, there have been concerns about the time required to create the multiple bibliographic and holdings records.
Do any of you have thoughts about how having your holdings on a less used record might be an issue for interlibrary loan, collection analysis, or other purposes? Most libraries in WorldCat have used the multiple
records for these proceedings, thus if we use the single record our holdings will not appear on the same records that most libraries have used. Would this be an issue for any of you?
Even though I like the single record, I also have concerns about not following the standards that were in place at the time these proceedings were cataloged. The record I mentioned (OCLC 505744110) has a blank
in the Desc (Descriptive Cataloging Form) field, indicating it is not an ISBD record or an AACR2 record.
Mavis B. Molto
Serials Cataloger
Merrill-Cazier Library
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-3000
(435) 797-2751
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu]
On Behalf Of Trina Pundurs
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:19 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Cataloging ACM conferences with multiple title changes
I may have missed something, but I took Mavis' original question to be not about serial vs. monographic treatment, but rather successive vs. latest entry. In other words, should she use a separate record for
each major title/conference name change, or one record that (somehow) accounts for all variations? I'm not sure the latter is possible anymore, since the candidate record she mentions -- OCLC #505744110 -- has been collapsed as a duplicate into OCLC #3056579
which covers only the issues 1975-1980. I couldn't readily find another record in OCLC that covers the full range of issues, because I'd sure like to have a look at it; I'll bet it's a doozy!
Trina
Trina Pundurs
Serials Cataloger
Catalog & Metadata Services
University of California, Berkeley
tpundurs@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Michael Borries <michael.borries@mail.cuny.edu> wrote:
I am going way back to my days as a serial cataloger. At the time, the concept of what was a serial was expanding to where it is today, and LC (and I) preferred serial treatment for conference proceedings. The idea was do it once and
you don't have to do it again.
I still like this idea, but it really does depend on the conference. As you noted with the single record, there can be frequent title changes and frequent changes in the name of the conference. And Leah makes an excellent point about URLs. And if you have
both electric and print, or some electric and some print, it's probably best to have some consistency in treatment for the same conference.
Another plus in cataloging conference publications separately is that you can include a contents note for the individual papers presented at the conference, which may help access. On the other hand, the titles of these papers may be indexed in other resources
available to users.
So, I would say that decisions need to be made on a case by case basis, based on the considerations above. And there may be others that I have not thought of.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: Michael.Borries@mail.cuny.edu
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list=
.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Donley, Leah
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:42 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Cataloging ACM conferences with multiple title changes
I am all for the single record except in situations where you have online access and the content is located at different URLs. I then prefer using separate records with the relevant URL in each one. But if it's just for print and/or all of the content is
at the same URL, I would use the single record.
-Leah
Leah Donley
Information Specialist
Research Library
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY
donley@bnl.gov<mailto:donley@bnl.gov>
From: Mavis Molto [mailto:mavis.molto@USU.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:08 PM
Subject: Cataloging ACM conferences with multiple title changes
I am working with the Serials department in cataloging a set of ACM conference proceedings for which there are 13 separate records in WorldCat for the various title changes. These are all "pcc" records, except for one.
There is also a single record in WorldCat for the conference proceedings - OCLC # 505744110 - coded as successive entry, with multiple 246 fields for the title variations.
Some here feel we should use the above single record (created in 1984, with encoding level "L" Full-level input added from a batch process) rather than the 13 separate records. There are 8 libraries with holdings attached to the record. What would the arguments
be for and against using this record?
Thank you for your input!
Mavis B. Molto
Serials Cataloger
Merrill-Cazier Library
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-3000
(435) 797-2751
mavis.molto@usu.edu<mailto:mavis.molto@usu.edu>
***********************************************
* You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum)
* To unsubscribe, send an email to the server address:
LISTSERV@LIST.UVM.EDU . Do NOT include a subject line. Type as an email message these two words: SIGNOFF SERIALST
* For additional information, see
SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines.
***********************************************