There were actually six different AUTOCAT forum threads to review in the past 5 weeks with email subject headings involving series. Three of those threads are included in this summary. Since they are all relatively short, consisting of an initial question and one or two responses, it seemed appropriate to combine them together for this review. The lesson learned from tracking these emails is that AUTOCAT, or any similar open response informal catalogers forum, is a very useful and timely way to get assistance from a broad cross-section of cataloging practitioners. The email threads will be summarized here under the subject heading of each thread. A concluding paragraph of this summary will synthesize some general thoughts on the AUTOCAT Forum.
“Is this book really in the stated series?”
Jack Hill, manager of cataloging services at the University of Houston Libraries asked about a book he was cataloging. The book is apparently part of a series, but he could not find the name of the series on the book, but he did find it in the OCLC record. He asked for verification that the book was truly in the series as indicated in the OCLC database and whether or not someone could tell him that the volume actually mentions the series somewhere.
The only response came from Kimberly Montgomery, Electronic Resources Cataloger at the University of Central Florida Libraries. She cited a bibliography website, where she found the book and confirmed that it is in the series, but also identified a misspelled word in the series title that jack had shared. Thus, additional sources of information beyond the book in hand were apparently consulted to complete this catalog entry.
AACR2 rule 1.6A2 allows use of information recorded from the chief source of information or from any other source prescribed in the following chapters. AACR2 2.0B1 allows information from any part of the publication. Using information from an online bibliography seems to be outside of the sources of information rules in chapters 1 and 2.
“Series in record, not in book”
Gene Fieg, cataloger at Claremont School of Theology, was unable to identify the source of the series statement, since it was not given in the book in hand. He also wondered if the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) entry was more correct than the OCLC record or the Library of Congress (LC) record and notified the LC to check their copy. His reason for bringing it up in this forum was that he did not want to change the OCXLC record until he knew the source of the information.
Mark Ehlert, Coordinator of Bibliographic & Technical Services at the University of Minnesota responded by citing Google Books, where he found the first printing of the work. In that facsimile copy he found a series statement on the title page verso and gave the web link to it. Another responder, Rich Aldred, Catalog Librarian at Haverford College, also confirmed from a copy in Haverford’s collection that the title page verso did indeed include a series name.
Once again, this issue falls into the arena of having a verified chief source of information (CSI). The cataloger could not find the series name in a CSI, and was perplexed as to how the OCLC record could include the series name. He got his answer from an acceptable CSI from a digital copy of the work.
“Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures”
Gene Fieg asked another question in this thread. He was cataloging a serial publication that had a set of MARC 490 and 830 fields. He was a bit confused that the serial is shown as part of a series that also includes monographs. Combining two different types of bibliographic resources into the same series does seem a bit confusing.
Someone named Guy Frost, who did not leave a signature on his email, responded to say that this is not so uncommon. He indicated that there are many government publications that mix serials (usually annuals) in with their monographs in a series. Further, he went on to say that many of the federal government agencies, citing specifically the U.S Dept. Of Labor, also do it.
Jennifer B. Young, Serials Catalog Librarian at Northwestern University Library, observed, “It means that some libraries have chosen to treat this as an analyzed monographic series instead of a serial. Looking at the serial record – it has SrTp: m - which means it is a monographic series.”
Kevin M. Randall, Principal Serials Cataloger at Northwestern University Library, followed that with a comment or two of his own. He wrote, “While Jennifer Young appears to be correct in noting that "Perspectives on Hebrew scriptures and its contexts" is a monographic series, as noted in (OCLC)80561037, I think this particular situation is a bit more confusing when looking at the record Gene was referring to for "Perspectives on Hebrew scriptures", (OCLC)124120745. Jennifer's record says it's a title change from Gene's record; but Gene's record says that it is a subseries of the title cataloged in Jennifer's record.”
Kevin then suggests that obviously one of the records has to be wrong. He makes some guesses as to what is going on and what needs to happen, including the revision of the cataloging of one of the records. However, he can’t say for sure since he does not have the items in his collection. The thread ends without a final solution, since no one else has responded.
The AACR2 Glossary in Appendix D defines the terms series and monograph. A series is understood to be a group of separate bibliographic items related to one another by bearing a collective title in addition to each item’s own title proper. A series may also be each of two or more volumes of essays, lectures, articles, or other writings, similar in character and issued in sequence. The third part of the definition of a series is “a separately numbered sequence of volumes within a series or serial”.
A monograph is generally considered to be a resource that is complete n one part, but the AACR2 definition is expansive to include resources that are intended to be completed within a finite number of parts.
These definitions help to clarify how these two different bibliographic resources, monographs and serials, can end up being placed together in a series.
Conclusion
The experience of reviewing specific topical threads in the AUTOCT forum, not to mention the hundreds of additional email subjects not selected for this essay review, shows in a significant way the power of such a forum. Catalogers from around the world are using this forum to find answers to daily work-related issues that just don’t seem to be answerable when one person is focused on the task. Incorporating collaboration from hundreds of other interested and trained cataloging practitioners into one’s sources of information has to relieve a great deal of consternation.
The assignments in this cataloging class have at times seemed impossible to answer. A frustratingly large number of hours can, at times, be spent thinking, studying and poring over sources to find the answer to a complex problem. Perhaps, in some small way, working on class assignments has put members of this LIS507 class in the same position as work-a-day catalogers who face similar challenging problems without an instructor to “save” them with the right answer. What a relief it must be to have a forum with the power of collaboration of strong minds that can come together to aid a colleague facing that frustrating dilemma of not knowing exactly what to do about a particular problem.
Sources Referenced:
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., 2002 Revision, 2005 Update. Prepared under the direction of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, a committee of: the American Library Association … et al. (Chicago: American Library Association, 2005)
