[rak-list] mehrbändig

[Gunilla Jonsson]

Bernhard Eversberg wrote:

> On 7 Feb 02, at 10:28, Gunilla Jonsson wrote:
>
> > There is another possibility to treat multi volume publications, which would meet
> > Mr Eversberg's wish to have an "eigenen Datensatz für das Hauptwerk".
> This is not my particular wish, it is our collective understanding and it is what
> we have always had in all our systems. ALL of our multipart records are done this
> way, there's no 505 at all for multipart contents.

GJ: This is also what we have had in our system since the start of it in 1976!

> > You might
> > treat it as a serial publication and make a main entry for the "serial", das
> > Hauptwerk, and separate records for the parts.
> Which is what we have been doing all the time. Only not using the "serial"
> concept here. "Main multipart record" is a category of its own.

GJ: Exactly.

>
>
> > Our principal objection to this
> > method is that we would have to treat an awful lot of publications as serials,
> > which are not true serials.
> That's not true. Maybe some system or other forces you to make the main record
> a "serial" type record, but it is by no means what MARC21 would require.
> Just look at the examples and the reasoning in
>   http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/allegro/formate/reusep.htm
>

GJ: well, it is clearly indicated in the MARC21 guidelines that fields 440 and 490
apply to "series" material. How far you carry the interpretation of "series" is of
course crucial. In Sweden, our interpretation has, obviously, coincided with the German
understanding of the concepts, as described in the passage below, which I quote from
the document on the URL above:

     "Works by personal authors, since their lifetimes are all finite, are always
regarded as multipart items in the finite
     sense and never as "series", considering that they will have a finite number of
separate parts ("mehrbändiges
     begrenztes Werk") whereas AACR2 (or at least LC) quite often treats these like
series intended for indefinite
     publication, just because there is no indication as to exactly how many volumes
there will eventually be."

You can even find support for this German/Swedish understanding in AACR2, which talks
about "monographic series and multipart monographs" (13.3), although they allow the
same kind of treatment for both! MARC21 clearly reflects this American "indifference",
and our reluctance to use 440 and 490 as the general method for multipart monographs
reflects our wish to stick to these distinctions.

>
> Whether or not we can use MARC21 for multiparts and get the results we want, is
> not the issue. That major MARC players are not doing such records is the problem.

GJ: I agree that you have produced very good examples in the discussion paper. I
especially like the use of field 787, which is what you ought to be able to use in an
automated system. I'm not sure what you imply by "MARC players", but I just have to
accept that our new system would not deal with such records in the way intended. It is
not making full use of MARC21 possibilities, that's true. The fact remains, though,
that with 440 and 490 we would get very awkward records for the majority of records for
parts. The solution we have chosen is, of course, very much influenced by what our
present system offers, but we also try to see to it that another solution can be
derived, once the possibility exists, from the records we produce in this system.

Regards, Gunilla Jonsson

> Regards, B.E.
>
> Bernhard Eversberg
> Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
> D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
> Tel.  +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX  -5836
> e-mail  B.Eversberg at tu-bs.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gunilla.jonsson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 470 bytes
Desc: Card for Gunilla Jonsson
Url : http://lists.ddb.de/pipermail/rak-list/attachments/20020213/1e6220b1/gunilla.jonsson.bin