Here are my comments on the draft RDA 2.10.
2.10.1.1. Definition
I don't know what "chief title" of a series means and I find this language
awkward. Why not cut out that part and go straight to the parenthetical
part of the definition:
The title proper of a series to which the resource belongs is the title
normally used when citing the series.
I'm not even sure "to which the resource belongs" is necessary, and if
retained, I think "the" should be changed to "a".
2.10.1.2. Sources of information
As much as possible the selection of the title proper of the series and
the instructions for it should match what is in 2.2.1, so that someone
cataloging the series as a serial ends up with the same title proper as
someone analyzing the issues or parts of the series.
Looking at resources with multiple pages, the first two bullets I think
achieve this objective, but the third bullet does not because the third
bullet in 2.2.1.1 says to use another source in the resource itself,
giving preference to formally presented sources. There is nothing about
"formally presented" sources in the third bullet of 2.10.1.2.
The same kind of analysis should be done for all the categories of
resources in 2.2.1 to see if the same result would be achieved when
cataloging the series as a serial vs. cataloging the individual parts in
the series.
2.10.1.3. Recording the title proper of the series
For the exception, I think an example would be useful, e.g.:
Publication ... of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology,
Folklore, and Linguistics ; 8, 11
2.10.1.4. Title of series in more than one form
I think there are several problems with this rule.
Firstly, this rule seems to directly contradict the instructions in
2.10.1.2 on which sources and which order of preference to follow. The
first sentence says basically the same thing as the first bullet in
2.10.1.2. But the next sentence says to record the most prominent form of
the series title. This doesn't mesh with 2.10.1.2 and if implemented, it
would insure that different catalogers would come up with different
results. It's not clear what "prominent" is supposed to mean in any case.
2.10.1.2 already covers which source to use for the series title proper.
There are two things that I think that this rule could be used to help
with:
1) what to do when there is more than one form of the series title on the
source selected for transcription of the series title proper. This is a
real problem that catalogers regularly encounter. Perhaps all that can be
said is use judgment, but this situation ought to be addressed.
2) The last sentence says to record other forms in a note if they are
considered to be important for identifying the resource. This is
certainly fine, but in actuality, these other forms are typically recorded
as variants in either/or a) the bibliographic record for the series
cataloged as a serial b) the series authority record. Here's a place
where reference to these means of recording variant series titles should
be mentioned (and probably a see reference to part III on authority
control should be added once part III has been written).
2.10.2.2. Sources of information
Parallel titles are being treated differently here than they are in 2.3.2
and I think that this is going to cause some confusion. In 2.3.2.2 we are
told to take parallel titles from any source within the resource. If we
were cataloging the series as a serial, this rule would apply to the
record created. But given that there is an order of preference given in
2.10.2.2 (i.e., I presume you stop recording parallel titles after
whichever bullet first applies) the descriptions created for the serial
and the series transcription (even if based on the exact same issue or
part) could look different. Do we really want to have these disparate
results? If not, the instruction here should be to take parallel titles
from any source within the resource. (Of course, there's the question of
what order to put them in when they are found on different sources!)
2.10.3.3. Recording other title information of series
I don't have any comments on this rule per se, but I was wondering if
there shouldn't also be a rule about recording parallel other title
information of series? Mightn't there be times when one would want to
record parallel other title information too?
2.10.5.3. Recording the ISSN of a series
Hooray for the instruction on what to do with incorrect ISSNs. There was
nothing in AACR2 to tell us what to do. However, might there also not be
an instruction to record a note that the ISSN is incorrect (and/or to
record the correct ISSN) if this is considered important?
Recording an incorrect ISSN in 4XX makes me wonder if perhaps a new
subfield ought to be established to put this in, so that correct and
incorrect ISSNs could be distinguished. Another thing for MARBI to
consider.
2.10.6.3. Recording numbering within series
The example 63-2 in the first bullet would seem to fall under the
condition described in the third bullet.
Last bullet: I don't like this at all. I'd prefer to do what we do now
which is to add a correction in brackets. Or to correct the inaccuracy in
the numbering and make a note about the incorrect number that appears on
the resource. If the date of publication can be corrected (see 2.9.0.3)
then why not also allow a clarification of the correct series numbering?
Speaking of the option to clarify a publication date in 2.9.0.3, the
instruction there has the text "if the date as it appears in the resource
is known to be fictitious." I didn't think about the use of the term
"fictitious" here before, but now I think it could be taken to mean
intentionally incorrect. Perhaps simply change the term "fictitious" to
"incorrect".
2.10.6.4. Chronological designation
This is a significant change from AACR2 1.6G3 which has an OPTION to
record the chronological designation. I'd prefer that this stay an
option. Making this a required element has some implications for how we
record numbering patterns in series authority records and probably has
some display (e.g., sorting) and access issues too.
2.10.6.7. Separately numbered issues or parts
For multiparts, if the series is not yet complete, all of the numbers
won't be known. Instead of saying "Otherwise, record all the numbers"
perhaps it should say "Otherwise, record all the numbers known" or
something like that?
2.10.7.3. Title proper of subseries
There is an LCRI for this that limits this to series/subseries that appear
on the same source. I'd like to see this as the rule:
"Apply the rules for subseries if:
3) LC/PCC practice: both the main series title and the subseries title
appear in the same prescribed source for the series area in the
appropriate AACR2 chapter; proximity in the same source is not a factor.
If the main series and subseries do not appear in the same source, record
each title in its own series statement (cf. AACR2 1.6J)." --LCRI 1.6H
If the rule isn't changed, perhaps the LC/PCC practice could be made an
option?
2.10.7.9. ISSN of subseries
The way the second example appears here is somewhat confusing to read.
This might be better:
ISSN 0075-3114
not ISSN 0446-4796
ISSN 0075-3114
(ISSN of main series: 0446-4796; ISSN of subseries: 0075-3114)
2.10.9.4. Change in series information
Changes in series information can also apply to simultaneously issued
multiparts.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
