Perhaps I can impose on the colletive wisdom of the list to help me see what I am missing. It seems there were at least two possible interpretations on how to treat this title. Some people selected a monographic treatment and some others might have selected a serial treatment. I don't have the material in hand and don't want venture a guess as to how I would personally treat it for cataloging.
What concerns me, is that it was obvious some people preffered a serial treatment and the record for the serial has been deleted, preventing sharing of the record. My experience has always been that the shared bibliographic records OCLC allowed for different treatments. Should I expect to see various annuals that have been cataloged monographically be deleted in favor of a serial record? What am I missing?
With no disrespect meant,
Lee
--- On Wed, 3/20/13, Hall, Jack <jhall@UH.EDU> wrote:
|
***********************************************
* 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.
***********************************************