Think of this situation with a different author, say Shakespeare. The fact that many publishers want to sell books by this author doesn't mean that we want to dump all of the publishers books into one giant series and have lots and lots of cross references. I think that these different series do help the patron to sort out what is going on - if they care. With the Shakespeare example, it is easy to see that some publishers books might be better annotated, have wonderful etchings, etc. And if I, the patron, read one from the series with the beautiful etchings, I might like to read another.
So, while it seems like the Sobol series are pretty redundant, the aim of the series authority records is actually to help keep everything tidy. This helps folks her are in collection development, acquisitions, and cataloging too.
And, we can't be expected to make individual judgements as to which author's works are important and which are not in the authority file. Locally, of course, you can group the Sobol titles together in one series if you need to.
I hope that this helps!
Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641
From: Bibliographic Series Action Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Michael Rechel [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SERIES-L] Encyclopedia Brown series
I'm turning to this list in an attempt get a grip on NACO SARs for various Encyclopedia Brown-related series ... maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see any distinction among;
Sobol, Donald J., |d 1924-2012. |t Encyclopedia Brown series (AR no2011122359)
Sobol, Donald J., |d 1924-2012. |t Encyclopedia Brown books (AR no2008017393)
and (for God's sake!)
Sobol, Donald J., |d 1924-2012. |t America’s Sherlock Holmes in sneakers (AR no2007137809)
Since I truly believe these to be the same series, differentiated only by the publisher (Puffin, Bantam, and Thomas Nelson, respectively), isn't this, at best, some kind of excruciatingly correct behavior that would be better covered by picking one form, adding x-refs. for the others, and adding multiple 643s for multitudinous publishers who have gotten their mitts on these (e.g., Bantam, Bantam Skylark, Puffin, Dutton Children's, Lodestar, Scholastic, Yearling, Dutton Children's, Pocket, to name but a few of those represented in our catalog)?
How, by any stretch of the imagination, can this be construed as customer-friendly cataloging? Can anyone out there fix this? Or is there a good reason to maintain this madness ...
<Grumble, grumble, grumble ...>
Thanks for listening (er, reading)!
Michael W. Rechel
Head, Technical Services
Abington Township Public Library
Abington, PA 19001
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
_________________________________________ This message comes to you via the SERIES-L list, a forum for those concerned enough to take action to improve the quality of bibliographic records for library materials issued in series.
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to [log in to unmask] with the text SIGNOFF SERIES-L. _________________________________________
This message comes to you via the SERIES-L list, a forum for those concerned enough to take action to improve the quality of bibliographic records for library materials issued in series.
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to [log in to unmask] with the text SIGNOFF SERIES-L.