We understand that the set of ISBD's until now has been no more than a framework for making bibliographic descriptions. Maybe that's the reason why it seems to be a bit short on giving advises like "What if … do this or that", or: "In case of … do so and so".

We fully support the statement in the paper (quote:) "Relationship of title practice between ISBD(S) and ISSN" by Rinn, under:
1.2.: It is recommended that the definition of "title page" be changed on the basis of what is found in AACR 2, chapter 12.0B1: Printed serials Chief source of information; in there a "Order of Preference" is given for the title page substitute. (end quote)
Does Rinn's paper or AACR 2 give the "Order of Preference": title page - colophon - cover title (this is what we prefer), or: title page - cover title - colophon?
In some cases the "Order of Preference" cannot be followed, because elements like title page, cover title of colophon miss in certain publications (e.g. reports).

In the new ISBD(S) we would also like to see some paragraphs on - or at least references to -: 1) electronic resources and 2) the new category of "integrative" serials such as loose-leaf publications, databases, cumulative CD-ROM's and other ongoing or continuing publications with a serial character.

We are convinced that the occurrence of the acronym in titles of serial publications needs more attention than now in chapter 1.1.1.3 of the ISBD(S). This is the reason why the Dutch rules (on bases of the international rules) have been enlarged with some guidelines. [A]

In the proposed guidelines in the first place we point out how to choose between the acronym and the complete form of the title. Next, that we have tried to give some rules about how to cope with major and minor title changes, based on the ISDS-manual.

Another kind of problem has raised in the Dutch practice of making bibliographic descriptions concerning chapter 1.1.4 of the ISBD(S). The treatment of sections and supplements is confusing when the choice has to be made whether these should be described as a dependent or an independent publication in relation to the main publication. [B.1]

We would also like to pay attention to the difficulties in distinguishing between different versions or editions. We thought the existing rules - ISBD(S) chapter 2.1 - are somewhat incomplete. We tried to give some more clarification in this matter. [B.2 and B.3]

The mentioning of multi-volume or multi-year indexes in a note is considered to be less practical. In our view the chapter 7.11 in the ISBD(S) needs some enlargement. [C]

The above points marked A, B.1-B.3 and C have been published as additions to the Dutch rules:

A) Provisional guidelines for treating acronyms in the titles of serial publications

B) Sections, supplements and "editions" of serial publications

C) The mentioning of indexes

You may find the English translation of the complete texts at the Internet site:

Not yet published as a supplement to the Dutch edition of rules, are some questions concerning chapter 3: the Numbering area. See the following two pages, marked D.

We thank you for paying attention to our proposals.

December 1999

WESP - Dutch Working Group on Cataloguing Serial Publications

Secretary: Jan Lahmeyer,

e-mail:J.Lahmeyer@library.uu.nl

Some cases mentioned below also have connections with the chapters 4 and 7 of ISBD(S).

We are not that familiar with - for instance - AACR2 to see if the following "problems" have a solution in those rules.

The term "first and last issues" needs some more clarification. What if the in time first published issue is not the first issue in the numbering sequence? Therefore we would like to extend the sentence: "this is the lowest in the numbering sequence as the first issue or the highest in the numbering sequence as the last issue". So that there will be no confusion with the in time first or last appeared issue of the title. A lot of periodicals are appearing very irregular, even concerning the way of numbering the issues.

Is it recommended to give information in a note (7.4) when the in time first published issue is not the lowest in the numbering sequence? Often the year of publication differs in such cases. What is the choice of statement in the numbering area compared to the date / year of publication in the publication and distribution area (4.4)?

The same problem occurs at the publication of a last/final issue, sometimes this issue bears a numbering that looks normal to its direct predecessor, but it is published (very) much later in time. When such an issue contains an index of a greater period another complication turns up, see hereafter.

Some serial publications begin their life unnumbered, and sometimes a numbering is used later on. Sometimes the already published unnumbered issues are stated in an overview with a later given numbering. Should all this information be mentioned in the numbering area, or is it preferred to make a note?

The first example in 3.2: "Bd. 1-70" seems to give problems compared with the first examples given in 3.3 and 3.5. We would like to repeat the whole identification of the number of the last issue. It occurs many times that a kind of volume designation has appeared, has been changed (for instance in another kind of designation, or in another language) or has been dropped during the life of the serial publication.

In example 3.6 what is the policy when a new numbering of a new sequence occurs without the statement of such a designation in the publication itself? Is it useful to give that statement of the new sequence in square brackets, like "[n.s.]", or is it recommended not mentioning such a statement at all: "vol. 1, no. 1 (1983) ; vol. 1, no. 1 (1983) - …"? This example may look a bit strange, but it has indeed occurred.

Moreover we would like to extend the simple dash (or hyphen) with three dots to show the serial publication is still continuing its life. Just for "readability" within the lot of textual information of a bibliographic description. This is the same case in the chapters 4.4.1, 4.4.4 and 4.4.5. In the examples of chapter 4.4.5 there seem to be (intentional?) an extra space between the square bracket and the dash. For readability we would like to see those extra spaces in all examples.

If the interpretation of the numbering scheme proves to be incorrect during the life of the serial publication, is it allowed (or is it an obligation?) to change the information in the numbering area? Even if a cataloguer has found more correct data on his bibliographic searches?

When changes in the numbering scheme occur during the life of a serial publication may they be stated in a note? We feel that not every "small" change can be mentioned in the numbering area. This might have consequences for 4.1-4.2 and 7.5-7.6.

When a separate index, covering more than one year or volume of a serial publication, appears in a later year than the last issue of the ceased publication it is not allowed to change the publication year mentioned in chapter 4.4. This is so, because the index is then not to be considered an integral part of the numbered issues themselves.

Of course, there are indexes that have been published in a later year and they do carry some kind of an extra issue number. The publisher obviously wanted to count the index within the numbering sequence of the already ceased serial publication. If so, the numbering area and the publication date are to be adjusted.

A preliminary (introduction) issue or zero-numbered issue of a serial publication (which has been published for marketing reasons) is not to be considered an integral part of the issues stated in the numbering area. Their existence may be mentioned in a note.

In the ISBD(S) there is no example or rule given of making a note concerning a cessation of a publication. Is it allowed to make a note like for instance: "Ceased publication", or like the note used in ISSN-Compact: "Title no longer being published"?

When a serial publication does not appear anymore after a vol. 1, no. 1 issue and the publication therewith is to be considered as ceased, it seems useful to mention that fact in a note like: "Only published issue" or: "Publication ceased after vol. 1, no. 1". A frequency statement as in 7.1 seems to be superfluous, or that statement could be changed in something like: "Originally meant as a quarterly publication".

What is regarded to be "too numerous"? 3 or more, 5 or more, 10 or more? Or is that to decide by the bibliographic center?

    To the complete texts of the enlarged Dutch rules

    Back to the welcome page of the "WESP"