Serials Cataloging Practice Recording Summary Holdings, Incorporating ANSI/NISO Z39.71
The following is my understanding of SerCat practice for recording compressed summary holdings statements, as enunciated by David Van Hoy and Jo Lynne Payne in light of ANSI/NISO standard Z39.71, when we first started entering holdings into an automated system.
1. ANSI/NISO provides that compressed summary holdings statements may be entered at either Level 3: v.1 (1920)-v.2 (1921), or Level 4: (v.1:no.1 (1920:Jan.)-v.2:no.12 (1921:Dec.). These levels may even be combined in a single coverage statement, as in the case where some holdings are in storage and are being cataloged retrospectively, and others of the same title are in hand. However, the description level must be the same on each side of the dash. Thus, if there is a gap at the 2nd level of enum/chron, e.g. v.1:no.1 (1920:Jan.)-v.1:no.3 (1920:Mar.),v.1:no.5 (1920:May)-v.2:no.12 (1921:Dec.) all the elements in that sequence must be Level 4 description.
2. It was SerCat's decision to open new holdings statements at Level 4. This was partly in anticipation of the long-awaited and much-touted feature coming in the next generation of ILS's, where each newly checked-in item (described at Level 4) would automatically update the summary statement for that title's holdings, plus indicate gaps. This hasn't happened yet. Also, this level of description was necessary if a title change occurred in the middle of an enum/chron run, for example if a title changed from A to B with v.2:no.5.
3. David and Jo Lynne ruled that is was OK to reconfigure Level 4 holdings to Level 3 once the coverage was closed, if there were no gaps and breaks, and (this was subjective) if there were no sorts of anomalies in the holdings statement. For example, if a title started with v.1: no.1 (1960:June) and ended with v.2:no.6 (1961:Dec.) it was felt to be better to record this uneven publication pattern at Level 4, rather than just v.1 (1960)-v.2 (1961).
4. We were allowed, when the recording of multiple gaps in a holdings statement threatened to overcome common sense, or when the actual Level 4 holdings completeness was difficult to ascertain, to use the word "incomplete" after open or closed holdings.
I would like to suggest that we dispense with Level 4 holdings statements for e-resources, except in the case of gaps or a title changing (or our holdings beginning) mid-sequence. SFX is not following the MARC and ANSI/NISO guidelines. It is often impossible for the cataloger to ascertain from the website or the PDF's, which often lack cover or masthead, what the exact enum/chron of an "issue" is. I think Level 3 description gives the user sufficient information for finding the material s/he is looking for. Although this may make for inconsistent expression between the print holdings and the e-holdings on a single record, we are already living with that inconsistency in SFX/public Vera.