[789] in ad-lib
Re: Proposal for SERMS that are numbered series
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcvh@MIT.EDU)
Wed Jun 7 17:15:44 1995
From: dcvh@MIT.EDU
To: Ellen Finnie Duranceau <efinnie@MIT.EDU>
Cc: acq2@MIT.EDU, ad-lib@MIT.EDU, marylin@MIT.EDU, dcvh@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Jun 1995 12:55:09 EDT."
<9506071655.AA07372@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 17:15:28 EDT
Ellen,
After several readings of the proposal I sit here with many questions
and no answers. To use a current cliche, I just don't get it.
Why just numbered series? What about unnumbered series?
What about analyzed "series" of conference publications?
Blanket orders, etc.?
Isn't there a _real_ serials acquisitions *check-in record* for each
series? What is a "phony acquisitions record" and why is it showing
in the OPAC? Indeed, if a non-standard entry such as SPIE
publications check-in record is to be created for the OPAC and/or
serials receipts, why not just go all the way and utilize the real
OCLC record for the monographic series? (This would, of course, bring
up once again the subject of analytics in the database!)
Then, to play the skeptic, I could also ask: So, what is it about the
monographic series receipt process that is so unacceptably cumbersome?
And why should I blindly accept that analysis (said with a wry smile)?
Is it possible (I truly do not know) that an increased amount of time
is being put forth in seracq, but less time is being put forth in
other quarters (e.g., processing offices, monocat)?
As I have just demonstrated I am bewildered, confused, and probably
way off-base. But, I thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate
this in an Advanced electronic forum!
dvh
