On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
<snip>Just because no one complains doesn't mean that they understand it. If people (catalogers yet!) have not even been able to understand the difference understand a 440--so much so that it had to be abandoned for processes that demand more inputting--or if the concept of "surname [comma] forename" is becoming too cumbersome, there is absolutely no way that the untrained layperson can understand something this complicated. What could very well be happening is that people rather draw the wrong conclusions, or if everything is classed as a set, they go to the shelves and find the item there. If they have problems, they just do something else.
If 730 is used for some, that excludes them from the series search, leading to missed items. Most ILS we support, even if they have a separate series search (including our inhouse software), also include 830 series in title search. Search results are more consistent with the use of 830.
We've never had a complaint about partial analysis of serials/series not being understood at the OPAC.
That said, I agree that there are tons of improvements that can be made and perhaps we could even find simplifications. For instance, while there is certainly a need for to distinguish 730 (uniform title added entry--primarily for analytics) from 830 (uniform title specifically for series), why can't we just throw all of the analysed serial titles into the 830 as well? Is there anything of value lost?