Have questions that you would like to share with your law cataloger colleagues? Please send them to the author of this column. Want to write about a description and entry problem? Please contact me with your contribution.

Since the 2nd edition of Cataloging Rules for the Description of Looseleaf Publications (CRDLP) appeared in 1989, the publishing world has undergone many changes. CRDLP rule 11C addresses the problem of services issued in several component parts. Several options are discussed, including cataloging each component separately. CRDLP recommends a single bibliographic record with a note listing all the components. I am going to illustrate what I believe to be an additional possibility in dealing with complex sets. Some sets may warrant a combination treatment: a bibliographic record with a note for some of the components and separate records for particular other components.

The United States tax reporter has gone through many changes: publishers, titles, etc. Even before 1992, when RIA began to publish the reporter, several components had taken on what I describe as a "life" of their own. Two components, which are separately numbered volumes, have additional titles of Excise taxes (I v, (looseleaf)) and Estate and gift taxes (2 v. (looseleaf) ). These two components, unlike other parts of the larger set, have separate sequentially numbered and issued reports/bulletins with true dependent titles on them. Thus, you have filing instructions that come with three titles:

United States tax reporter
United States tax reporter. Estate and gift taxes
United States tax reporter. Excise taxes.

In addition to these two components, the main set has separately numbered volumes for the Internal Revenue Code, but these are updated by the main reporter updates and listed in the contents pages of the set while the other two components are not.

Should the way in which a publisher charges for a set influence cataloging? Usually the cataloger doesn't have a clue, but in truly integrated online systems this is no longer necessarily true. In the above case the publisher bills separately for these two additional components, indicating that RIA considers them "companions" to the main reporter. What are the advantages of cataloging the Excise taxes and Estate and gift taxes separately? Certainly from a records management standpoint filing instruction pages that match the full 245 field of the bibliographic record is an advantage for staff retrieval. OPAC's that include $p in the indexing for titles would have a retrieval advantage with the separate records. Because each record could have more specific subject headings, subject access would also be enhanced. Although separate classification for the separately cataloged components is a possibility, classing the sets immediately adjacent to each other would probably be a better choice.

The resulting records would look something like the following:

245 00 United States tax reporter-
246 3  Prentice Hall federal taxes 2nd
246 3  Federal taxes 2nd
260    New York, NY: $bResearch Institute of America,$cc1990-
300    23 v. (loose-leaf); $c26 cm.
500    Title history: Prentice Hall federal taxes 2nd (1990);
Federal taxes 2nd (1990-1992).
500    Published: Paramus, N.J.: Prentice Hall (1990-1991);
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Maxwell Macmillan (1991-1992).
505  0 v. 1-16. Income taxes -- v. 17.  AFTR 2d decisions --
v. 18.  Federal tax regulations -- Internal Revenue Code (2 v.).
Excise taxes (1 v.) (Estate & gift taxes 2 v.)

245 00 United States tax reporter. $pExcise taxes.
260    New York, NY: $bRIA, $c[19--]-
300    1 v. (loose-leaf) ; $c25 cm.
650  0 Excise tax$xlaw and legislation$zUnited States.

245 00 United States tax reporter. $pEstate and gift taxes.
260    New York, NY: $bRIA, $c1963-
300    2 v. (loose-leaf) ; $c26 cm.
650  0 Inheritance and transfer tax$zUnited States.
650  0 Gifts$xTaxation$zUnited States.