Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Question in title change -- Poh Kim Lim Stephen Clark 05 Apr 2002 13:45 UTC

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Question in title change
   Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:46:45 -0800
   From: "Lim, Poh Kim" <lim@SMCCD.NET>

 Hi All,I am not a serials cataloger, but have to do occational serials
cataloging since since we don't have a serials cataloger here. So, I
hope I can get some help from the experts in this list.We subscribe to a
magazine, title: Motor Age (OCLC 5702916), and it has gone
 through 3 title changes (or, I should say 3 different publishers)
between 1998 and now. It was originally published by Chilton, then in
Apr. 1998 Cahner took over with slight title change at the spine
(Cahner's Motor Age, cover title: MotorAge) and some library created a
new oclc record (OCLC 37908615) saying that the oringinal ISSN
(0193-7022) was incorrect (y in the 022) and gave a new ISSN #
(1520-9385) to the record . The 130 had been changed to "Motor age
(Radnor, Pa. : 1997)" and  there were two 246 with 18 as indicator to
reflect the spine title.However, after the Apr 1998 issue, the magazine
seems to continue with the old ISSN # (0193-7022). The problem is in
Apr. 2001, Advanstar Communications took over the publication and uses
the old ISSN # (0193-7022), the spine title is "Motor Age" and the cover
title is also "Motor Age" with a small font on
top says "Advanstar's publication" and inside the magazine, the title is
"Advanstar's Motor Age" where all the publication info. located .
I created a new record (OCLC 49219467) to reflect the change from
Cahner's Motor Age to Advanstar's Motor Age, but our database manager
(an ex-cataloger)  is asking me to delete the new record and  reflect
the changes in the 1998 record (oclc 37908615). Do you think this is
acceptable? Since oclc 37908615 already has a 780 (for the original
Chilton's Motor Age), can I add another 780 to reflect changes from
Cahner's? I don't quite agree with the database manager that I can
simply put all the new info into the old record because the new
publication does not mention either Chilton's or Cahner's information at
all. And oclc 37908615 has all the info. about Chilton and Cahner
because the change over was mentioned in the publication in Apr. 1998.
I would really appreciate it if any of you can show me some light on how
you would handle this problem.Thank you all very much.  Kim LimSkyline