Re: Title change? Elizabeth McDonald 18 May 2004 18:24 UTC


Cataloger's judgment makes me think of undergraduate training in
biology, where there were lumpers and splitters.  This is where when
people are determining if species are different from one another.
Lunpers tend to see cominalities and lump more groups together.
Splitters see differences and make more different species.  Neither is
actually wrong, they are just different ways to look at the same
thing.   I have always felt the same divisions apply to title changes
with serials.  Some of us are lumpers and some are splitters depending
on our judgement calls and as Steve said, as long as the cataloging
isn't wrong accept it.

Elizabeth McDonald
University of Memphis

Steve Shadle wrote:

>Enrique said:
>>Some people are pleased that more and more stuff is being left up to
>>"cataloger's judgment".  My feeling is that in the shared environment
>>like CONSER/OCLC it can make it even worse if you're not a participant,
>>because variations are unpredictable. And, it's hard to make a serials
>>copy cataloging unit run if you don't have simple, clear, finite
>Enrqiue et al. -- There has always been a certain amount of judgment
>involved in serials cataloging and I'm not sure that the 2002 revisions
>actually provide for more cataloger judgment (although I will agree that
>the new major/minor rules introduce a complexity that will require more
>consideration and more cases of 'change of scope' will probably need to be
>considered).  I've tried to train copy catalogers in the difference
>between the 'rules' and 'judgment' and stressed that as long as the
>record's internal logic is consistent and follows CONSER practice, then
>different judgments can appropriately be made.  'Does the cataloging copy
>clearly not follow a rule?' is one of the questions that needs to be asked
>Getting back to Carol's question, now that I've referred to what many of
>us informally call the 'look elsewhere' rule (12.1B3 & RI), I'll give you
>my personal cataloger's judgment.  Carol stated that Feb. 2004 had an
>issue-specific title and that Mar. 2004 (and on) had a different title.
>Title A -Jan. 2004
>Title B Feb. 2004
>Title C Mar. 2004-
>Obviously you have to go with chief source presentations and since Title A
>& Title C appear to be stable, there should be records for these two
>titles.  Personally, I would consider Title B a title of short duration
>(one issue theme title) and would look elsewhere to determine whether the
>publisher considered Feb. 2004 to be an issue of Title A or Title C.  Now
>if the publisher changed every presentation (masthead, running, etc.) to
>Title B, then it would seem a pretty conscious decision on the part of hte
>publisher to change the title and it could be that maybe Title B should
>get it's own record (as much as I hate to say it).
>Was there any mention in a preface or editorial statement that Title B was
>really a 'special' or one-time issue?  Any mention that it was going to
>change it's scope to Title C?  Any mention in Mar. 2004 about *why* they
>changed their title after a one-issue blip?  If presented with a situation
>like Carol's, these are some of the questions I would be asking myself.
>Now, if another CONSER library came along and made a different judgment,
>as long as the cataloging was done correctly, I would probably accept it,
>even though their judgment might differ from mine.  Given the nature of
>serial publishing and AACR, I'm not sure how we could reduce cataloger's
>judgment while still providing usable records.  One of the goals of the
>new major/minor change rules was to eliminate what appeared to be
>duplicate or useless records.  The old rules were generally easier to
>apply (less subject to judgment) but produced more records.
>Just some random thoughts.  --Steve
>    Steve Shadle   *******
>    Serials Cataloger                                *****
>    University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900    ***
>    Seattle, WA 98195               (206) 685-3983     *