Hi Mitch -- In the current cataloging environment, because the title of Business Mexico doesn't change, I would consider the relationship between Business Mexico and Mexico Update to be an absorption, rather than a merger and (as you suggested) would use the [new ser.] practice to indicate the renumbering.

Personally, I would only consider it a merger if there was a new title that resulted from the previous two titles.

Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian  *****  shadle@u.washington.edu
University of Washington Libraries      ***     Phone: (206) 685-3983
Seattle, WA 98195-2900                   *        Fax: (206) 543-0854

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Mitch Turitz wrote:

> Posted on 2 lists.  I apologize for duplication.
>
> I have a question about an old title change I am cleaning up.  I looked at the
> title Business Mexico (OCLC# 10535093), and "Business Mexico (Mexico City,
> Mexico : 1991)  OCLC# 23709222.
>
> Business Mexico (without the qualifier) is the first title,vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct.
> 1983) 1983-v.7 (Dec. 1990).  Published quarterly. It Merged with: Mexico update
> (which we do not have) to form the monthly publication: Business Mexico (Mexico
> City, Mexico : 1991).  The volume numbering starts over at vol. 1 (1991) with
> the new title. Please note: the subject headings are the same, except for the
> new heading:
> 651 0 Mexico $x Economic conditions $y 1994- $v Periodicals.
> Both titles include among other identical headings:
> 651 0 Mexico $x Economic conditions $y 1982-1994 $v Periodicals.
>
> As I was taught back in the days of catalog cards that you create successive
> entry for identical titles, ONLY when the numbering restarts at vol. 1, AND the
> subject matter has changed (besides the times when an author changes or
> qualifier in 130 changes for corporate author, etc.) Otherwise it just a
> numbering change.
>
> In this case, since it was 15 years ago that it was cataloged and today we are
> more into the "simplification" of cataloging, if this title would have had
> "[New Ser.] Vol. 1, no. 1 added to the 362 instead of doing successive entry if
> you cataloged it? Or would you do successive entry and why?
>
> Comments?
>
> -- Mitch
>
>
> --
> _^_                                                 _^_
> (___)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ( ___ )
> |   |                                               |   |
> |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
> |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
> |   |     voice: (415) 338-7883                     |   |
> |   |     CFA:   (415) 338-6232                     |   |
> |   |                                               |   |
> |   |                                               |   |
> (___)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==- ( ___ )
>  V                                                   V
>