...and just to remind everyone, in what turned out to be the very last
set of Worst Serial Title Change Award(s), Utne reader/Utne received the
Raganathan "Save the time of the reader" Award.

Maggie Horn, then Chair of WSTCYA

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Regina Reynolds
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:50 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] New AACR2 Title Changes and "Utne"

Vickey,

Thanks for posting that "blast from the past."  I recently found another
of my emails about the previous change and that email included a
statement that the publisher intended the change to be permanent.  Not
exactly...

In conjunction with several CONSER catalogers, I
recently made the decision that this current change is minor.  For one
thing, Utne seems to be establishing a track record of going back and
forth.  Also, guidelines developed for the CONSER standard record about
determining major vs. minor changes suggest that to determine of a word
is a resource word the cataloger try placing the indefinite article in
front of the word in question, e.g.,  "a 'magazine,'" "a 'journal,'" "a
'reader,'".  So, "reader" is serving as a resource word in this case and
the decision is that the title change is minor and thus no new record
will be created and no new ISSN will be assigned.

Regina

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Baumli,Vickey wrote:

> Check out the date on this email.  I had to chuckle when an email came

> out yesterday stating that this would be the "last" title change for
> Utne Reader/Utne.
>
> Vickey Baumli
> Serials Specialist
> Owens Library
> Northwest Missouri State University
> Maryville, MO 64468
> 660-562-1536
> vbaumli@nwmissouri.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Regina Reynolds [mailto:rrey@LOC.GOV]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:55 AM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: New AACR2 Title Changes and "Utne"
>
> Chris and all confused serialsts--
>
> Here is the reasoning behind the Utne situation, and why the new
> record was created and why a new ISSN will be assigned.
>
> First and easiest, the record was created before December 1 and the
> cataloging library did not want to delay cataloging until after
> December 1.  Second, even if the situation had come up on December 2,
> several of us who discussed this would still have made a new record
> for the following
> reasons:  "reader" is not a clear-cut case of a word indicating a type

> of resource.  Given this, *and* the fact that the publisher so
> strongly indicated this was a very conscious and deliberate title
> change tilted the
> decision in favor of a new record.  Also, since it is very early in
our
> experience with the new rules, it was felt that we should be
> conservative
> in applying them so as to not set precedents that we might later want
to
> retract.  The rule about words indicating a type of resource was
> intended
> to cover those maddening cases where "magazine," "journal," or other
> common resource words come and go willy-nilly from titles or move
around
> in the titles.  This did not seem to such a case.
>
> I hope this helps to explain what was done.  It is interesting to note

> that the first words of Rule 21.2A1 are "In general..."  thus
> confirming that there are cases where judgment will be called for.
> This was such a case.  However, as our experience with the new rules
> grows, some of the cases that are puzzling now will become routine.
> Some of us remember the crisis that erupted when U.S. News and World
> Report became U.S. News & World Report (or vice versa).  A new record
> had to be created, then an RI
> was produced and the record was cancelled.  We've come a long way!
>
> Regina Reynolds
> Head, National Serials Data Program
> Library of Congress
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Chris Blackman wrote:
>
> > There is a relatively new CONSER verified record in OCLC for "Utne",
> the
> > new title variation of "Utne Reader". I'm confused by this as it is
> > my understanding that dropping "Reader" from the title no longer
> > requires
> a
> > new record by the AACR2 2002 revision that was instituted on Dec. 1
> > (However, the record was created in October and it may have been
> > verified before Dec. 1).
> >
> > I would have thought CONSER would err on the side of not verifying
> such
> > a new record. Am I wrong about the new 'new record' requirements?
> > Any enlightenment?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Christine Blackman
> > Catalog Librarian
> > Williams College Libraries
> > 55 Sawyer Library Drive.
> > Williamstown, MA  01267
> > (413) 597-4403
> > cblackma@williams.edu
> >
>
> Regina  R. Reynolds                     email: rrey@loc.gov
> Head, National Serials Data Program     voice: (202) 707-6379
> Library of Congress                     fax    (202) 707-6333
> 101 Independence Avenue, S.E.           ISSN Web page:
> lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
> Washington, D.C. 20540-4160
>

Regina 	R. Reynolds                     email: rrey@loc.gov
Head, National Serials Data Program     voice: (202) 707-6379
Library of Congress                     fax    (202) 707-6333
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.           ISSN Web page:
lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
Washington, D.C. 20540-4160