Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: Successive vs. Latest Entry Cataloging Robert C. Coleman 23 Sep 1993 21:05 UTC

My sympathies, I'll confess out front, are with the camp that
believes successive entry cataloging--at least for titles with
continuous vol. numbering--was an idea whose time, in the dawn of
an online environment, had past. Do catalogers anywhere get
thanks or comprehension from public service, binding, patrons,
administration, etc., for fracturing records and holdings and
creating multiple index entries?  But: I realize this is a policy
that won't be quickly or easily reversed and we try to observe
it faithfully in our fashion.

Editorial over, here's my question: what these days *is* a
faithful observance of successive entry? The last time I thought
I knew what constituted a title change it was ANY change in the
first five words, any significant change, addition or deletion
thereafter.  More and more often when I go to OCLC expecting to
find a record for a new title (based on these principles) I find
the old record has been "updated" to include the current title in
a 246, or some other "creative, often radical solutions" (as Rick
Gildemeister calls them). I'm ALL FOR avoiding the unnecessary
creation of multiple records, but I'm increasingly befuddled
about what necessary is.      Any concensus gratefully received!

Cary Coleman
Serials Unit, Cataloging Dept.
Alderman Lib., Univ. of Virginia