>From Rick Gildemeister
2 messages, 142 lines:
-------------------------

Date:         Thu, 13 Oct 1994 08:24:44 EDT
From:         "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 130 serials vs. series

On Wed, 12 Oct 1994 18:59:22 EST Kevin M. Randall said:
>Rick Gildemeister makes a distinction between serials and monographic
>series, seeing them as practically mutually exclusive terms.  However,
>monographic series is a subset of serial; the rules for formulating titles
>(and uniform titles) are the same for monographic series as for other kinds
>of serials.

I'm glad a couple of people reminded me of this. As I mentioned to one person
who replied to me privately, I've thought of them as different because of the
*treatment* of series. My responder yesterday indicated that in his library
monographic series that are series are treated as serials. My up-to-now
perspective comes from the fact that every library I've worked in classes
series together or separately, but never makes what used to be referred to
as a "covering card".

>Rick said:  "... if the publisher changed, one would simply create a new
>series authority with the new publisher as qualifier and make 530's. This is
>different from creating a new bibliographic record for a serial."  On the
>contrary, this is not different from creating a new bibliographic record for
>a serial; creating separate authority records, linked by 530 fields, is in
>effect successive entry cataloging, analogous to creating separate
>bibliographic records linked by 780/785 fields.

Kevin is absolutely right here. Maybe I just want a change in my routine! I've
always loved authority control and authority records.

>I am definitely in agreement with Rick regarding wanting to relax the rules
>for title qualifiers; but unlike him, I would like to see corporate bodies
>used as qualifiers more often not only for monographic series but for other
>serials, at least when there appears to be a close relationship between the
>body and the publication.  (My rule of thumb would be:  If it seems likely
>that the publication wouldn't exist apart from the body, or that the
>publication will be associated with the body for a long time, use the body
>as a qualifier if one is necessary.)

I knew this would come; relax a bit and before you know it you're back to
corporate body as primary choice. <wink> The entire focus of my presentation at
last year's Midwinter session of the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
was on situations where the present version of LCRI 25.5B prescribes corporate
body for qualifiers of serials with identical titles published in the same
place. In cases that Kevin points out, such as when the relationship of the
body to the publication is a strong one, I think present practice should be
retained. If you know you're getting into a situation where you have only a
succession of commercial publishers, or somewhere along the line you see that
no corporate body at all is associated with the work, I would prefer using
place and date. And Kevin, the CONSER libraries and LC are already doing it.
It's an undocumented practice. My proposed revision to the RI includes a pro-
vision for this as a legitimate practice. However, Kevin, I stick to my guns
and prefer place over corporate body when it's just a matter of distinguishing
two serials with identical titles but published in different places; or let's
say I advocate keeping that portion of the RI. My purpose is not to "change"
the RI but to make it more workable. Where I was really irresponsible in my
message was when I got into the second aspect of the proposed revision of
the RI, and that is that what would be allowed would be "greater cataloger
freedom" to exercise judgment. I know that that phrase was made by someone
from LC in the context
of allowing place and date, *not* as a license to treat series differently
and use corporate body *exclusively*. After I sent the message and realized
what I was saying I was very uncomfortable, and I take it back here.

>I think it would get too confusing to try to emphasize corporate body over
>place as qualifier for monographic series, and to emphasize place over
>corporate body as qualifier for other serials.  Many monographic series may
>be treated as classed sep items in one library, classed together analyzed
>serials in another, and classed together unanalyzed serials in yet another.
>The distinction between kinds of serials is not universal.

Here's where I went awry. I'll be open and personal. I've felt all along, and
especially after reading the arguments of folks who want *only* corporate body,
that I haven't "given" in this area. My motivation was that after looking more
closely at the problems of our LC copy catalogers I felt sympathy for the
use of corporate body qualifier because it would match the piece in their
hands, whereas they get upset when a place qualifier is used but does not
match the place of publication of the present piece being cataloged as a
monograph. I've explained the RI to them and they don't like it, and I know
so many of my colleagues out there, including you, Kevin, want corporate
body because it aids in *identifying* the serial. However, in the Committee
to Study Serials Cataloging we dealt with the purpose of qualifiers, and a lot
of us felt that the purpose of the qualifier is to *differentiate* not identify
a publication. Anyway, I'm being open, and I have to say when I had that flash
of recognition that series might be an area where I could "give" I seized
upon it. I also somehow felt that this might have been an area the folks
at LC thought appropriate for making an exception.

Well, I've learned a lesson, and that is, not to personalize all this. I have
a pretty clear point of view on 25.5B and we can all deal professionally with
this and not get either hotheaded on the one hand, and sentimental on the
other (me).

Thanks Kevin.

Rick Gildemeister
Cataloger/OCLC Enhance Coordinator
Lehman College of the City University of New York

--------------------------
Date:         Thu, 13 Oct 1994 09:26:15 EDT
From:         "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      130's, RI's, and the larger picture

I'll summarize a discussion a good friend of mine, also a serials cataloger,
and I had. She pointed out to me that there are two incompatible philosophies
at work here. The first was what she called the "LC perspective". This
philosophy is that the framework of the rules and RI's are all we have
going for us, and that to disregard them results in chaos. The other side
she called the "Carol Mandel stance", where "laborious RI's" and arbitrary
rules prevent us from using what is really needed, catalogers' judgment.

My friend said that I was trying to find a middle ground and that I was
inviting opposition from both sides.

For the record, then, I feel that the basic framework of the rules and Ri's
need to be kept. And, as another colleague I consulted said, the RI's must
be followed as written. However, there are areas where judgment calls must
be made, and *that fact* or those areas, need to be clearly woven into the
framework and the fabric of the rules and the RI's.

One woman present at the meeting of the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
last Midwinter contemptuously said, "Anyone who needs LC to tell them what
to do has no business being a serials cataloger". I smiled to myself, because
here I was, me telling LC what to do! But she did pick up on something deeper.
When the rules and RI's are followed as written, and an unworkable situation
is identified, a cataloger has the responsibility and the duty to work toward
changing it. I uphold LC's authority, but I want "my" view woven into the
fabric, because it works and will better bolster the framework.

So, we're at Rick telling LC what to do, but telling LC what LC should tell
him to do!

Good morning, folks!

Rick Gildemeister
Cataloger/OCLC Enhance Coordinator
Lehman College, CUNY