Uniform Title Qualifiers, Etc. Marcia Tuttle 21 Oct 1994 15:21 UTC
3 messages
1----------
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 09:26:25 -0700
From: Mitch Turitz <TURITZ@MERCURY.SFSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Uniform title qualifiers etc. (Christine Hulse)
Chris:
There will never be a solution to this problem which will both satisfy
everyone and handle every case. My suggestion for using a uniform title
added entry if the corporate body (or place) changes is to eliminate
UNNECESSARY successive entry cataloging if the TITLE PROPER remains
unchanged.
Certainly the patrons are not served by "artificial" title changes when
the new cataloging record is only different in the uniform title qualifier
but everything else in the record remains unchanged.
Please note: under AACR1 when the rule was, more or less, to put
everything under an author main entry whenever possible, there was this
constant need for successive entry cataloging even if the title proper
remained unchanged. If you cataloged one of these titles today (i.e.
corporate body M.E. under AACR1 that would today be title M.E.), if the
corporate body added entry changed, you would NOT do successive entry
today, even if you would have done so under AACR1. So essentially, I am
proposing an extension of the AACR2 relaxation of the strict (and
unnecessary) AACR1 requirements for successive entry cataloging.
Again, I wish to point out that these are just my "desires" and personal
opinions and not any formal proposal.
-- Mitch
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
| | | |
| | Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian | |
| | San Francisco State University Library | |
| | Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu | |
| | | |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
V V
"Talent is a flame. Genius is a fire." - BERN WILLIAMS
2---------
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:04:27 EDT
From: "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC%CUNYVM.bitnet@uvmvm.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: Uniform title qualifiers etc. (Christine Hulse)
Chris,
There are situations not covered in LCRI 25.5B. The provision for assigning
corporate body when two serials with the same title and published in the same
place can result in problems; many serials I've worked with have had a
succession of commercial publishers, with the result that one gets a prolifera-
tion of undesirable title changes. Another type of serial I've worked with
will start off with no body at all, except the name of the serial itself
followed by "Inc." then will become the organ of an issuing body, then of ano-
ther body. Or, another, is a serial with a corporate body that drops off.
In these types of situation many catalogers have exercised professional
judgment and simply used a qualifier made of place : date, even though these
situations are not covered by LCRI 25.5B. The Library of Congress is working
on the RI to incorporate some of these situations and allow the practice
referred to above, emphasizing cataloger's judgment on what decision is most
appropriate.
The former assistant chief of LC's Serial Record Division wrote me and said
that it's impossible to reconcile all the problems with uniform titles for
serials, and there will always be people that will want corporate body
qualifier in all cases. My own feeling is that if people look for the body
they're most likely going to search for the body as an added name entry, not
as a qualifier. The controversy is: Isn't corporate body qualifier more
meaningful to the user than place, especially if that place is no longer
associated with the title? You then need to ask, Is the function of the
qualifier to inform the user about the nature of the publication (which I
think they can get by looking into the body of the entry and the note area)
or is it used as a cataloger's device simply to distinguish each publication
carrying the same title? I fall in the latter camp. I also think Lynne
Hayman's observation about another function of uniform titles is very good,
that when citing serials and creating linking entries, a unique serial
identifier, i.e. a uniform title, makes it very clear what the various
relationships are. But to come back to the main question at hand, which is
what qualifier to use, we all want to get away from unnecessary title
changes. If you used Mitch's method, you might end up stuck if you cite
the relationship of one serial to another, especially if the serial is
entered under most recent uniform title plus body. If you treat such a
bibliographic record as one serial, it complicates the linking entries,
which would all have to be revised to be in conformity with the current
main entry. And, as Lynne showed us, those relationships are very complex
sometimes and you can get all sorts of serial families with 30-odd records.
Imagine reevaluating all those relationships each time the body changes.
Anyway, I've contributed enough on this discussion and have not posted in
several days, but I liked what you said, Chris, and thought I'd jump in.
What Mitch says is very important and might be workable in some simple
situations, but let's come back to LC's observation that there will always
be disagreements, no matter what, and I feel that the revision-in-progress
of LCRI 25.5B gives us the most freedom in a sticky situation (we're still
going to have to use records we may not approve of, and we'll have to stress
use of a master record (if we use OCLC) and not input a new record simply
because in our (cataloger's) judgment the serial should "really" be done
differently). We have to stick by such situations because we work in a
shared environment. Now RLIN is another story; everyone has their own
record. Anyway, this is a long signoff. Thanks loads, Chris for your
contributions; very thoughtful, clear, and incisive.
*******************************************************************
* Rick Gildemeister *
* Cataloger/OCLC Enhance Coordinator *
* Lehman College, CUNY *
* "Facilis descensus Averno" *
* Voice: (718) 960-8831 *
* Fax: (718) 960-8952 *
* BITNET: eeglc@cunyvm *
* Internet: eeglc@cunyvm.cuny.edu *
*******************************************************************
3----------
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 12:25:24 +22303754
From: Christine Hulse <C.Hulse@NLA.GOV.AU>
Subject: Re: Uniform title qualifiers etc.
Melissa,
I agree it is harmless to include the year in the 362 field when it is not
accompanied by the month. It seems to be unnecessarily pedantic to
preclude it for the reasons given in the LCRI in CSB 54. Participants of
the Australian Bibliographic Network generally follow the LCRI in an
effort to maintain consistency with records loaded onto the database via
LC tapes - hence the problem.
Regards,
Chris Hulse
Serials Cataloguer
National Library of Australia
On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Melissa Hartley wrote:
> When there is volume and number, but no month, but the
> year is regular, our library has traditionally kept the year
> in the numeric/chronological designation area (362 field)
> and used the date in the call number on the bound volumes.
>
> I haven't seen problems arise from this, only that the vol.
> and year correlation/regularity might change. However, that
> doesn't impair identification; this practice is pretty
> harmless. It probably much more useful for users to see how
> old the volume is.
>
> Melissa Hartley
> Catalog Division
> Kerr Library, Oregon State University
> Corvallis, OR
> hartleym@ccmail.orst.edu
*****************************************************************
_________________
T T T T T T T T Christine Hulse
I I I I I I I I C.Hulse@nla.gov.au
I I I I I I I I National Library of Australia
T T T T T T T T Phone: +616 2621317
=================== Fax: +616 xxxxxxx
*****************************************************************