Serial Uniform titles & LCRI 25.5B Mitch Turitz 12 Feb 1996 15:48 UTC

WARNING: to non-serial catalogers:  If you are not interested in the
real nitty-gritty of successive entry cataloging and uniform titles,
skip this (long) message now! -- Mitch   ;-)

  I am replying to both you and Autocat and Serialst since this question
regularly crops up as serials catalogers encounter this situation and ask
the same questions as they read through the (lengthy) Library of Congress
Rule Interpretation 25.5B (Conflict resolution Serials).


  This issue has been discussed by the ALA ALCTS Committee to Study
Serials Cataloging about 8 years ago when I brought up the identical
subject.  It was also recently brought up again by Rick Guildemeister
about 2 years ago.

  The ORIGINAL purpose of a uniform title qualifier for serials was to
distinguish different serial titles which have identical titles proper.
(e.g. look in almost any large online catalog and see how many identical
titles for "Focus" appear).  At one point Dorothy Glasby, of LC, had
proposed that the qualifier be the ISSN, as the qualifier need only be
unique and was not intended to give any "intellectual" description.

  This is the exact opposite of what a uniform title (rule 25.5B) is for
monographs!  For monographs the purpose is to bring different titles
proper together (e.g. Bible; musical works, etc.).

  Unfortunately, since the LCRI allows different kinds of qualifiers,
(place, date, corporate body) there are different problems associated with
each qualifier.  Although the problems associated with corporate body are
the most familiar to even non-serials catalogers that is probably (in MY
humble opinion) why the LCRI says that you must do successive entry
cataloging if the corporate body in the uniform title qualifier changes,
EVEN IF THE TITLE PROPER DOES NOT CHANGE.  (There is a similar problem in
(the same?) LCRI which says that if the publication format changes from
being published in paper and microformat to ONLY being published in
microformat, that you must create a successive entry record for that (new)
micro-only format).  Therefore, the rules say that you do not even have to
mention the change of place of publication, in the added entries, if that
is used as the qualifier.  The only case where you need to do something is
if the Corporate Body is used as a qualifier and it (the corporate body)
changes.  This is similar to old AACR1 rules where everything was entered
under corporate body and you had to do successive entry if the corporate
body changed, even if the title proper remained the same.

  so those are the rules (and rule interpretations).  Now, what can we do
about them?  Well, I have several suggestions:

1.) In cases where the place is the qualifier, and the place of
publication changes, but the LCRI says do NOT create a successive record,
you CAN create a uniform title added entry (730) with the new place of
publication as an added etnry.  This will allow access to the same record
without having to do successive entry cataloging and it will help the
check-in person identify which is the correct record to use.  (We need to
remember the people who use the bib. records to check in these things!  If
the issue in hand has a different place of publication, which is used as
the qualifier, they may think it is a different title)

2.) In cases where the corporate body has changed, but not the title
proper, you could just make a new added entry for the uniform title with the
new qualifier (as per 1. above).  Although this would not be following the
LCRI by not creating successive records, it is technically not a violation
of AACR2.  You would only be doing it differently from that Library in
Washington, D.C.  Your records would be out-of-sync with any future
copy-cataloging of that title, but it would be your choice as to how it
appears in your catalog.  You need to take into account how cataloging
best serves your patrons (remember them?).

Basically, unnecessary successive entry confuses the patrons and
reference librarians.  We need to catalog for our patrons and not for
other catalogers.  We also don't want to do anything which would
require that we go back to the catalog and have to change the way all
our old cataloging was done.  Just my opinions.

-- Mitch
  _^_                                                 _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
 |   |                                               |   |
 |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
 |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
 |   |     Internet:                 |   |
 |   |                                               |   |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
   V                                                   V
       Rule #1: Don't sweat the small stuff.
       Rule #2: It's ALL small stuff.
Date:  Thu, 8 Feb 1996 13:42:00 CST
Subject: Serial uniform titles

Autocatters - I am sending the following question on behalf of my
colleague, who is not subscribed to Autocat.  Please respond directly to
her address as noted at the end of the message. - Karen Nobbs

I have a question regarding the RI for 25.5B. Conflict
resolution.Serials... Section 7)e) "Changes in uniform title headings"
"If something other than a corporate body has been used as a
qualifying term and there is a change in its form or in fact, do *not*
create a new entry."

Does this mean that the qualifying term should be changed or not?  If not,
are we allowed to make some kind of reference? It seems to me to be very
confusing for users of the catalog to have an obsolete qualifier as the
only access to a title that is probably hard to pin down in the first
place. (Otherwise we wouldn't be making a qualifier for it.) Does anyone
have any ideas, or definite pronouncements?  Thanks for any help you can
give me.Please respond directly to: