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