Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:29:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Shadle <shadle@u.washington.edu>
To: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum" <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
First to answer Nancy's question, under current rules
The Drama Review --> TDR
is considered a minor change (21.2A2.a). However, this record was created
under old rules so the question (though interesting and useful) doesn't
help in determining whether a record created before Dec. 2002 is
appropriate.
Observations:
* According to the record for TDR (#50670623), it appears that the full
form still appears on the chief source as it is transcribed as other title
information. This alone is enough to question why this record was created
as there doesn't seem to be any other change (re-numbering, corporate body
changes) which would cause a new record to be created under pre- or
post-2002 rules.
* The Drama Review (#2268763) has number of 019's. I'm guessing records
have the 1988 change have been created and cancelled more than once.
* The online version (Project Muse) continues to present both the acronym
and full form of the title. Lacking a clear editorial statement, I'm
assuming the change on the print record is an unintentional title change.
* It appears NSDP assigned a new ISSN (1054-2043) for TDR (#50670623) but
there is no NSDP authentication on that record. However, the ISSN does
appear in ISSN Online. Perhaps, the new ISSN was originally assigned to
one of the cancelled records and then the ISSN was incorrectly cancelled
later?? Note that the ISSN Online record for the previous title does not
have a link to the later title, so this needs to be fixed in the ISSN
database in any case. 1054-2043 is being printed in the current issues.
Regina...would you care to investigate?
* Our local version of the earlier title record (with a spring 1999 latest
issue consulted) has:
500 Issues for <1999-> lack full form of title on cover.
We may have input this or this may have come from an earlier library
working on the record. This does look odd when compared to
500 Title from cover.
since one would assume that the chief source was the cover and the form
chosen as title proper was dropped from chief source. However, what this
note implies to me is that in 1968 there was no title page, but at some
point, a title page began to be printed and then beginning with <1999>,
only the cover dropped the full form but the full form continued to be
printed on the title page. In any case, the note no longer appears on the
record. LCRI 12.0B2 is pretty clear about the fact that the only time you
don't use t.p. as chief source is in retrospective cataloging. Newly
revised CCM 16.2.5b instructs the cataloger to continue to use the
original source (in this case cover as title page substitute) when a title
page is added on later issues only if the title page has a different title
(to avoid creating a new record). This is not the case here as it appears
the title page has the original title.
Now having said all that (and completely bored all of you but the most
die-hard serials catalogers ;-), I examined the current issue (didn't have
immediate access to the spring 1988 issue) and Nancy is correct, it turns
out to be a cataloger's definition of a title page. The page in question
has a "banner" (for lack of a better word) at the top with both forms of
title. The top half of the page contains editorial info and the bottom
half contains a picture and caption and notes about the front and back
covers. Not really looking like a traditional title page and in reviewing
CCM 3.2.1c I would probably not consider it a title page. But I only
examined current issues, I don't know what earlier issues looked like to
know how to judge those. Also in looking at current issues, the full form
is appearing in many other places (spine, running title), just not on the
cover.
IMONSHO, because of the ISSN considerations, I think NSDP should really
step in to this in and determine whether a new record and ISSN are
required. --Steve
Steve Shadle shadle@u.washington.edu *******
Serials Cataloger *****
University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900 ***
Seattle, WA 98195 (206) 685-3983 *
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Nancy Burns wrote:
> > Why a cover would be used rather than a perfectly good title page for
> > the chief source of information is odd, and the 245 not even matching
> > the cover.
>
> The reason you aren't seeing a title change is because you ARE
> seeing a "perfectly good title page". Often, and I think in this case, it
> is hard to say whether a page is a true title page. CONSER says: "Some
> pages obviously are title pages, others obviously are not title pages, and
> in between there is a wide range of possibilities that keep catalogers
> guessing!"
> If, as on the records you cite, the cover is selected as chief
> source, then there certainly was a title change between v. 31 and 32,
> because "Drama review", which had formerly been the title proper,
> disappeared completely from the cover/chief source at that point. I agree
> that the later record is incorrect insofar as the 245 subfield b; I think
> "Drama review" should instead be coded as 246 13, as an "Other Title", as
> it doesn't appear on the cover/chief source.
> I'm not yet familiar enough with the new title change rules to
> know if they make a difference to the handling of this sort of situation;
> would be interested to hear if so. Certainly it's the sort of change that
> always makes catalogers groan.
>
> Nancy Burns
> Cataloging Unit IV (Serials)
> Princeton University Library
> nburns@princeton.edu
>
