Another factor in the "cataloger's judgment" is how the national agencies, such as LC or NLM are handling the title. In medical libraries, when our patrons find a citation in Medline, they will look for the title in the form it is cited. So for the sake of our patrons ease of locating the issues, we must take that in consideration. Another factor for us in medical libraries, our journal holdings are listed in National Library of Medicine's Serhold database. Serhold is based on NLM's cataloging, and it gets tricky trying to reflect your holdings accurately when you deviate from NLM's cataloging. It can be done because I've done it, but as I said it does get tricky. When I do deviate, I always document on our local record which records on both OCLC and Serhold I have used to reflect our holdings. Otherwise, changes withdrawals or adds to holdings can drive me completely up the wall! When I worked in a private academic library, we took Library of Congress' and CONSER's cataloging in to consideration. Thus, we did generally go along with the run we would find on OCLC. Why reinvent the wheel? Occasionally, however, we would have information which would justify the extra time and effort it took to "deviate" from what we found on OCLC. So, when I'm faced with a possible title change, I take local needs, AND national standards, rules, and practice, AND what I find on NLM's LocatorPlus and OCLC, AND the information at hand into consideration. If I don't feel I have enough information, I can and do ask our vendor for more data, or post a query. Then I decide. This is one of the factors that makes serials cataloging a challenging and creative process. Melodie =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Melodie Sanders Head of Technical Services Baylor Health Sciences Library (Dallas) MSanders@bcd.tamhsc.edu mailto:MSanders@bcd.tamhsc.edu http://www.bcd.tamhsc.edu/library/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth McDonald [mailto:emcdnld1@MEMPHIS.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:25 PM > To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Title change? > > > Hi, > > Cataloger's judgment makes me think of undergraduate training in > biology, where there were lumpers and splitters. This is where when > people are determining if species are different from one another. > Lunpers tend to see cominalities and lump more groups together. > Splitters see differences and make more different species. Neither is > actually wrong, they are just different ways to look at the same > thing. I have always felt the same divisions apply to title changes > with serials. Some of us are lumpers and some are splitters depending > on our judgement calls and as Steve said, as long as the cataloging > isn't wrong accept it. > > Elizabeth McDonald > University of Memphis > emcdnld1@memphis.edu > > Steve Shadle wrote: > > >Enrique said: > > > > > >>Some people are pleased that more and more stuff is being left up to > >>"cataloger's judgment". My feeling is that in the shared > environment > >>like CONSER/OCLC it can make it even worse if you're not a > participant, > >>because variations are unpredictable. And, it's hard to > make a serials > >>copy cataloging unit run if you don't have simple, clear, finite > >>guidelines. > >> > >> > > > >Enrqiue et al. -- There has always been a certain amount of judgment > >involved in serials cataloging and I'm not sure that the > 2002 revisions > >actually provide for more cataloger judgment (although I > will agree that > >the new major/minor rules introduce a complexity that will > require more > >consideration and more cases of 'change of scope' will > probably need to be > >considered). I've tried to train copy catalogers in the difference > >between the 'rules' and 'judgment' and stressed that as long as the > >record's internal logic is consistent and follows CONSER > practice, then > >different judgments can appropriately be made. 'Does the > cataloging copy > >clearly not follow a rule?' is one of the questions that > needs to be asked > >sometimes. > > > >Getting back to Carol's question, now that I've referred to > what many of > >us informally call the 'look elsewhere' rule (12.1B3 & RI), > I'll give you > >my personal cataloger's judgment. Carol stated that Feb. 2004 had an > >issue-specific title and that Mar. 2004 (and on) had a > different title. > >Basically: > > > >Title A -Jan. 2004 > >Title B Feb. 2004 > >Title C Mar. 2004- > > > >Obviously you have to go with chief source presentations and > since Title A > >& Title C appear to be stable, there should be records for these two > >titles. Personally, I would consider Title B a title of > short duration > >(one issue theme title) and would look elsewhere to > determine whether the > >publisher considered Feb. 2004 to be an issue of Title A or > Title C. Now > >if the publisher changed every presentation (masthead, > running, etc.) to > >Title B, then it would seem a pretty conscious decision on > the part of hte > >publisher to change the title and it could be that maybe > Title B should > >get it's own record (as much as I hate to say it). > > > >Was there any mention in a preface or editorial statement > that Title B was > >really a 'special' or one-time issue? Any mention that it > was going to > >change it's scope to Title C? Any mention in Mar. 2004 > about *why* they > >changed their title after a one-issue blip? If presented > with a situation > >like Carol's, these are some of the questions I would be > asking myself. > > > >Now, if another CONSER library came along and made a > different judgment, > >as long as the cataloging was done correctly, I would > probably accept it, > >even though their judgment might differ from mine. Given > the nature of > >serial publishing and AACR, I'm not sure how we could reduce > cataloger's > >judgment while still providing usable records. One of the > goals of the > >new major/minor change rules was to eliminate what appeared to be > >duplicate or useless records. The old rules were generally easier to > >apply (less subject to judgment) but produced more records. > > > >Just some random thoughts. --Steve > > > > Steve Shadle shadle@u.washington.edu ******* > > Serials Cataloger ***** > > University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900 *** > > Seattle, WA 98195 (206) 685-3983 * > > > > >
