Early on in implementation of 2002 revision, questions like this came up.
A strict interpretation of the rules would imply this is not a major
change (deletion of issuing body).  However, the NSH opinion of myself and
others (including Jean Hirons) in this case (where an issuing
body/publisher was part of the title proper and the it was dropped at the
same time the issuing body/publisher changed), you really are talking
about a major change.

Any possibility we can get an new ISSN for the title change?

Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian  *****  shadle@u.washington.edu
University of Washington Libraries      ***     Phone: (206) 685-3983
Seattle, WA 98195-2900                   *        Fax: (206) 543-0854

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Joe Orth wrote:

> "Want's federal-state court directory" OCLC # 10296033 is a CONSER blessed
> record.  With the 2007 edition of this title, it is now no longer
> published by Want's but by CQ Press and the title is "Federal-state court
> directory" and the cover clearly says "formerly Want's federal-state court
> directory."  For some time, there has been a variant title for this
> shorter title to allow searching without the publisher's name.
>
> Per 21.2C2a in AACR2 "Consider as a major change in title proper a change
> in a corporate body name given anywhere in the title if it is a different
> corporate body." I'm not sure this counts, since the new corporate body is
> not present in the title, just having the old corporate body dropped.
> However, this is a change in the first 5 words. If it were the same
> corporate body, I'd look at 21.2C2b iii - deletion of name of same
> corporate body is a minor change.  Also, there is a statement: "In case of
> doubt, consider the change to be a minor change."
>
> In the LCRIs, under 21.2C2 - "In applying category b)iii), if the change
> is in the name of a body that is part of the title proper and the change
> requires the creation of a new heading for the body, consider such a
> change to be a major change."  I got the feeling this was more for the
> presence of a corporate body, not the deletion of the old corporate body.
>
> I'm thinking this is a major change, however, I'm not very experienced in
> this, so I'd like someone with some experience to give me some
> confirmation.  Any help out there?
>