I would like to support Alice Permenter's plea for continuing successive
entry cataloging.  I base this on four points:
1.  Having recently lived through a massive recon project where we had
to change latest entry to successive, I can see real value in terms of
staff time, money, etc. in keeping to standards.
2.  Adherence to established standards keeps us all talking on the same
level.  I realize online systems will allow us easier access at different
points but we still have Union Lists and ILL/Document Delivery concerns.
These operate much more efficiently if everyone reports in the same way.
3.  How can we ever get the respect and "ear" of publishers with everyone
doing their own thing?  If we ever hope to make any progress in convincing
or at least trying to convince them, that title changes are problematic,
we need to be united in our thinking.
4.  Finally, I believe the whole experiment at Northwestern grew out of
the cumbersome way NOTIS handles title changes.  In that case, we are
trying to conform to the system, not try to make it work the way it would
best benefit us.

Judy Rieke, Medical Center Library, Vanderbilt University.  RIEKEJL@VUCTRVAX