Re:  My original note on November 14 regarding the addition
          to the LCRI allowing greater flexibility in choosing the
          form of qualifier in order to resolve conflicts between
          serials with the same title:

          I provided the sample qualifier (Periodical : Economist
          Intelligence Unit) hoping to stimulate discussion, not
          to request validation of the example.  To date there has
          been only one reply, and that, to comment on the example.

          By expanding this rule, LC seems to have said that the
          existing possibilities (Place, corporate body, date, etc.)
          were inadequate for many situations.  The amendment to the
          rule says "use any word(s) that will serve to distinguish
          one serial from another."  To my mind, that sentence gives
          the cataloger great latitude.  It is hard to imagine a
          qualifier not within the scope of that phrase.

          It would be interesting to hear what people think the
          reason for qualifying is.  To resolve conflicts?  Where
          is the "conflict" when two serials have the same title?  I
          think the "conflict" occurs in online browse title displays,
          for one thing.  The addition of "uniquing" qualifiers
          should, I think, clarify problems that result when the
          browse display lists numerous identical titles, so as to
          guide the user to the correct record.  Instead these
          qualified headings often have meaning only for catalogers.
          The user ends up having to display one by one the full
          records...which the browse display should help the user
          avoid doing.