2 messages:
______________________

Date: 24 Mar 1993 10:17:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Cataloging problem: Uniform titles (cont.)

I have one further suggestion for inclusion in a proposed LCRI revision.
Because we want to keep the LCRI's as simple as possible, as non-prescrip-
tive as possible, perhaps the proposed change below is unnecessary, but it
occurred to me that the criticisms of the existing situation might as well
be addressed, especially since they have never been explicitly laid out
before in any forum that I know of, but reflect knowledge that we have
gleaned intuitively by experience.

Go to Cat. Service Bull. no. 59 (winter 1993), p. 13, provision 4b.
Append to my proposed text: <This provision may be appropriate in cases
where the relationship of the corporate body to the serial is a strong one
(e.g., the publication is the official organ of the body, appears prominently,
and the body is a duly constituted entity with a life of its own, not just a
logo devised by the editors). Consider applying this provision also in cases
where, in conjunction with all the above, the title, while not falling under
the provision 4a of this rule interpretation, is nevertheless a "weak" one.
Make a quick decision in all cases, use "feeling" and avoid being overly
literal or rigid>.

Suggestions, comments, please.
________________________________

Date: 24 Mar 1993 09:01:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Cataloging problem: uniform titles, a proposal

This message is a sequel to my message from yesterday.

After every polemic should come a constructive suggestion.  I propose that the
LCRI's dealing with selection of qualifiers for uniform titles be amended as
follows.  The citation of pages, paragraphs, and lines refer to Cataloging
Service Bulletin no. 59 (winter 1993). Text in quotation marks is taken
from the Bulletin; text in angle brackets is proposed.

On page 12, provision 2:"There is a special problem with the choice place vs.
body, however, and when one is facing this choice <the cataloger should
consider following> the hierarchy indicated both by the order and the wording
of the first two of the provisions below."

Skip to p. 13, provision 4b: "The addition of place as a qualifying term is
inadequate to resolve the conflict, because another work with the same title
was published in the same place." <Use judgment and common sense in all cases,
however; if it is known that the application of this provision will result,
because of LCRI 21.3B, provision c, case 1, in unintended, artificial, or
otherwise undesirable title changes, apply provision 5a below, following
the second example.>

Feedback, anyone?

Sincerely,
Rick Gildemeister
Serials and Gov. Docs. Cataloger
Lehman College of the City University of New York