2 messages; 58 lines:
-------------------------

Date:         Fri, 24 Sep 1993 11:18:00 -0800
From:         Crystal_Graham%UCSDLIBRARY.UCSD.EDU@SDSC.BITNET
Subject:      Earliest entry cataloging

I have not yet had a chance to review the archives of Serialst on the latest
vs. successive entry controversy, but I noted with some relief that many were
headed Latest/EARLIEST/Successive entry.  In an online environment, it
makes sense to consider the use of a single record for straightforward title
variations (as opposed to mergers, splits, absorptions, etc.) where the
numbering continues.  But we are misguided if we propose a return to "latest
entry."  To me, the single best thing about AACR2 was that we began basing the
description on the FIRST issue.  The constant adjustment of place of
publication, publisher, etc., was a collosal waste of time.

We are edging toward earliest entry as we choose to add 246's for later title
variations rather than creating a successive entry.  Let's encourage CONSER
and the ALA Committee to Study Serials Cataloging to seriously look at
expanding that practice.  We must also remember that we share records
internationally and need to get consensus among all the ISDS participants
before we deviate from established standards.  (We certainly don't want 6
ISSN's assigned to one bibliographic record!)

We should not go back to latest entry cataloging.  We should go forward to
earliest entry.  (Are you feeling dizzy yet?)

Crystal Graham
Serials Cataloging Section Head
University of California, San Diego
cgraham@ucsd.edu

-------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1993 12:40:00 EDT
From:         Johanna Bowen <BOWEN@SNYCORVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Successive entry vs. Latest entry

Successive entry is the best choice if:
        -the collection is shelved alphabetically
        -the users are primarily seeking a specific citation
Virtually every user of our periodical collection is approaching the collection
with a citation hastily scribbled or recently printed from a CD-ROM.
These undergraduates have little or no need for access to the continuous run of
any one title. Checking the cited title against either an OPAC or a printout of
serial holdings requires one lookup to verify we own the title AS CITED. Latest
entry cataloging requires a much more complex user education program, and in
some OPACS provides totally baffling results (two to three screens with no
reference to the cited title).

Successive entry cataloging provides a direct path from the title cited to the
title owned by the library.  Unless of course the title is Journals of
gerontology.  OCLC has only the 246 for journal(s) but we have to leave it as
Journal of... which places the alphabetical position miles from where it should
be.

Johanna Bowen,  Coordinator for Technical Services
bitnet:   bowen@snycorva    internet: bowen@snycorva.cortland.edu