3 messages; 109 lines:
--------------------------

Date:     Thu, 06 Jan 94 08:58:00 PST
From:     Rolfe Gjellstad <REG@herald.divinity.yale.edu>
Subject:  pt.2; 130 corp. body qualifier

I suggest that this problem was caused by what I consider the confusing and
unnecessary rule which requires each serial to have a unique title.  In
traditional card catalog format, one need only read the first few lines of a
record to differentiate discrete serials issued under the same title.  In
machine-readable records the fields for place of publication, dates, and
issuing body are all tagged and searchable.  The simplest way to resolve this
issue is to delete the rule.

Rolfe Gjellstad, Yale Divinity Library

---------------------------
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 1994 09:16:46 EST
From:         "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      philosophy; 130 in serials

Forwarded message; Crystal Graham to Rick Gildemeister

Date: 05 Jan 94 18:52:27 EST
From: Crystal Graham <73210.2076@CompuServe.COM>
To: "Enrique E. Gildemeister" <EEGLC@cunyvm.cuny.edu>

I think the problem we face is a difference in philosophy.  Is the goal to
make a set of rules that are rigorous enough to yield an identical result for
anyone who uses them?  The basic idea behind AACR, CONSER, etc., is that we
all follow the same rules and therefore one library's cataloging will fit
nicely into another's catalog without significant modification.  That school
says that it doesn't matter so much what the rule is, just so we have
one and it is applied consistently.  (That kind of thinking can result in
the laborious RI's that you mentioned, trying to have a rule for every
situation).

The other school of thought is that we should endeavor to make our records
as intelligible as possible, avoiding "artificial" title changes,
unnecessary and confusing authority records, etc.  Since serials change
title and issuing body all the time, only a case-by-case application of
common sense will lead to the "best" records for the situation.
Northwestern's practice of using latest entry "when it seems like a good
idea" has elicited considerable derision because it is out of synch with the
basic philosophy of a shared environment.

You are trying to find a middle ground between the philosophies, where we
keep the basic framework of the rules but, recognizing a rule that causes
extra work and a loss of collocation, want to allow a little latitude.
Unfortunately you encounter opposition from both sides: those who fear that
catalogers' judgement leads to chaos [the traditional LC stance] and those who
who oppose RI's in general, (thinking catalogers should just use judgment
[the Carol Mandel stance].  I suspect the vast majority of catalogers in the
trenches would contend that rather than changing/interpreting the rules, your
energy would be better spent cataloging.  They may not agree with the way you
cataloged a particular serial, but they'll accept your cataloging without
complaint if they need the record in their catalogs.

This is a really important discussion -- much more important than the
particular rule under debate -- and I think it's terrific that it is
getting a public hearing thanks to your efforts.  I hope the Midwinter
discussion will touch on these larger points, although I suspect you don't
want to come away from the meeting with an unresolved issue dear to your
heart.

It's too late for me to make myself a copy of this -- at least if there is a
way to address a message after it's written on the Tapcis system, I don't
know what it is.  If you think it would be of general interest, you can edit
and post it.  -- Crystal

----------------------------
Date:         Thu, 6 Jan 1994 11:16:16 -0500
From:         Florence Hayes <fch3@CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 130 corp. body qualifier

Rick--

There is a real problem with qualifying DIFFERENT serials by place + date
(as opposed to corporate body).  We have come to expect such situations to
relate to SAME serials.  To make up an example, Labor news (New York, N.Y.
: 1960) and Labor news (New York, N.Y. : 1980) would lead one to believe
that this was the same serial with a different title at some point, perhaps
in the 1970's.

If you qualify different serials by place and date, and the corporate
bodies keep changing, you are going to have to add notes and added entries
to the records with each change, in order to make sure that the title is
distinguishable from the other serial qualified by the same place.  It is
clearer, though time-consuming, to qualify by body and make title changes
when necessary.

The "fluctuating titles" provision of RI21.2C has reduced the need for many
of the "nonsense title changes."

An "interim new group name" would be a variant name of the corporate body
and should be added as a 410 to the authority record for the body.

You are indeed involved with cumbersome titles, and I see your dilemma, but
I have my doubts about changing 25.5B to allow qualification by place and
date for different serials.

Florence Hayes
Serials Cataloger
Cornell University Library
fch3@cornell.edu