Rick Gildemeister makes a distinction between serials and monographic
series, seeing them as practically mutually exclusive terms.  However,
monographic series is a subset of serial; the rules for formulating titles
(and uniform titles) are the same for monographic series as for other kinds
of serials.

Rick said:  "... if the publisher changed, one would simply create a new
series authority with the new publisher as qualifier and make 530's. This is
different from creating a new bibliographic record for a serial."  On the
contrary, this is not different from creating a new bibliographic record for
a serial; creating separate authority records, linked by 530 fields, is in
effect successive entry cataloging, analogous to creating separate
bibliographic records linked by 780/785 fields.

I am definitely in agreement with Rick regarding wanting to relax the rules
for title qualifiers; but unlike him, I would like to see corporate bodies
used as qualifiers more often not only for monographic series but for other
serials, at least when there appears to be a close relationship between the
body and the publication.  (My rule of thumb would be:  If it seems likely
that the publication wouldn't exist apart from the body, or that the
publication will be associated with the body for a long time, use the body
as a qualifier if one is necessary.)

I think it would get too confusing to try to emphasize corporate body over
place as qualifier for monographic series, and to emphasize place over
corporate body as qualifier for other serials.  Many monographic series may
be treated as classed sep items in one library, classed together analyzed
serials in another, and classed together unanalyzed serials in yet another.
The distinction between kinds of serials is not universal.

Kevin M. Randall
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL   60208-2300

internet: kmr@nwu.edu
   phone: (708) 491-2939
     fax: (708) 491-7637