Chris:
  I couldn't agree with you more regarding "catalogers' judgement."
Unfortunately, it falls apart when we decide to rely on Library of Congress
records as THE AUTHORITY.  This is always a problem when sharing
bibliographic records in (inter)national catalogs and databases.  Whereas I
may prefer to use a corporate qualifier for the title "Focus" as; "Focus
(American Optometry Association)", LC might decide to use: "Focus (New
York, N.Y.)."  In this case my preference would be to make the qualifier
more distinct for the patron (whom we ultimately are really doing the
cataloging for, not for each other) who would  find the corporate body
information more useful than the place of publication information.  (Let's
say we have another "Focus" title with the qualifier "Focus (San Francisco,
CA) to add to the confusion)

  Technically, in this (made-up) case, the LC qualifier is following the
rules exactly and would appear in an LC CONSER record, regardless of what I
chose as a qualifier in my bibliographic record.  And then, when we get to
union listing and have multiple universities using different bibliographic
records for the same title, watch out!

   Let us not forget the check-in clerks who have to figure out if this is
the same title or not as what they checked in last month.  Although the
place of publication often changes with serials, the LCRI says not to do
successive entry if the place changes (when that is used as the uniform
title qualifier).  Therefore, the check-in clerk has to figure out which
title "Focus" belongs to, if your library is checking in more than one by
that title.  In fact, I not only advocate using the corporate body as the
uniform title qualifier, but if it changes, I advocate NOT doing successive
entry and just creating a uniform title ADDED ENTRY instead.  This will
still allow the online access and retrievability regardless of what appears
on the item.

-- Mitch

At  9:55 AM 10/17/94 -0500, Christine Hulse wrote:
>In the National Library of Australia we use place as the preferred option,
>when qualifying uniform titles, as it eliminates the need for a change of
>title if the body changes its name.  As long as access is given to a body
>through an added entry I do not see that there is any problem with this.
>In my experience most users (other than cataloguers) have difficulty in
>searching uniform titles anyway.
>
>In recent ongoing discussions on uniform titles a reference was made to
>"cataloguers' judgment".  I have always believed that AACR2 was written in
>such a way as to allow serials cataloguers to interpret the rules in a way
>that suited their own institutions.  My advice to new serials cataloguers
>being trained is "to make the rules work for you and not become a slave to
>them". ...
>
>I would be interested to hear other cataloguers' views.
>
>Regards
>
>Chris Hulse
>Serials Cataloguer
>National Library of Australia
>
>*****************************************************************
>     _________________
>      T T T T T T T T        Christine Hulse
>      I I I I I I I I        C.Hulse@nla.gov.au
>      I I I I I I I I        National Library of Australia
>      T T T T T T T T        Phone: +616 2621317
>    ===================      Fax: +616 xxxxxxx
>*****************************************************************
  _^_                                                 _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
 |   |                                               |   |
 |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
 |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
 |   |     Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu                 |   |
 |   |                                               |   |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
   V                                                   V
  "Talent is a flame.  Genius is a fire." - BERN WILLIAMS