2 messages:
_____

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:21:51 -0400
From: Pamela Simpson <pse@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Qualifiers for uniform titles

The LCRI for rule 25.5B lists five qualifying terms as the most commonly
used to qualify the title proper of a serial:

a) place of publication
b) corporate body
c) place and date or corporate body and date
d) date
e) edition statement, other title information, etc.

It then goes on to state explicitly that the order of terms is not intended
to be prescriptive, and that depending on the situation, one or a
combination of the terms should be used.

Although in practice catalogers tend to choose place if it will suffice (for
a variety of reasons I will not go into here), neither the rule nor the LCRI
make this required. You can use whatever is appropriate for the situation of
the serial being cataloged.

                                 Pamela Simpson
                                 Serials Cataloger

                                 Penn State University

                                 E506 Pattee Library

                                 University Park,  PA 16802-1805
                                 (814) 865-1755  FAX: (814) 863-7293

                                 PSE@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU

______

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Louise Ratliff <ECZ5LR2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Uniform title authorities (Kathleen Thorne)

Kay Thorne writes:

> In reply to Enrique Gildemeister's query about place vs. corporate body
> vs. .... for uniform headings:
>
> Sometimes all 2, 3, or 5 (anyway, all of 'em) titles are published in
> the same place by the same folks and the REAL distinguishing feature about
> them is simply the dates.  So what's wrong with using the dates?

In reply to Kay's question, "what about dates?", well, what's
wrong with using dates as additional qualifiers?  We need to keep in
mind the fact that a uniform title is _not_ supplied expressly for the
purpose of adding additional information to a title; it is _only_ a
construct used to distinguish one identical title proper from another.

This method of assigning qualifiers is somewhat artificial, I think,
but until publishers keep their titles stable, I can't come up with
a way that is any better, can you?  The rules about qualifiers for
uniform titles are fairly straightforward and do allow some leeway,
and I for one don't want to spend any more time than I have to
in choosing which qualifiers to use when, so I just follow LC's RIs.
(Besides which, we are a CONSER participant, so the RIs are our
Bible :-)

--Louise Ratliff
Coordinator of Automation Support & Technology
(Serials cataloger on special temporary assignment)
Cataloging Dept.
UCLA University Research Library