TDR (3 messages) ERCELAA@CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU 29 Jan 2003 21:56 UTC
3 messages:
1)____
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:41:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Nancy Burns <nburns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> * According to the record for TDR (#50670623), it appears that the full
> form still appears on the chief source as it is transcribed as other title
> information.
This is a mistake. The full form does NOT appear on the cover of
the first 1988 issue. The only title on the cover at this point is "TDR".
> I examined the current issue (didn't have immediate access to the spring
> 1988 issue) and Nancy is correct, it turns out to be a cataloger's
> definition of a title page. The page in question has a "banner" (for
> lack of a better word) at the top with both forms of title. The top
> half of the page contains editorial info and the bottom half contains a
> picture and caption and notes about the front and back covers. Not
> really looking like a traditional title page and in reviewing CCM 3.2.1c
> I would probably not consider it a title page. But I only examined
> current issues, I don't know what earlier issues looked like to know how
> to judge those.
This is exactly what the 1988 issues looked like. I wouldn't
consider it a title page either, but can see where it could be a judgment
call.
> Also in looking at current issues, the full form is appearing in many
> other places (spine, running title), just not on the cover.
But, at least according to former rules, whether or not the full
form appears elsewhere only comes into play if both forms appear on the
chief source--which they didn't, in this case.
Nancy Burns
Cataloging Unit IV (Serials)
Princeton University Library
nburns@princeton.edu
2)_____
From: "Beth Jedlicka" <bethj@libris.libs.uga.edu>
Organization: University of Georgia Libraries
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:51:28 EST
Greetings,
We will fix this record, as far as the 245 $b and the 246, because
it's true on the cover there was no full form, and Drama review
should indeed be a 246 13. I have the spring 1988 issue, and there
is a note from the editors (p. 7 for those who have the issue). I'll
quote some of the good bits:
Dear Reader, look at the front cover. Did you notice that under the
big "TDR" there is no "The Drama Review"? ....Everyone knows
that TDR is not a drama review. Yet what can we do with
the"D"?...and then there were all those libraries which, if we
changed our name, would have to recatalog us and maybe, in
doing so, cancel their subscriptions. So what we've done is to
become TDR,[rest in italics] The Drama Review:A Journal of
Performance Studies."
So I think they were trying to do something, anyway. I echo Steve's
hope that NSDP will step in as far as new record/new ISSN.
Beth
Beth Jedlicka
Head, Serials Cataloging
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
---Nelson Mandela
3)_____
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:16:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Regina Reynolds <rrey@loc.gov>
Subject: Re: TDR (Steve Shadle)
NSDP will look into this and come to a conclusion about the ISSN. The
record deletions represented by the 019s on the current record lead me to
believe records were collapsed, possibly without complete ISSN work being
done. All things being equal (which is not often the case) I would prefer
to keep this all on one record.
Regina Reynolds
Head, National Serials Data Program
Library of Congress
rreyloc.gov
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:29:52 -0800 (PST)
> From: Steve Shadle <shadle@u.washington.edu>
> To: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum" <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
>
> First to answer Nancy's question, under current rules
>
> The Drama Review --> TDR
>
> is considered a minor change (21.2A2.a). However, this record was created
> under old rules so the question (though interesting and useful) doesn't
> help in determining whether a record created before Dec. 2002 is
> appropriate.
>
> Observations:
>
> * According to the record for TDR (#50670623), it appears that the full
> form still appears on the chief source as it is transcribed as other title
> information. This alone is enough to question why this record was created
> as there doesn't seem to be any other change (re-numbering, corporate body
> changes) which would cause a new record to be created under pre- or
> post-2002 rules.
>
> * The Drama Review (#2268763) has number of 019's. I'm guessing records
> have the 1988 change have been created and cancelled more than once.
>
> * The online version (Project Muse) continues to present both the acronym
> and full form of the title. Lacking a clear editorial statement, I'm
> assuming the change on the print record is an unintentional title change.
>
> * It appears NSDP assigned a new ISSN (1054-2043) for TDR (#50670623) but
> there is no NSDP authentication on that record. However, the ISSN does
> appear in ISSN Online. Perhaps, the new ISSN was originally assigned to
> one of the cancelled records and then the ISSN was incorrectly cancelled
> later?? Note that the ISSN Online record for the previous title does not
> have a link to the later title, so this needs to be fixed in the ISSN
> database in any case. 1054-2043 is being printed in the current issues.
> Regina...would you care to investigate?
>
> * Our local version of the earlier title record (with a spring 1999 latest
> issue consulted) has:
>
> 500 Issues for <1999-> lack full form of title on cover.
>
> We may have input this or this may have come from an earlier library
> working on the record. This does look odd when compared to
>
> 500 Title from cover.
>
> since one would assume that the chief source was the cover and the form
> chosen as title proper was dropped from chief source. However, what this
> note implies to me is that in 1968 there was no title page, but at some
> point, a title page began to be printed and then beginning with <1999>,
> only the cover dropped the full form but the full form continued to be
> printed on the title page. In any case, the note no longer appears on the
> record. LCRI 12.0B2 is pretty clear about the fact that the only time you
> don't use t.p. as chief source is in retrospective cataloging. Newly
> revised CCM 16.2.5b instructs the cataloger to continue to use the
> original source (in this case cover as title page substitute) when a title
> page is added on later issues only if the title page has a different title
> (to avoid creating a new record). This is not the case here as it appears
> the title page has the original title.
>
> Now having said all that (and completely bored all of you but the most
> die-hard serials catalogers ;-), I examined the current issue (didn't have
> immediate access to the spring 1988 issue) and Nancy is correct, it turns
> out to be a cataloger's definition of a title page. The page in question
> has a "banner" (for lack of a better word) at the top with both forms of
> title. The top half of the page contains editorial info and the bottom
> half contains a picture and caption and notes about the front and back
> covers. Not really looking like a traditional title page and in reviewing
> CCM 3.2.1c I would probably not consider it a title page. But I only
> examined current issues, I don't know what earlier issues looked like to
> know how to judge those. Also in looking at current issues, the full form
> is appearing in many other places (spine, running title), just not on the
> cover.
>
> IMONSHO, because of the ISSN considerations, I think NSDP should really
> step in to this in and determine whether a new record and ISSN are
> required. --Steve
>
> Steve Shadle shadle@u.washington.edu *******
> Serials Cataloger *****
> University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900 ***
> Seattle, WA 98195 (206) 685-3983 *
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Nancy Burns wrote:
>
> > > Why a cover would be used rather than a perfectly good title page for
> > > the chief source of information is odd, and the 245 not even matching
> > > the cover.
> >
> > The reason you aren't seeing a title change is because you ARE
> > seeing a "perfectly good title page". Often, and I think in this case, it
> > is hard to say whether a page is a true title page. CONSER says: "Some
> > pages obviously are title pages, others obviously are not title pages, and
> > in between there is a wide range of possibilities that keep catalogers
> > guessing!"
> > If, as on the records you cite, the cover is selected as chief
> > source, then there certainly was a title change between v. 31 and 32,
> > because "Drama review", which had formerly been the title proper,
> > disappeared completely from the cover/chief source at that point. I agree
> > that the later record is incorrect insofar as the 245 subfield b; I think
> > "Drama review" should instead be coded as 246 13, as an "Other Title", as
> > it doesn't appear on the cover/chief source.
> > I'm not yet familiar enough with the new title change rules to
> > know if they make a difference to the handling of this sort of situation;
> > would be interested to hear if so. Certainly it's the sort of change that
> > always makes catalogers groan.
> >
> > Nancy Burns
> > Cataloging Unit IV (Serials)
> > Princeton University Library
> > nburns@princeton.edu
> >
>
Regina R. Reynolds email: rrey@loc.gov
Head, National Serials Data Program voice: (202) 707-6379
Library of Congress fax (202) 707-6333
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. ISSN Web page: lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
Washington, D.C. 20540-4160