Re: IET manufacturing engineer - title change?(fwd) John Radencich 03 Jul 2006 15:23 UTC
Well I couldn't get access to the journal beyond the table of contents and all I could see on the opening screen was a thumbnail image of the print cover, but at least based on that you can make a case for using the "at head of title" option. However, I still would need more to say for sure, especially if you are cataloging the print. So for the print I would withhold judgment, based on what little I could get out of the link given. However, the table of contents for the online has the title without the initials. Since I generally catalog my onlines based on the table of contents for the earliest issue, I would give the title without the initials. Still I'm reluctant to say for sure, as I don't have online access to the text and I would need that to feel comfortable I have the issue as the publisher intends us to have it. (If I had both print and online, of course, I would catalog according to the print.) So all in all the best I want to say is the matter is inconclusive, but probably in favor of considering the title to be "Manufacturing engineer," without the initials. John Radencich Library-Cataloging Dept. Florida International University Miami, Florida 33199 >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:27:20 +1200 >From: Peter Hosking <peter.hosking@canterbury.ac.nz> > >It is presented as "The IET manufacturing engineer" (on the cover and >masthead) and the running title is: IET manufacturing engineer. >There is a thumbnail image available at http://www.ietdl.org/ME > >Thanks for clarifying how the new rules apply in this case, Steve. > >Peter > >Peter Hosking >Serials Cataloguing Librarian >University of Canterbury Library >Christchurch, New Zealand > > >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:10:07 -0700 >From: Steven C Shadle <shadle@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> >Subject: Re: IET manufacturing engineer - title change? > >I agree with Beth up to a point. If there was ambiguous typography or >presentation and/or if the change were not presented in other sources >(specifically the masthead/publication statement) then I think Beth's >suggestion of "At head of title" is a great solution. However, if there >was a clear decision made on the part of the publisher (reflected in a >publisher statement and/or consistent presentation of what is clearly a >changed title), then I think the cataloger would have been hard-pressed >to not consider the change to be a title change. > >And remember, according to pre-2002 rules, issuing bodies added to the >beginning of titles were considered title changes. So if the >presentation were not ambiguous (which is hard to tell without piece in >hand), then we would actually have three records for the title in >question. > >Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian ***** shadle@u.washington.edu >University of Washington Libraries *** Phone: (206) 685-3983 >Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * Fax: (206) 543-0854 > >On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Beth Guay wrote: > >>Before the "major minor" rules, we simply would have added an "at head >>of title note," and a title added entry for the "variant," i.e.: At >>head of title, <Apr./May 2006-> IET; and: 246 3 IET manufacturing >engineer. > >>The fact is, if you look at it as an "at head of title" issue, the >>title hasn't changed at all. So, in the spirit of the revised rules, >>that is, to prevent whenever possible unnecessary creation of new >>records -- and this case is a great example -- I would hope that the >>cataloger who gets the piece in >>hand and updates this record chooses that approach -- rules were made >>to be interpreted and bended (by humans for humans) :-) >> >>Beth >> >>Beth Guay >>Monographs/Continuing Resources Cataloger McKeldin Library, University >>of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742