I don't know if I'm "enlightened", especially on a Monday morning
(*yawn*), looking at the two records, I would say that the newer record
was created in error.  Change in publisher location and/or restarting of
volume numbering no longer justify a new record.

As to why they did not close out the "previous" record, I would guess
that the creator of the new record is not a CONSER library, and is
therefore not able to close a serial record with an encoding level of
[blank].  That would have to be done by a CONSER library or LC.

It could also be an "ooopsie!".  I've had those before and fortunately
it is easily remedied.

 - Hank Young
University of Florida
Cataloger

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Lynne Weaver
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] India Today

To Elmer and many others:

I should have mentioned that I'm confused, too.  I'm not the one who put
in the new record; I simply found it on OCLC.  I assumed (ah, there's
that dangerous word!) that the new record was indeed created because of
the change in publisher info, but, then, why not close the old record?

Maybe one of the more enlightened serials catalogers can defog this for
us -- please!

Lynne N. Weaver
Serials Coordinator
Lipscomb Library
Randolph College
Founded as Randolph-Macon Woman's College
2500 Rivermont Avenue
Lynchburg, VA  24503
434 947-8396
434 947-8134 Fax
lweaver@randolphcollege.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Elmer Alvin Klebs
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 4:41 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] India Today

I'm a bit confused about all this (as, no doubt, are many others).

Is the new title (#244292759) the same "India today international" and
the same "North American special ed." as the title it links back to
(#48896378)?  If so, are you creating a new record because a) the
numbering [mostly] restarted, or b) because the place of publication
changed back to that of the prior title minus one - causing confusion
with the 130 qualifier?

My understanding is that we would no longer create a new record just
because the numbering restarted, if no other major changes occurred with
the title.

Elmer Klebs
Senior Serials Specialist
Library of Congress
ekle@loc.gov

>>> Lynne Weaver <lweaver@RANDOLPHCOLLEGE.EDU> 11/14/2008 3:49 PM >>>
India Today has again restarted its volume numbering, this time in the
middle of a volume.  I wrote to them in July & received a non-answer,
again in September and didn't hear from them, and again last week and
finally received a reply with a reason, albeit a non-satisfactory one:
it was "due to a change in company name."  Anyway, here's the volume and
issue numbering:

OCLC #40894687  22:12 (1997 Jun 16) - 26:53 (2001 Dec 31)
OCLC #48896378  1:1 (2002 Jan 7) - 7:26 (2008 Jun 30)
The above record has not been closed out, but a new one has been put in:
OCLC #244292759  1:27 (2008 Jul 7) -

Have fun!!

Lynne N. Weaver
Serials Coordinator
Lipscomb Library
Randolph College
Founded as Randolph-Macon Woman's College
2500 Rivermont Avenue
Lynchburg, VA  24503
434 947-8396
434 947-8134 Fax
lweaver@randolphcollege.edu