Same title, repeated numbering, new bib. Birdie MacLennan 01 Oct 1992 19:46 UTC
A question for serials catalogers: I'm looking for more information and some current dialogue on what the rationale is for creating a new bibliographic record when the numbering is repeated as a "successive designation" on a serial that, ostensibly, has not changed its title proper. The most popular example I can think of is Ms. magazine, which died in 1989 and was resurrected in 1990 with the same title and same ISSN (i.e., 0047-8318). There are 2 records for this in OCLC ... same title proper (i.e.: Ms.); later title includes 130: Ms. (New York, N.Y. : 1990) I've been rummaging around AACR2, LCRI, and CSB's for the last hour and haven't found much to my satisfaction ... I presume the change of bib. for repeated numbering designation is to avoid confusion in the appearance of duplicate holdings information (but couldn't/ wouldn't 5xx notes and chronological designations solve this?). What I have found, so far, relates to AACR2's 12.3G (successive designations ... which tells you what to do when the designation system changes or indicates *new series* ... note the change in the 362 field and stay on the same record). CSB 26 (fall 1984), p. 12: "One Serial or Two?: In general make separate records when the numbering system is repeated (e.g. '1' or 'vol. 1' is used again), and the publisher does not link the old and the new systems with a designation such as 'new series.' There are exceptional cases, of course, when the serial remains essentially the same although the numbering starts again and there is no linking designation, but normally a new numbering system suggests that other changes have taken place, meaning that one is a new serial." Leong's Serials Cataloging Handbook (1989), p.102-103 more or less suggests the same as CSB 26. I'm wondering if folks could elaborate on decisions they've made in creating a new bib. record ... or modifying the existing record when encountering repeated numbering schemes. Is there some other authoritative source that I have missed (a later CSB, perhaps??) that might elaborate on what the "exceptional case" might look like OR, offer some rationale as to why two bib. records are warranted. I've encountered a couple of state publications within the past few weeks that have kept their title proper, publisher, and frequency ... but for some strange reason, they've decided to change their look or style (just a tad) and repeat their original numbering scheme. My inclination is generally to go for creating a new record ... because of the confusing holdings displays and the documentation I've just cited. But the 2 index entries are often confusing to patrons. Am I missing something painfully obvious in any of this? Birdie MacLennan University of Vermont bmaclenn@uvmvm.bitnet bmaclenn@uvmvm.uvm.edu