Ben, forgive me for responding to a question you didn't ask--and with another question, yet--but why do you say we prefer the fuller form? Other things being equal (forms found on equally preferred sources, equally commonly, equally (in)formally presented), RDA 18.104.22.168 tells us to choose a brief form if it is sufficiently specific to differentiate the body.
As for your first actual question, one could argue that if you feel the intention of the organizers was to drop the numbering, then you are not inferring that the conference is one of a series of numbered meetings.
My opinions only, not necessarily those of my employer.
William L. Robboy, Librarian
Mexico, Central America & Caribbean Section
Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access Directorate
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:39:00 +0000, Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>... when a conference starts out numbered but subsequently drops its numbering, do we supply numbering in the AAP based on inference (to make it file correctly), or do we drop it (because numbering no longer identifies the conference)?
>A related question: it's not uncommon for conferences, in STEM at least, to have two names: a full form (e.g. 23rd International Conference on Cute Puppies 2017) and an acronym or abbreviated form (PuppyCon 2017). In these cases, we prefer the fuller form. But do we qualify the shorter form in the 4xx with numbering taken from the fuller form? ...