Print

Print


The records were correct at time of cataloging. Neither are even AACR2. They could be merged, but upgrading to RDA plus the number of holdings on both records is likely discouraging that path. Also, both records have distinct ISSNs which were also correctly assigned at the time. Merging records with separate ISSNs has been done (I’ve done them), but it is frowned upon.


Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
CRL website: www.crl.edu<http://www.crl.edu>


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Title authority record for TLS, the Times literary supplement

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but wouldn’t “TLS” vs “Times literary supplement” be considered a minor change (2.3.2.13.2, abbreviated word or sign or symbol vs. spelled-out form)?

I realize there are two CONSER records

lccn sn 89007753, OCLC 1767078  (245 = The Times literary supplement, no 130 field)
and
lccn 75644287, OCLC 2241740 (245 = TLS, the Times literary supplement, no 130 field)

but should there be? It seems like the addition of an initialism to the presentation of the title while retaining the original title doesn’t constitute a major change, and thus doesn’t warrant two separate records. If so, I would think the 130 and 430 in the authority record should be switched (and also there is no conflict).

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 12:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Title authority record for TLS, the Times literary supplement

The LC superseded versions show that the record for "TLS companions" originally had a 430 from "Times literary supplement. $b TLS companions." Since the variant was really for the name of "TLS, ..." itself and not "TLS companions" it got moved ("derived") to the "TLS, the Times literary supplement". I agree that as a variant of "TLS, ...", "Times literary supplement (1969- )" would be be preferred.

Having the 430 on the main "TLS, ..." authority means that it can redirect users to both "TLS companions," the University of Chicago series, and "TLS companions (Hammersmith, London, England)," the Harvill series, where "430 0 Times literary supplement. $b TLS companions" was never added.

Stephen


On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:34 AM Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi,

An authority record (no2019094239) has recently been made for:

TLS, the Times literary supplement.

It has a cross reference of:

Times literary supplement.

However, while the serial does currently have the title “TLS, the Times literary supplement,” it was simply called “Times literary supplement” from 1902 to 1968.  See CONSER record sn 89007753.

So it seems that the cross reference needs qualifying, perhaps as:

Times literary supplement (1969-  )

Does this sound right?

I am a little hesitant to go in and work on this authority record.  It has a 667 like none I’ve seen before:  “Derived from record for TLS companions, n 93032765.”  N 93032765 has a cross reference of:

TLS, the Times literary supplement. $p TLS companions.

I’m unfamiliar with this 667 practice and a little confused by the authority record.  Would anyone else like to edit it?  It certainly does appear the 430 should be qualified, at least.

Thanks,

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University






--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242