[log in to unmask]">
Hi John – I agree that using 880 to try and represent the raised dots is a bad idea. 880 is scoped specifically to different scripts and is not meant to represent typography elements in the same language. Given how Alma works, I can tell the originally authenticated record didn’t have the 880 and that it was added sometime around 1/25/18 possibly by OKS (the 040 doesn’t change between pre- and post-880 addition so either OKS went into the record a second time to add this or it could possibly have been BUF as a later version has them as the next library).
Unless there are objections from the community, I’ll go ahead and delete the parallel field.
Steve Shadle / Head of Serials Cataloging, University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900 [log in to unmask]
Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 685-3983
In addition, the NAR for the periodical should match the serial record (OCLC #2241740; LCCN 75644287), which this does. However, the serial record has strange linked fields for the 245 because someone tried to replicate the raised dots used on the periodical. I think that field should be deleted.
Also, I think the change to an initialism in 1969 would not have been treated as a major title change under current practices.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 14:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 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The LC superseded versions show that the record for "TLS companions" originally had a 430 from "Times literary supplement.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.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:34 AM Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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.
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