ABSTRACT
This research investigates what most catalogers already know—titles alone do not identify works sufficiently. Repetitive titles like “Annual Report" are just the tip of the iceberg. To explore the extent of ambiguity occurring in large sets of health science bibliographic data, the entire National Library of Medicine and Lane Medical Library catalogs and a sample from the PubMed database were analyzed. After measuring the uniqueness of titles, results were recalculated to determine the effect of appending date and/or edition. This initial evidence supports further exploration of whether such structured titles might serve as singular bibliographic identities.
