Supporting using a normal title-date 670s, aren't all internet resources
considered in a way published? The only distinction I can find in a quick
look, is that "unpublished" electronic resources use "date of creation."
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Paul J. Weiss wrote:
> I would give normal title-date 670s for the other online publications, and
> give the sources as "title screen", etc., or even "t.p." for a PDF file.
> For stand-alone, "formal" documents, the document itself seems more salient
> to me than the fact that it is linked to from some particular web page.
> Paul J. Weiss
> NACO Coordinator
> At 03/07/17 07:00 AM, you wrote:
> >The website for a corporate body which I am establishing includes electronic
> >versions of its publications. The only one of these which is cataloged in
> >either electronic or paper format is my work cat. I wish to cite the forms
> >formally presented in these other publications (and to indicate that they
> >are formally presented) but the examples given in DCM Z1of locations within
> >an electronic resource (WWW page title screen, HTML title, additional
> >screens, main menu, readme), don't offer much help in citing an uncataloged
> >analytic. Should I create additional 670s for these items within the
> >website? Can I generically cite "title screens for electronic versions of
> >publications ( ... )? So far I've only cited the home page with a rather
> >lengthy list of variants found, but seems less than helpful.
> >Thanks for any ideas,
> >Nancy Brown
> >Principal Cataloger
> >University of Georgia Libraries
> Paul J. Weiss
> Head, Monographs Cataloging Division
> Catalog Department
> UCSD Libraries
> [log in to unmask]