Gee, good question Valerie. If you've searched and can no longer find the
electronic version of the resource, I'm more inclined to delete the
information about the e-version from the record - that would mean deleting
the 007, 530, 776, and 856 (or whichever among these is present). I like
the spirit of cooperation, but I don't see how having a note that
something is (or was) available electronically but no longer is is all
that useful to any of us. Perhaps others think differently, which I'd
like to hear. I could probably argue the other side even myself.
I'm wondering if the PCC Committee on Standards might want to take this up
if people feel there should be one policy on how we authenticate records.
Then it could go into our partipants' manuals.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Valerie Bross wrote:
> Here is a quick question about record authentication, for OCLC libraries
> that find copy entered by a library that used the single-record approach.
> Situation: You are PCC'ing an OCLC record for a monograph or a serial that
> has an 856 41 for an online version. But the URL does not work and the
> e-resource does not, in fact, appear to be available elsewhere. (Also: In
> the case of a serial, the record has no 776 field.) Resource is not in the
> Internet Archive.
> Should you:
> (1) Remove the 530/856 field, since you cannot verify that the URL did in
> fact represent an online version of the monograph or serial in hand?
> (2) In the spirit of cooperation, leave the 530/856 field but add $z No
> longer available note?
> (3) Other?
> Valerie Bross