Thanks! This is just what I wanted to hear.
P.S. Yes, I agree that this is a case where one could easily see another
--On Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:45 PM -0700 Adam Schiff
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
[log in to unmask]