Generally I agree-- with the caveat that you might need to check more than
once to make sure that you weren't deleting a link just because a server
happened to be down the afternoon you tried to access a resource.
University of Georgia Libraries
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valerie Bross" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question for PCC libraries on OCLC
> 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
> > electronic version of the resource, I'm more inclined to delete the
> > information about the e-version from the record - that would mean
> > the 007, 530, 776, and 856 (or whichever among these is present). I
> > 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
> > if people feel there should be one policy on how we authenticate
> > Then it could go into our partipants' manuals.
> > Adam
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Valerie Bross wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Here is a quick question about record authentication, for OCLC
> >> that find copy entered by a library that used the single-record
> >> 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
> >> 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?
> >> thanks,
> >> Valerie Bross
> Valerie Bross
> [log in to unmask]