Thanks, Celine, for your comments. I'm going to try to give some background
on how and why it was decided to use the 533 on print version records when
using the single record approach, for anyone who might be interested.
First of all, there are already a number of print version records in the
Registry of Digital Masters with 533, and I think you're right, it is very
difficult to interpret what version these records are. For examples see
OCLC #642567, 17604932, and 19823978.
Early on in our discussions, Robert Bremer from OCLC said that catalogers
are seeing a 533 reproduction note in print version records and assuming
that the record really represents the electronic reproduction itself. As a
result, they are inputting duplicate print version records.
We talked some about using different wording in the subfield a, such as
"Also available as electronic reproduction" rather than "Electronic
reproduction" on the print version records if using a single record
approach. The thought was that this would make it more clear that the
record itself is not for the electronic version.
We also experimented with some other possibilities. We considered adding
detailed information to the 530, but as you pointed out, it doesn't have
good subfielding like the 533. Subfields b, c, and d could not be defined
in the 530 as they are in the 533 because they are already defined for
other purposes in the 530.
Another idea was to use holdings to give details about the electronic
reproduction. We experimented with 843, which is the holdings equivalent to
bibliographic field 533. At the present time, however, there are a number
of issues in implementing the holdings approach. Holdings records are often
not indexed or easily integrated with bibliographic records, and only
bibliographic records are available for OAI harvesting, which is a goal for
digital registry records.
Another possibility was to use a 776 in the print version record to
indicate the existence of, and give details about, the electronic version.
It would not point to an electronic version record, because there would be
no electronic version record if the single record approach was being used,
but rather it would be used to give details about the electronic reproduction.
However, there were some problems with using the 776. In addition, it is
expected that at some time in the future, a holdings approach may be able
to be used. The other digital registry fields, 533, 538, 583, and 856 are
all valid in the holdings format, but the 776 is not. Therefore, the
Digital Library Federation Registry of Digital Masters Working Group
decided that 533 was the best way to go.
It was decided that subfield a should include wording like "Also available
as electronic reproduction" rather than "Electronic reproduction" in the
print version record when using a single record approach, to help make it
clear that this is not the electronic version record. When using a separate
record approach, the wording in the electronic version record would be
To answer your question about why we are using a 533 in the electronic
version record when using a separate record approach, that has been in the
Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines - available at
http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide.htm - all along. The
draft document Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources applies
to resources that already exist in our local institutions which we are
digitizing for preservation purposes, so they clearly are reproductions. We
didn't even discuss the possibility of not following LCRI 1.11A for these.
Thanks for pointing out the relevant documentation from OCLC and LC. I am
assuming that if these guidelines are accepted, that documentation would be
This draft document, which was an attempt to expand on the DLF Record
Creation Guidelines, was a cooperative effort between members of CONSER, a
CIC Digital Resources Cataloging Task Group, the ALA/PARS Intellectual
Access to Preservation Data Interest Group, the DLF Registry of Digital
Masters Working Group, and staff from the Library of Congress and OCLC. Our
goal has been to come up with something that everyone can live with, so if
other people on this list have comments, we definitely want to hear them.
At 11:36 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:
>Since I won't be able to attend the meeting, I'm sending comments to you now.
>This is especially on your category "Monograph - Single record
>approach." If I am understanding you correctly, you are advocating use of
>the 533 to note the availability of an electronic reproduction on a record
>also meant to represent a print edition. In my experience, this is not
>the way the 533 has been used in monograph records, at least in
>OCLC. Monograph records with a 533 field are meant to represent ONLY the
>reproduction; the fact that the original print version is described in the
>body of the record is just a cataloging shortcut.
>The development by the Library of Congress of this 533 model for
>reproductions dates back to microform reproductions and pre-dates the
>single-record approach that is now being used to represent
>print/electronic editions with one record.
>There's no question that this is now a very muddled situation but
>documentation by OCLC and LC still indicate that records with 533 fields
>are not meant to be single records representing multiple versions. (That
>being said, however, LC is obviously ambivalent about this as can be seen
>in the last sentence of the LCRI 1.11A below). Up to now, a quick way to
>tell "reproduction-only records" from "single records" is that
>reproduction records use field 533 to describe the other format, while
>single records use a 530. The problem here is that the 530 used in the
>single record doesn't have as good subfielding for description details as
>the 533 does so I can see why it might not meet your needs.
>I know that all this is in flux and I personally have never liked the 533
>reproduction model, so I'm not defending it. It's just that I'm concerned
>that records for various permutations of electronic resources are
>proliferating in OCLC and it is getting more and more difficult to
>interpret what version(s) a record represents. I'm also concerned about
>your suggested use of the 533 in a separate record for the monographic
>electronic edition. If you are describing the digitized version in its
>own record, wouldn't the details of that version be part of the basic
>record and not require a 533? I'm afraid a looser use of 533 will only
>add to the confusion unless OCLC rethinks its "master record" approach.
>It may be that the real problem here is that the 533 field has been turned
>into an edition identifier and given a role and importance far beyond that
>of a descriptive note, making it difficult to reclaim it now as simply
>descriptive information. As an alternative, could OCLC's Local Holdings
>functionality be tapped into for piece-specific preservation detail
>Anyway, I've given below some existing documentation on the use of the 533
>that would need clarification for this new use of 533 (I've bolded the key
>--*From OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Field 533*
>For *electronic resources*, use field 533 for information describing a
>remotely accessed electronic reproduction of a work previously published
>in printed form, including electronic books, as outlined in Library of
>Congress Rule Interpretation 1.11A. *Apply this practice only when the
>reproduction manifestation is represented by its own bibliographic record,
>separate from any record for the original print version.
>LC practice: Follow these guidelines for reproductions of previously
>existing materials that are made for: preservation purposes in formats
>other than microforms; non-microform dissertations and other reproductions
>produced "on demand"; and, electronic reproductions.
>*These guidelines identify the data elements to be used in the record for
>the reproduction, separate from the record for the original.* For some
>electronic reproductions, however, LC may delineate details of the
>reproduction on the record for the original manifestation rather than
>create a separate record for the reproduction. LC catalogers should
>consult "Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources"
><http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmb19_4.html> for more information
>(other cataloging agencies may have developed their own guidelines in this
>--*Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC coding guidelines*
> >>Option 2: *Single record with a reference to the electronic item*
>You may create a record for the nonelectronic version and add an
>annotation about the existence of and access to the electronic version.
>The nonelectronic version is the primary version and the electronic copy
> 1. Select the workform based on the current definition of "Type" and
> the primary aspect of the item.
> 2. Do not input field 006 for the electronic version.
> 3. Do not code "Form of Item"(008/23, 008/29, 006/06, or 006/12,
> depending on bibliographic format) for the electronic version.
> 4. Optionally, include field 007.
> 5. *Note the availability of the electronic version in field 530.*
> >>*Electronic Reproductions of Items Previously Published in Print Form*
>In May 2000, the Library of Congress issued a revised version of LC Rule
>Interpretation 1.11A. The revision expands LC's "microform exception" to
>AACR2, outlined in the related LCRI for Chapter 11, to include remotely
>accessed electronic reproductions of works previously published in printed
>form (including electronic books). *This practice applies only when the
>reproduction manifestation is represented by its own bibliographic record,
>separate from any record for the original.*
>... Give in a single note (533 field) all other details relating to the
>reproduction and its publication/availability, including format of the
>reproduction, dates of publication and/or sequential designation of issues
>reproduced (for serials), place and name of the agency responsible for the
>reproduction, date of the reproduction, physical description of the
>reproduction if different from the original, series statement of the
>reproduction (if applicable), notes relating to the reproduction (if
>--*OCLC's When to Input a New Record*
> 533 Reproduction Note
>Absence or presence of field justifies a new record. Having the
>information in field 500 instead, does not justify a new record.
>[I translate this as: If you have the original item, do not use a record
>with a 533 reproduction note; if you have the reproduction, do not use a
>record that doesn't have a 533]
>Renette Davis wrote:
>>Those of you who are digitizing resources in your local institutions and
>>trying to figure out how to get the records into the Registry of Digital
>>Masters may be interested in attending the following meeting.
>>Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group
>>Saturday, January 20, 2007: 4-6pm
>>2B WCC (Convention Center)
>>Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources for the Registry of
>>The program will include:
>>1) Background on the Registry of Digital Masters and MARC fields used
>>in digital registry records;
>>2) Discussion of the draft document, "Guidance for Cataloging Locally
>>(This document has been developed by a group comprising members from:
>>CONSER, CIC Heads of Cataloging, CIC Heads of Preservation, the PARS
>>Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group, the DLF Registry
>>of Digital Masters Working Group, and staff from the Library of Congress
>>Welcome and announcements Tyra Grant, Interest Group
>>co-chair (University of Kansas)
>>Overview and background Sherry Byrne (University
>>Introduction to the Digital Registry Glenn Patton (OCLC)
>>Introduction to the 583 field Debra McKern
>>(Library of Congress)
>>Cataloging guidelines to date Renette Davis
>>(University of Chicago)
>>Harvard practice and perspective Steven Riel (Harvard)
>>Questions and discussion All speakers above plus
>>Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress)