We have been discussing on the CONSER list some questions which came up at
Midwinter regarding cataloging for the Registry of Digital Masters. For
those of you who did not attend the digital registry meetings at Midwinter,
a summary is available at:
One of the questions is whether a series which applies only to the
electronic version can be added to the print version record when using a
single record approach. Since this applies to monographs as much as
(probably more so than) serials, I am interested in hearing the views of
monographic catalogers on this matter.
Even if you are not involved in digitizing resources at your library, or
are not involved in getting records for those digitized resources into the
Registry of Digital Masters, the digital registry record IS the WorldCat
record, so it's possible you may be using those records.
The DLF Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines recommend
"that a separate record be created for each manifestation when physical
formats and system requirements differ from the original form of an
item/object." The CONSER group is also recommending that the separate
record approach be used for serials in the digital registry. With serials,
if one institution which uses a separate record approach digitizes some
volumes of a title, they will put the information about those volumes on
the electronic version record, and then if another institution which uses a
single record approach digitizes other volumes of the same title, they will
put the information about those volumes on the print version record.
Therefore, no one record will contain information about all of the
However, there are some institutions which are committed to using the
single record approach and would not be able to contribute records to the
digital registry if single records were not allowed. The feeling is that it
would be better for people to have to look at two records to get all of the
information about volumes that have been digitized than not to have some of
the information available at all. Therefore, CONSER (and the DLF Registry
of Digital Masters Working Group) also supports the option of a single
The issue which we are dealing with now has to do with adding a series
which applies only to the electronic version to the print version record
when using the single record approach. There are some CONSER members who
feel that it's ok to add such a series in subfield f of the 533, but it
should not be added as an 8XX to the print version record. There are others
who feel that it is important to provide an added entry for the series.
An example of a series which applies only to the electronic version is
Cornell University Library historical math monographs. There are at least 2
records in OCLC for the collection - OCLC #54958588 as BLvl i and #81483580
as BLvl m. There is a series authority record - ARN 05482924, 010
no2001037016, established by the University of Washington.
Our math bibliographer asked us to catalog the website and all of the
monographs on the website. We had most of the monographs in print, so we
just added a 530 note, an 856, and an 830 for the series. (The
bibliographer specifically asked us to provide access by the series for these.)
When we have the print version, we normally do not update OCLC, except for
things which we digitize here, so you can't see any of the single records
in OCLC, but if you go to our online catalog at http://libcat.uchicago.edu/
and select series under "Begins with" and then type Cornell University
Library historical math monographs in the box below that, you will get the
records. Clicking on one of the titles will give you the full record and
then clicking on the link will give you the document.
You can see that Cornell University Library historical math monographs
(actually a variation of that) appears at the top of each of the individual
monographs. When I asked about providing access to the name a digital
collection during one of the RDA discussions, Adam Schiff said that he was
told by LC that if the name of the collection appears in conjunction with
all of the digital objects, it can be considered a series.
At the University of Chicago Library, some of our digital collections can
be considered a series because the name of the collection appears in
conjunction with all of the digital objects. We use a single record
approach here, so we add the URL to the print version record in our local
catalog (and for things that we digitize at the University of Chicago to
the record in OCLC.) We have been asked by the group which coordinates the
creation of digital collections here to add the series as well as the URL
to the print version records but we will not be able to add it to the OCLC
records if an 8XX which applies only to the electronic version is not
allowed on a print version record. These will be digital registry records.
So the questions for this group are:
1. Is it important to provide access by a series which applies only to the
2. If it is important, is it ok to add an 8XX to the print version record
if using a single record approach?
3. If we define a $5 to the 8XX fields (as we just did for 533 and 538),
would that make it more acceptable to add an 8XX for the series that
applies only to the electronic version to the print version record?
4. If it's important to provide access by the series, but not ok to add an
8XX to the print version record, is there any other way to do it? We have
discussed adding it in a 7XX as the name of a collection, but my guess is
that those who oppose adding an 8XX that applies only to the electronic
version to a print version record would also oppose adding a 7XX that
applies only to the electronic version to the print version record. I think
it's a given that some institutions will continue to use the single record