Renette, there was some discussion of this issue here in the Florida 
state university system. Several of us looked at the records that were 
cited as examples. Once we saw that the 530 note was used to identify 
the online series title, several people said that they were OK with the 
practice. It was pointed out that sometimes the records for reprinted 
monographs mention the series in which the book was originally published 
(500 note) and then trace the series in an 8XX on that basis. In view of 
this analogous practice, there doesn't seem to be a problem.

Sue

Renette Davis wrote:

> I haven't received any further response to this message, so I am 
> assuming that monographic catalogers do not have a problem with adding 
> a series that applies only to the electronic version to the print 
> version record when using the single record approach (when adding 
> access for the electronic version to the print version record instead 
> of creating a separate electronic version record.) If this is not a 
> correct assumption, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Renette
>
>
> At 09:21 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Thanks Hal for your response. Thanks also Jim for your suggestion 
>> that $8 might be appropriate to link all notes about a particular 
>> format together, and Adam for your suggestion that maybe we need a 
>> new subfield for the version to which the field applies.
>>
>> Does anybody else have thoughts on any of the questions below or the 
>> suggestions that Jim & Adam made? I have a conference call with the 
>> DLF Registry of Digital Masters Working Group this Friday and would 
>> like to be able to accurately report to that group what the feeling 
>> of this group is.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Renette
>>
>>
>> At 09:09 PM 3/1/2007, Hal Cain wrote:
>>
>>> Renette Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>> http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/CIC/Summary.html
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> This monographic cataloguer regards the single-record approach as 
>>> flawed.  That said, if you're going to add reproduction information 
>>> to the print-original record, I see no reason to exclude anything 
>>> significant.  If $f of 533 doesn't suffice (and it doesn't 
>>> distinguish series title from numbering) then 830 seems the obvious 
>>> place.
>>>
>>> I note the comment in the Seattle discussion: "If an institution 
>>> wants to use the print version record for only the print version, 
>>> they have to strip out a lot of information. Also, it may be 
>>> impossible to take apart the single records when our catalogs are 
>>> able to do a FRBR display."
>>>
>>> Even so, adding one field to a record already mixed isn't 
>>> necessarily making things significantly more difficult.
>>>
>>> I'm minded to ask, though: why not implement $6 (linking) to create 
>>> an information package of reproduction information?
>>>
>>>> So the questions for this group are:
>>>> 1. Is it important to provide access by a series which applies only 
>>>> to the electronic version?
>>>
>>>
>>> I see the logic, and see no reason to stop short with partial 
>>> access. This kind of series information is no less significant than 
>>> other series -- but we know how that's been threatened.
>>>
>>>> 2. If it is important, is it ok to add an 8XX to the print version 
>>>> record if using a single record approach?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought defining $3 (materials specified) as in 6XX 
>>> tags would be better and more distinctive if deconstruction is needed.
>>>
>>>> 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 
>>>> approach.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't see another solution that's better, indeed most seem worse.
>>>
>>> Hal Cain
>>> Dalton McCaughey Library (formerly Joint Theological Library)
>>> Parkville, Victoria, Australia
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> NEW EMAIL ADDRESSES
>>

-- 
Sue Wartzok
Head, Cataloging Department
Green Library
University Park Campus
Florida International University
Miami, Florida  33199
Phone:  (305) 348-6269
Fax:  (305) 348-1798