LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  March 2007

PCCLIST March 2007

Subject:

Re: Series question

From:

Sue Wartzok <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:03:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (133 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager