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