Jonathan Makepeace wrote:
> --- Renette Davis <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>> 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.
> Has anyone
> suggested noting the source of the series statement?490 1# $a Series
> statement from electronic version: [series statement]830 ... (830 has
> replaced 840 for such purposes)
To my mind, that mixes information for the original and for the
reproduction even more confusingly. I think the series as traced for
the electronic version is better handled by using $3 = Materials
specified (as in 6XX and 500 tags) and/or a relator code $4 and, if
necessary, transcribing the series as found in 533 $f. I don't find $8,
which is invisible to searchers reading a record, a good solution.
Hal Cain
Dalton McCaughey Library (formerly Joint Theological Library)
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
[log in to unmask]
|