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
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.
>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:
>>>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?
>>>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.
>>Dalton McCaughey Library (formerly Joint Theological Library)
>>Parkville, Victoria, Australia
>>[log in to unmask]
>>NEW EMAIL ADDRESSES