The 533 will be used on print version records in the Registry of Digital 
Masters to give information about the reproduction when the institution is 
using a single record approach. Several other methods of providing 
information about the reproduction were discussed by the Digital Library 
Federation Registry of Digital Masters Working Group, but they decided on 
533 because it has a corresponding holdings field, and it was felt that 
eventually this information may be migrated to holdings records. More 
details can be found at:

http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-03.html

When using the single record approach, subfield a in the 533 will say "Also 
available as electronic reproduction" instead of "Electronic reproduction" 
to help make it clear that this is a print version record rather than an 
electronic version record. Examples of both the single record approach and 
separate record approach are available at:

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/CIC/Guidance.html

Although there are some examples of serials using the single record 
approach in that document, there has been a lot of discussion on the CONSER 
email list about whether we really want to continue the use of single 
records, particularly for digital registry records. One of the problems has 
been providing access to a series which applies only to the electronic 
version on the print version record when using the single record approach. 
This issue will be discussed at the CONSER Operations Meeting in May.

There didn't seem to be the same objection from monographic catalogers to 
adding an 8XX for a series which applies only to the electronic version on 
the print version record as there was from serials catalogers. I wanted to 
make sure I was not making an incorrect assumption, though, which was why I 
sent out the original message.

Note that the current Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation 
Guidelines - available at 
http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide.htm - say, "One 
bibliographic record could represent all versions of an item, but it is 
recommended that a separate record be created for each manifestation when 
physical formats and system requirements differ from the original form of 
an item/object." The revised guidelines, which will be published soon, will 
say something similar. However, there are a number of institutions that are 
committed to using a single record approach, and it is desirable to have 
records from those institutions in the digital registry, so single records 
will be allowed.

Note also that the digital registry record IS the WorldCat record, so even 
though these policies are being developed for digital registry records, 
they will affect WorldCat records. Even though you may not be digitizing 
resources in your institution, you may be using these WorldCat records, so 
it's important that we come up with guidelines that are acceptable to everyone.

Thanks,

Renette



At 08:23 AM 3/19/2007, you wrote:

>--- Hal Cain <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>--- Jonathan Makepeace <[log in to unmask]> a écrit:
> > > 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.
>
>A 533 might imply that the library only held the reproduction.  Section E 
>of the CONSER Editing Guide states:  "When field 533 is used in a record, 
>the 'form of item' code (006/06 008/23) is set to a value other than 
>'blank' (e.g., 'a' for microfilm, 'b' for microfiche, etc.)."  Similarly, 
>a 500 $3 might imply that the electronic was part of the print.
>
>Perhaps I misunderstood the question.  My suggestion was intended for 
>those using the single-record approach, where one attachs holdings for the 
>electronic to a record describing the print.
>
>Jonathan David Makepeace, Gestionnaire, Périodiques | Manager, Serials
>Institut canadien de l'information scientifique et technique (ICIST)
>Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI)
>Conseil national de recherches | National Research Council
>1200, ch. de Montréal Rd., M-55, pièce | Rm. 188, Ottawa ON  K1A 0R6
>Tél. | Tel. : 613-949-8094      Téléc. | Fax : 613-952-8245