I had not considered the particular analogy that Sue Wartzok outlined,
but it seems like it is the reverse of what is being proposed in terms
of adding the series tracing that applies to the electronic reproduction
to the record for the print original.
In the case of the reprint and original monographs, the analogy might be
more along of the lines of go back to the record for the original 1890
print version and add notes indicating that the title was reprinted in
1980 and then add a "Kraus reprint series" tracing to that original
version record. A library that only has the 1890 original may not care
about the 1980 reprint or its series tracing. Would that also be okay
if justified via notes?
[log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Sue Wartzok
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Series question
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.
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.