If you're using a one-record approach, I'm not sure why it would be a 533
since the 533 is typically used on a record that is actually for the
reproduction. In other words, when I catalog a photocopy, although some
of the descriptive elements are based on the original, the entire record
is for the photocopy. It's not the same as a one-record approach where
the other version is described in a 530 other physical form note.
What am I missing?
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Renette Davis wrote:
> It would actually be a 533 with $a Also available as electronic reproduction.
> Other subfields in 533 would be as normal. The series that applies to the
> electronic version would be in subfield f.
> At 01:42 PM 5/8/2007, you wrote:
>> I would think that if there is note indicating the series title of the
>> electronic version, that a simple 8XX would suffice:
>> 530 Also issued electronically via World Wide Web, with series title: ...
>> Without some kind of note identifying that the series title belongs to the
>> e-version, then I think some other kind of coding should be included,
>> perhaps a subfield in the 8XX that indicates that the series entry applies
>> only to the e-version.
>> Adam L. Schiff
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Libraries
>> Box 352900
>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>> (206) 543-8409
>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>> [log in to unmask]
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Renette Davis wrote:
>>> It was decided at the CONSER Operations meeting last week that CONSER
>>> members will not submit CONSER records to the Registry of Digital Masters
>>> for serials using the single record approach for a period of one year.
>>> During that time, only the separate record aggregator neutral approach
>>> will be used for digital registry records. This will allow CONSER time to
>>> gather data on the potential impact on subscribers of the CONSER file of
>>> additional elements required for the RDM on the print record.
>>> We did not discuss the issue of whether a series which applies only to the
>>> electronic version record can be added to the print version record when
>>> using the single record approach, since CONSER will not be using the
>>> single record approach for digital registry records (at least for one
>>> year). There did not seem to be objection from monographic catalogers to
>>> adding such a series to the print version record so I think we could now
>>> add an 8XX which applies only to the electronic version to the monograph
>>> single record digital registry examples if others agree.
>>> If we do that, we probably should discuss whether we need some mechanism
>>> for indicating that this series applies only to the electronic version.
>>> Some suggestions that were made on the CONSER and PCC lists are:
>>> *Define subfield 5 for 8XX (similar to what has been done for 533 and
>>> *Use subfield 8 in 8XX and other digital registry fields to link the
>>> fields together and indicate that they relate to the reproduction.
>>> *Define a new subfield in 533 for authorized form of series.
>>> *Define an indicator value for all RDM fields as an aid to deleting them
>>> from records in the local catalog.
>>> *Define a new field link type for subfield 8 that says the fields are
>>> related to a reproduction AND reside on a non-reproduction record.
>>> *Define a new subfield in 8XX for the version to which the field applies.
>>> Does anybody have thoughts on whether we should now allow a series that
>>> applies only to the electronic version on the print version record when
>>> using the single record approach for monographs in the digital registry?
>>> If so, should we come up with a mechanism to indicate that this series
>>> applies only to the electronic version? If so, what should that mechanism
>>> Remember that the digital registry record IS the WorldCat record, so even
>>> though your institution may not be contributing records to the Registry of
>>> Digital Masters, you may be using records that others have contributed.