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
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 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 538).
> *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 be?
> 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.