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.

Renette

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
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>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]
>http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>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.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Renette