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
>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.