LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  May 2007

PCCLIST May 2007

Subject:

Re: CONSER serials in the Registry of Digital Masters

From:

"Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 8 May 2007 13:42:40 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (106 lines)

Renette,

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
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 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
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager