You raise some very important questions.  When the PDF version is clearly
a reproduction, we follow LCRI 1.11.  The ones that are easy to tell are
the things that based on when they were originally published (say,
pre-1990) couldn't possibly be anything other than a reproduction.  But
for currently published things, this is now really hard.  And I know of
numerous publications that are coming out earlier in the PDF version than
their print versions.

Here's an example of an email I recently received that was on a
notification list that I'm signed up to:

Effects of Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve on demersal fish
By C.M. Denny, T.J. Willis, and R.C. Babcock
DOC Science Internal Series 142.  34 p.

The above new DOC science publication is now in press and mounted on
DOC's public website at
l-Series/PDF/dsis142.pdf (314 KB)

Hardcopy will be available soon (order from
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>: free of charge while stocks

The PDF could be cataloged before the print is available - does this make
it an edition rather than a reproduction?  Or is the print the

A lot of U.S. Forest Service publications are also like this - the PDF is
up their Web site months before we receive the print copy.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to create two different records for the
same thing, one as if it is an electronic edition, another as if it is an
electronic reproduction.  I think the reason many of us like the LCRI 1.11
approach is that it allows for recording of extent statements (pagination,
ill.) for documents that reproduce the pagination of print materials.  It
probably also saves time to be able to derive the reproduction record from
the existing one (if there is one) for the print.  The JSC and CC:DA are
looking into changing the rules for electronic resources to allow giving
an extent statement in bib. descriptions.  Perhaps once (if) the rules
change so that we could record the number of pages of a PDF document
(actually, if printed out, they'd be leaves, wouldn't they?), there will
be less need to apply LCRI 1.11 and we could just treat many of these
things as electronic editions.

Perhaps we need a firmer statement in the LCRI as to when to consider
something a reproduction and when not to?  And maybe an "in case of doubt"


* 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]           *