Hi Renette,

Since I won't be able to attend the meeting, I'm sending comments to you now.

This is especially on your category "Monograph - Single record approach."  If I am understanding you correctly, you are advocating use of the 533 to note the availability of an electronic reproduction on a record also meant to represent a print edition.  In my experience, this is not the way the 533 has been used in monograph records, at least in OCLC.  Monograph records with a 533 field are meant to represent ONLY the reproduction; the fact that the original print version is described in the body of the record is just a cataloging shortcut.
The development by the Library of Congress of this 533 model for reproductions dates back to microform reproductions and pre-dates the single-record approach that is now being used to represent print/electronic editions with one record.

There's no question that this is now a very muddled situation but documentation by OCLC and LC still indicate that records with 533 fields are not meant to be single records representing multiple versions. (That being said, however, LC is obviously ambivalent about this as can be seen in the last sentence of the LCRI 1.11A below).  Up to now, a quick way to tell "reproduction-only records" from "single records" is that reproduction records use field 533 to describe the other format, while single records use a 530.  The problem here is that the 530 used in the single record doesn't have as good subfielding for description details as the 533 does so I can see why it might not meet your needs.

I know that all this is in flux and I personally have never liked the 533 reproduction model, so I'm not defending it.  It's just that I'm concerned that records for various permutations of electronic resources are proliferating in OCLC and it is getting more and more difficult to interpret what version(s) a record represents. I'm also concerned about your suggested use of the 533 in a separate record for the monographic electronic edition.  If you are describing the digitized version in its own record, wouldn't the details of that version be part of the basic record and not require a 533?   I'm afraid a looser use of 533 will only add to the confusion unless OCLC rethinks its "master record" approach. 

It may be that the real problem here is that the 533 field has been turned into an edition identifier and given a role and importance far beyond that of a descriptive note, making it difficult to reclaim it now as simply descriptive information.  As an alternative, could OCLC's Local Holdings functionality be tapped into for piece-specific preservation detail (

Anyway, I've given below some existing documentation on the use of the 533 that would need clarification for this new use of 533 (I've bolded the key sentences).

Celine Noel
UNC-Chapel Hill

--*From OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Field 533* (
For *electronic resources*, use field 533 for information describing a remotely accessed electronic reproduction of a work previously published in printed form, including electronic books, as outlined in Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 1.11A. *Apply this practice only when the reproduction manifestation is represented by its own bibliographic record, separate from any record for the original print version.

*--*LCRI 1.11A*:
Non-Microform Reproductions
LC practice: Follow these guidelines for reproductions of previously existing materials that are made for: preservation purposes in formats other than microforms; non-microform dissertations and other reproductions produced "on demand"; and, electronic reproductions.
*These guidelines identify the data elements to be used in the record for the reproduction, separate from the record for the original.* For some electronic reproductions, however, LC may delineate details of the reproduction on the record for the original manifestation rather than create a separate record for the reproduction. LC catalogers should consult "Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources" <> for more information (other cataloging agencies may have developed their own guidelines in this regard).

--*Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC coding guidelines* (

>>Option 2: *Single record with a reference to the electronic item*

You may create a record for the nonelectronic version and add an annotation about the existence of and access to the electronic version. The nonelectronic version is the primary version and the electronic copy is secondary.

  1. Select the workform based on the current definition of "Type" and
     the primary aspect of the item.
  2. Do not input field 006 for the electronic version.
  3. Do not code "Form of Item"(008/23, 008/29, 006/06, or 006/12,
     depending on bibliographic format) for the electronic version.
  4. Optionally, include field 007.
  5. *Note the availability of the electronic version in field 530.*

>>*Electronic Reproductions of Items Previously Published in Print Form*

In May 2000, the Library of Congress issued a revised version of LC Rule Interpretation 1.11A. The revision expands LC's "microform exception" to AACR2, outlined in the related LCRI for Chapter 11, to include remotely accessed electronic reproductions of works previously published in printed form (including electronic books). *This practice applies only when the reproduction manifestation is represented by its own bibliographic record, separate from any record for the original.*

... Give in a single note (533 field) all other details relating to the reproduction and its publication/availability, including format of the reproduction, dates of publication and/or sequential designation of issues reproduced (for serials), place and name of the agency responsible for the reproduction, date of the reproduction, physical description of the reproduction if different from the original, series statement of the reproduction (if applicable), notes relating to the reproduction (if applicable).

--*OCLC's When to Input a New Record* (

     533 Reproduction Note

Absence or presence of field justifies a new record. Having the information in field 500  instead, does not justify a new record.

[I translate this as:  If you have the original item, do not use a record with a 533 reproduction note; if you have the reproduction, do not use a record that doesn't have a 533]


Renette Davis wrote:

Those of you who are digitizing resources in your local institutions and trying to figure out how to get the records into the Registry of Digital Masters may be interested in attending the following meeting.

Renette Davis


Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group
Saturday, January 20, 2007: 4-6pm
2B WCC (Convention Center)

Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources for the Registry of Digital Masters

The program will include:

1)    Background on the Registry of Digital Masters and MARC fields used in digital registry records;

2)    Discussion of the draft document, "Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources" <>

(This document has been developed by a group comprising members from: CONSER, CIC Heads of Cataloging, CIC Heads of Preservation, the PARS Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group, the DLF Registry of Digital Masters Working Group, and staff from the Library of Congress and OCLC.)


Welcome and announcements                  Tyra Grant, Interest Group co-chair (University of Kansas)
Overview and background                          Sherry Byrne (University of Chicago)
Introduction to the Digital Registry              Glenn Patton (OCLC)
Introduction to the 583 field                         Debra McKern (Library of Congress)
Cataloging guidelines to date                      Renette Davis (University of Chicago)
Harvard practice and perspective               Steven Riel (Harvard)
Questions and discussion                          All speakers above plus Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress)