 |
 |
$8 might be appropriate to use for that as it could link all notes about a particular format together and has a byte for reproduction. See: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html Also, $8 would be consistent with its use in the MARC holdings format if we ever wanted to migrate some of that information to the holdings record. Jim Latchney Cataloging & Reference Librarian Cataloging and Metadata Services Michigan State University Libraries 100 Library East Lansing, MI 48824-1048 (517) 432-6123 x317 (517) 353-8969 (fax) "...the modern cataloger will one day be a software-enabled specialist who can gather, subset, normalize, and enrich piles of records for a specific audience or purpose."--Roy Tennant, Library Journal, Apr. 15, 2006 -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:35 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series question Maybe instead of a $5 in 8XX for the institution to which the field applies, we need a new subfield for the version to which the field applies? Kind of like the $d that we have in the 6XX series authority fields which encodes volumes/dates to which the data in the field applies. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Renette Davis wrote: > So the questions for this group are: > > 3. If we define a $5 to the 8XX fields (as we just did for 533 and 538), > would that make it more acceptable to add an 8XX for the series that applies > only to the electronic version to the print version record? >