$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:
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]

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?