 |
 |
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