Print

Print


The Digital Library Federation Registry of Digital Masters Working Group 
considered a number of alternatives for noting a digital reproduction on 
the print version record when using a single record approach, and finally 
decided that 533 would be best. I believe the main reason was that this 
information may be migrated to holdings records at some point, and there is 
a corresponding holdings field (843) where the 533 information can be 
easily migrated.

You are correct that up until now, we have thought of a record with a 533 
as being a record for the reproduction itself. That is why it was decided 
that the wording in subfield a should be "Also available as electronic 
reproduction" in the print version record when using the single record 
approach, instead of "Electronic reproduction" which would be used in the 
electronic version record when using the separate record approach.

There actually are a number of print version records already in the digital 
registry (and thus in WorldCat) with a 533 that says "Electronic 
reproduction." Those records were causing problems because some people did, 
in fact, interpret them as records for the reproduction itself (even though 
there was no $h [electronic resource] in the 245) and were creating 
duplicate print version records.

The revised DLF Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines will 
be published very soon, and I will share the URL with this group as soon as 
it is available. Those guidelines say, "... it is preferred that a separate 
record be supplied for each manifestation when physical formats and system 
requirements differ from the original form of an item/object" but they also 
allow for a single record approach, where information about the digital 
version is noted on the print version record. The single record examples in 
the guidelines have "Also available as electronic reproduction" instead of 
"Electronic reproduction" in 533 subfield a. It is hoped that using this 
wording will make it more clear that this is actually a record for the 
print version.

So back to the original questions - If we are using the single record 
approach and there is a series which applies only to the electronic 
version, is it ok to trace it on the print version record in an 8XX? If so, 
do we need a mechanism to indicate that this series applies only to the 
electronic version? If so, what should that mechanism be?

Thanks,

Renette


At 03:42 PM 5/8/2007, you wrote:
>Renette,
>
>If you're using a one-record approach, I'm not sure why it would be a 533 
>since the 533 is typically used on a record that is actually for the 
>reproduction.  In other words, when I catalog a photocopy, although some 
>of the descriptive elements are based on the original, the entire record 
>is for the photocopy.  It's not the same as a one-record approach where 
>the other version is described in a 530 other physical form note.
>
>What am I missing?
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>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 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