I don't have a strong opinion but I will point out that, for systems that use 33x's to drive format-based discovery (isolating facets, for example), a user will not know that there is a microreproduction of the newspaper if the 33x's only point to the print. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP That's two votes for print and one vote for all formats (1 abstention: me). Closing the ballot box. Print wins! Steve -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Grenci Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP Since CONSER already approved continuing the master record concept for US newspapers, I've been assuming we will continue as in the past: the bib. record will relate solely to the print version, with the addition of a note about the existence of the microfilm (or other) version(s). This would mean the 33Xs would be solely for the print, I believe. Mary -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:01 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP Thanks, Dale and Ed! This will likely be going into to CCM 33.10 (Newspapers: Physical description), so I want to make sure I have it right. "Common sense" would suggest Ed's answer (and means I don't have to include an illustrative example in 33.10). But I'm not entirely convinced that Dale is incorrect. Any thoughts, Les, Hien, or other LC person? Also, following Dale's suggestion, then in rare cases in which the US newspaper is in print, film, and fiche?: 336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent 337 ## $3 Print copies $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia 337 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia 337 ## $3 Microfiche copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia 338 ## $3 Print copies $a volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier 338 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier 338 ## $3 Microfiche copies $a microfiche $b hd $2 rdacarrier Or, to reduce redundancy (1 336, 2 337's, and 3 338's)? 336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent 337 ## $3 Print copies $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia 337 ## $3 Microform copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia 338 ## $3 Print copies $a volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier 338 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier 338 ## $3 Microfiche copies $a microfiche $b hd $2 rdacarrier Steve Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 [log in to unmask] CRL website: www.crl.edu -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:47 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP My understanding of the Master Record convention is that the description relates solely to the print (technically the newspaper as originally published), so logically the 33X fields, being part of the description, would also relate solely to the print. -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dale Swensen Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP Steve, Media and carrier types are repeatable, so it could possibly go 336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent 337 ## unmediated $b n $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia 338 ## volume $b nc $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier Or perhaps even something like 336 ## text $b txt $2 rdacontent 337 ## $3 Print copies $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia 337 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microform $b h $2 rdamedia 338 ## $3 Print copies $a volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier 338 ## $3 Microfilm copies $a microfilm reel $b hd $2 rdacarrier Of course appropriate to whatever the microform carrier is. Dale Dale Swensen Head of Technical Services & Digital Access Howard W. Hunter Law Library 260D JRCB Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801-422-4407 Fax 801-422-0404 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:00 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [PCCTG1] 33x's for USNP Anyone know what the 336, 337, and 338 would be for an RDA USNP MARC record? I'm guessing they would either be for the print or possibly omitted entirely? Here's the section in LC PCC PS 0.0 on USNP if anyone needs a refresher: Newspapers LC practice: LC's records for U.S. newspapers in microform follow the guidelines of the United States Newspaper Program (USNP). USNP is not required to follow the CONSER practice of creating separate records for U.S. titles in microform, but generally uses the "master record convention" to account for the various physical forms in which a newspaper is held. The bibliographic record describes the newspaper as it was originally published. The physical format, whether original newsprint, microform, or reprint, is described in the Copy Field of the OCLC local data record. Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 [log in to unmask] CRL website: www.crl.edu