4 messages:
1)---------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Electronic resources -- Sue Charik
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:59:25 -0500
From: "Fiander, P. Michelle" <mfiander@IUPUI.EDU>
Sue, I'll contribute my two cents worth and ask you a questionin return.
I'd
be inclined to stick with the existing record, noting that the journal
continues in electronic format only. By the way, are you recording
holdings
information for electronic titles?
Thanks,
*********************************
Michelle Fiander
IUPUI University Library
755 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
2)-------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Electronic resources -- Sue Charik
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:31:19 -0500
From: "Windsor, Madeline P" <windsor@exchange.bnl.gov>
Sue,
When you say "one record" approach, do you mean just one "Catalog"
record?
Our Library System has "Copy" records. We use one "Catalog" record and
attach "Copy" records to it. Therefore we use "1" Catalog record with
multiple Copy records attached. The Copy record for the print would
show
the Holdings as closed, and the Copy record for the Web version would
show
it as open.
We are just starting to look for a new Library System, and this feature,
that is, having "Copy" records is something we will probably have to
consider. I'd be interested in knowing what my colleagues think? That
is,
the pros or cons of "Copy" records?
I realize I am asking more questions than giving answers, I hope it is
not
out-of-line?
Thanks, Madeline Windsor
Brookhaven National Laboratory
3)------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Electronic resources -- Sue Charik
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:08:09 -0600
From: "Cheryl L. Conway" <cconway@comp.uark.edu>
Sue:
I like to create a new record for the electronic version after the print
ceases pub and link by the 780, 785 notes whenever appropriate. Or, a
general note if the new version has become "monographic" in nature. It
seems to me that the elecronic version is now a different title or
edition
as the case may be. I would also like to hear of any other solutions to
this issue as I anticipate this will occur more often in the future.
Thanks,
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: electronic resources
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:06:14 +1100
>From: Sue Charik <scharik@SCU.EDU.AU>
>
> We are currently using the one record approach with electronic
>versions of
>printed journals.
>
> I am interested to find out what other libraries are doing when
>the print
>version ceases publication and only the electronic version remains
>available. Do you close the record and create a new record for the
>electronic version, or just close the dates for the print version and
>add a
>note to say it is continued by the electronic version.
>
> Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks, Sue
>
>
>
>
>Sue Charik
>Cataloguing Section
>Information Services
>Southern Cross University
>P O Box 157
>LISMORE NSW 2480
>
>Phone: (02) 6620 3726
>Fax: (02) 6621 9770
>Email: scharik@scu.edu.au
>
>
Cheryl L. Conway
Cataloging Department, Serials Cataloger
University Libraries
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
4)--------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Fiander, P. Michelle" <mfiander@iupui.edu>
Subject: RE: Electronic resources -- Paula Coulthard
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:18:41 -0500
If the OCLC record for print is closed, it would probably be
best to
use the record for the electronic version of the journal. On the other
hand,
if the content is identical, would it matter what format your holdings
are
in? Would ILL staff not have a look at your holdings if the OCLC record
was
closed? Is it possible to continue to update LDRs on closed OCLC
records? I
dont' know. Guess I should find out.
It's also true that some online journals are modified versions
of
the print, i.e. not identical to the print. There are however a few
collections where, as far as I know, the print and electronic versions
are
identical and are likely to remain so--I'm thinking of J-Stor and
project
Muse. For these, I prefer a single record approach.
For titles where the consistency of content from one format to
another is not clear, or decidedly different, two records is probably a
good
idea. Even in this case, though, the print record could still contain a
link
to the electronic version (856) with a note ($z perhaps?) to explain
that
the content in the electronic version may differ from that of the print.
*********************************
Michelle Fiander
IUPUI University Library
755 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Electronic resources -- Sue Charik
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:00:24 -0600
From: Paula Coulthard <Paula.Coulthard@UNI.EDU>
Organization: University of Northern Iowa
I am also very interested to hear what other libraries are doing
regarding print/electronic versions of the same title. In the
past we have always taken a single record approach to multiple
formats, but as I think about this, it is usually for print and
a reproduction such as microfilm. With the growing use of
electronic formats, I am not so sure of continuing to use the
same record. What I am concerned about the most is that
although the electronic version may have started out as a
reproduction of what was published in print, it is no longer a
reproduction, it is the single source of the information and the
only format published. If there are two records on OCLC now and
I elect to continue to use the paper record (which is now closed
on OCLC) it could be deceiving to others trying to determine
what is accessable at this library if I do not also at least
update the electronic version also. I am also aware that the
electronic version does not always match the print version in
content. I am not at all familiar with the current discussions
or literature in this area except for what I read on Serialst.
Thank-you,
Paula Coulthard
Rod Library, UNI
Cedar Falls, IA 50613
