3 messages:

1)-------------------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Electronic Resources
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:36:28 -0500
From: SharonQuinn Fitzgerald <SharonQuinn_Fitzgerald@UMIT.MAINE.EDU>
Organization: University of Maine

Hello Sue,

The University of Maine System has elected to use one bibliographic
record for our catalog with attached records representing the various
formats.  So in a case where the record is no longer available in
paper, we have a closed holdings record attached as well as another
record to represent our electronic access.  We add appropriate notes to
the bib records: 530, 856, etc.

We are a System of 11 major libraries in the state.  Our decision in
this matter follows the policy established earlier for other
alternative formats, most notably microform.  We felt we would not be
doing our users any favors by presenting them with multiple bib records
to choose from in the System's OPAC.  With ideally one record
representing a given title, patrons can then look at attached holdings
to determine which medium they want to pursue.

My concern however is one that Paula Coulthard (UNI) has already raised
regarding content.  In my experience most paper to electronic journals
started out as truly electronic versions but an increasing number are
now exploring the real potential of the medium in ways that make the
content significantly different.  Thus we are faced with reconsidering
the need for a separate bibliographic representation in our catalog.

Good topic!

Sharon Quinn Fitzgerald
Head, Serials
Fogler Library
University of Maine

--
Sharon Quinn Fitzgerald
Interim Campus Web Manager
University of Maine

2)--------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Electronic resources
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:48:17 -0500
From: "Jean L. Hirons" <jhir@LOC.GOV>

Colleagues,

For what it is worth, I will offer the 'official' CONSER
policy on the issue of using a single record for print and
electronic. CONSER sanctioned the single record approach with the
idea that the record represents the print and notes the presence of the
electronic.  Thus, when the print dies, that record should be closed off
and
a new record created for the electronic, if one does not already exist.

This is not the final word, however, as the Joint Steering Committee is
reviewing a revision to rule 0.24.  Nevertheless, the situation has
become more complicated since we first instituted the
single record and there are serious considerations for OCLC and other
shared databases. The topic of multiple versions will be addressed at
the
mid-May meeting of the CONSER and BIBCO Operations Committees and I hope
that
we can develop further guidelines at that time that may be of use to
everyone.

Jean Hirons
CONSER Coordinator
Library of Congress
jhir@loc.gov
202-707-5947
fax 202-707-6333

3)----------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Electronic resources -- Sue Charik
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:01:39 -0500
From: Nancy Burns <nburns@phoenix.princeton.edu>

        According to CONSER's current "rules of thumb" (CONSER
Cataloging
Manual, 31.3.5):

"Separate records are preferred when the online version has significant
additional content not present in the original."

        The Manual's 31.17, Linking Relationships, gives an example of
earlier/later records when print & online coexist for a few years, then
print ceases and online alone continues.  See:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/mod31pt2.html

                                Nancy Burns
                                Cataloging Unit IV (Serials)
                                Princeton University Library
                                nburns@princeton.edu

> -------- 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.