----------(1)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:17:03 -0500
From: John Radencich <radencic@FIU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Survey

We use the single record method.  It's partly out of necessity because if
we had to catalog all these things over again (which is effectively what
you are doing if you do multiple records) we'd still be cataloging works
we've already done a year ago.  Our users have no trouble at all figuring
out which is which and how to get by with this method.  If that's the case,
why make extra work?

John Radencich
Library-Cataloging Dept.
Florida International University
Miami, Fla.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:29:41 -0500
> From: Chris Blackman <Christine.W.Blackman@williams.edu>
> Subject: Serialist Question
>
> I'm conducting an informal survey partly in response to the PCC task
> force survey posted earlier this week. I'm specifically addressing this
> to mid-size academic libraries, as I want to find out whether our
> library is in the minority by using the multiple record method.
>
> My bias is that the multiple record method is almost always better
> cataloging practice and easier to understand. In the interest of
> consistency we've applied this across the board (other than with our
> gov. docs. collections) to the exclusion of using single record method
> in any instance.
>
> So, I'm curious to know how many libraries are using the single record
> method, multiple record method, or a combination of both. Do you feel
> that your choice has been effective in your library -- provided more or
> less confusion for the public, more or less work (has the work been
> worthwhile).
>
> As an aside, for those who also have gov. docs. collections -- do you
> subscribe to a tape service (MARCIVE, OCLC) and accept GPO records as
> is? If not, how much do you tweak the records at export from your
> bibliographic service?
>
> I'd appreciate any response be it very short (yes, yes, no) to a more
> involved explanation. Reply off list and I'll post a summary if folks
> are interested. Thanks in advance.
>
> Chris Blackman
> Catalog Librarian
> Williams College Libraries
> Williamstown, MA  01267
> (413) 597-4403
> cblackma@williams.edu

----------(2)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:19:14 -0500
From: Margo Warner Curl <mcurl@ACS.WOOSTER.EDU>
Subject: Re: one record or two

We have in our library always used separate records for separate formats
for the reasons you mention below.  However, we are an OhioLINK member.
There has been pressure from the 'public service'-oriented committees in
OhioLINK to go to a single record (particularly for print/ejournals,
print/ebooks) as it was believed to be much clearer for patrons.  The
Database Management & Standards Committee has drafted a proposal, after
MUCH debate, to use a single record.  This proposal has not been adopted
yet, and it is not known yet whether this will be mandated for only the
central OhioLINK db, but also for individual member catalogs.  There was a
strong concensus that this not apply retrospectively, nor to
print/microform situations, because of the tremendous amount of work that
would entail. OSU Libraries did catalog the (ebook) ITKnowledge titles
using a single-record approach, with the print form as primary, as a test
of this.
Margo

Margo Warner Curl
Technical Services Librarian
The College of Wooster Libraries
1140 Beall Avenue
Wooster, OH  44691

phone: 330/263-2154
fax: 330/263-2253
email: mcurl@acs.wooster.edu

----------(3)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:18:04 -0600
From: Ruth Ann Gibson <Gibson@MC.EDU>

For our periodicals collection, we use one record with all the holdings
info for the public.  Records for other formats of the same title are in
the database for invoicing & cataloging purposes, but are supressed from
the public.  This was done at the request of the public services
librarians.  It makes more work for those checking in materials.

Ruth Ann Gibson
Technical Services Librarian
Mississippi College