I believe, unless I've missed changes, that if you are using the single
record approach, you are not able to use the 776 field for an alternate
format. There is no record for an alternate format, therefore you can't
refer to it with a 776 note.

This is one of my problems with using the single record vs. the multiple
record approach -- you can't put down the information that you want to
retrieve about the alternate format on a record for the other format.
Think aggregators, how do find them in your catalog when you use single
record method? E-ISSNs are just another argument for multiple records.

I don't like the idea of fudging cataloging rules just to make life
easier. My pet peeve.

Chris Blackman
Catalog Librarian
Williams College Libraries
Williamstown, MA  01267
(413) 597-4403
cblackma@williams.edu

Original message:

> 2 messages, 77 lines:
>
> (1)---------------------------
> Date:         Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:33:57 -0800
> From:         Ryan Finnerty <Ryan@LIBRARY.UCSD.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach
>
> When doing the single record approach for cataloging ejournals, the
> electronic ISSN should go in the $x of the 776 field.  However, the 776
> field does not just have to be a note field; with most online catalogs,
> libraries can index this field however they like and have it display to
> the public with whatever display labels they feel would best convey the
> meaning of this field as it is used in their catalogs.
>
> At UCSD we use the Innovative software for our online catalog and we index
> the $x of the 776 in our standard number index.  We just added it to this
> index last year, Innovative is pretty flexible about what they will allow
> you to index.
>
> Ryan Finnerty
> Serials & Electronic Resources Cataloger
> Geisel Library
> University of California, San Diego
> <Ryan@LIBRARY.UCSD.EDU>
>
> (2)---------------------------
> Date:         Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:37:08 -0800
> From:         Stefanie Wittenbach <stefw@POP.UCR.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach
>
>          We use the single record approach here at the University of
> California, so I use a second 022 field and put (online) following the
> ISSN number.  This is somewhat in keeping with a set record that has
> separate ISBN numbers for each volume in the set and the record has
> multiple 020 fields with the volume number in parentheses following the
> specific ISBN.  Stefanie
>
> Stefanie Wittenbach
> Head of Acquisitions
> University Library
> University of California, Riverside
> P.O. Box 5900
> Riverside, CA  92517-5900
> 909/787-2805  909/787-3720 fax
> stefw@pop.ucr.edu
>
> At 05:10 PM 1/23/2001 -0500, Biserka Mrzljak  wrote:
> >I am unable to find any explanation for the ISSN of an online version of
> >its print equivalent, in the single record approach, in order to be
> >retrievable. The only place that the ISSN is recorded is in 776 tag,
> >however, this field is a note and not an access entry, and it is
> >associated with the 1st indicator 1, i.e., it is not displayable, as
> >there is no entry to link it to.
> >
> >O22, ISSN, should be associated only with a unique serial title,
> >however, the online equivalents often carry a different ISSN of their
> >print counterparts.
> >
> >There are two conflicting pieces of information in:
> >
> >USMARC21: the field 022 is annotated as (R), i.e., repeatable, [page
> >updated Feb. 1999];
> >
> >CONSER: the field 022 is annotated as (NR), non repeatable [page updated
> >1996]
> >
> >Any comment on this would be appreciated.
> >
> >Biserka Mrzljak
> >Cataloguing Liaison Librarian for Serials
> >Technical Services
> >University of Western Ontario Libraries
> >tel. 519 661-2111 tel. 84829
> ><bmrzljak@LIB.UWO.CA>