2 messages, 74 lines:

(1)---------------------------
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:18:52 -0800
From:         Cindy Zwies <CZwies@GETTY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach

This is what I found in the CONSER Cataloging Manual under "Single record
approach" (Module 31), it reads, "In the record for the original...If a
separate ISSN has been assigned to the online serial but a separate record
doesn't exist, add field 776 with subfields $t and $x..."

So I guess it's okay to add the field--unless I'm interpreting this wrong
but it seems pretty clear.  We use the single record approach and this has
met our needs so far.

Cindy Zwies
Cataloger / Getty Research Library
1200 Getty Center Dr., Ste. 1100
Los Angeles, CA  90049
<CZwies@GETTY.EDU>

(2)---------------------------
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:29:21 -0800
From:         Ryan Finnerty <Ryan@LIBRARY.UCSD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach

It is possible to use the 776 field in the print record if no record for
the online exists.

CONSER Cataloging Manual 31.3.5 states: "If a separate ISSN has been
assigned to the online serial but a separate record doesn't exist, add
field 776 with subfields $t and $x."
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/module31.html

If you want to record the name of the aggregator in the record, you can
put it in the 791 field.  This isn't fudging--these fields were created so
libraries could tailor catalog records to meet the specific needs of their
users. In our case, this means stopping the proliferation of records and
helping patrons find resources more easily.  I feel it is better to peeve
the cataloger than the end users.

Ryan Finnerty
Serials & Electronic Resources Cataloger
Geisel Library
University of California, San Diego
ryan@library.ucsd.edu

>>> Christine.W.Blackman@WILLIAMS.EDU 01/24/01 08:22AM >>>
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

[remainder of quoted text deleted; previously posted in SERIALST messages
of 24 Jan. 2001, Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach.
-ed./bml]