Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:49:46 -0500
From: Paula Coulthard <paula.coulthard@UNI.EDU>
Subject: 530 notes

We are debating the use of the 530 field in a single record approach for
journal titles in our local database.

I have found when using OCLC that most print records will contain a
formatted 530 note, using the subfields a, b, & c.  In checking OCLC's
version of Bibliographic Formats, it says under |a:

‡a Additional physical form available note

A description of the additional physical forms and any text not
belonging in other subfields. Pre-1989 serial records may have
availability source, availability conditions, and order number in
subfield ‡a. Current practice is to use subfields ‡b, ‡c, and ‡d for
such information.

     530     Issued also on microfiche.

     530     Issued also on microfilm from University Microfilms.

     530     Also available via the World Wide Web.

Yet under the description for the |u, the note lacks a |b and puts the
availability source (The New Bartleby Library) in |a:

‡u Uniform Resource Identifier

A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), for example a URL or URN, that
provides electronic access data in a standard syntax. Use this data for
automated access to an electronic item using one of the Internet
protocols. Repeat subfield ‡u only if one location of the digital object
has multiple identifiers (URIs). Repeat the field if the digital object
has multiple locations.

     530          ‡a Online version available via The New Bartleby
Library
                     ‡u http://www.bartleby.com/99/index.html

On OCLC, I have been finding the records for the print version often
have a 530 as such (subfields a,b,&c are used):

530    Also available via World Wide Web; ßb at the Kluwer web site and
at OCLC FirstSearch Electronic Collections Online; ßc Subscription
required for access to abstracts and full text.

My questions:

1.  Is it a valid use of the 530 Additional Physical Form Available
Note, to note the availablity of an online resource (ie, it is not
"physical").

2.  I cannot find anything in the Conser Manual or LC's Bibliographic
Formats that says it is valid to use the subfields b & c in a 530 in
serial records, only OCLC makes this statement for records since 1989.

3.  If you are using the 530 with subfields b & c, why is that better
than placing everything in |a as a straight forward note?

We are debating the use of this field in our library now as we are
piggybacking online full text journals to the print record when we own
it.  I am in favor of using the formatted 530 note as I could see
indexing the |b.  Right now, we are also creating a 7XX added entry for
that information.  Also, I am inputting a 530, subfield a only.

Thanks for your input!
Paula Coulthard
Rod Library, UNI
Cedar Falls, IA 50613