Charles and All,

We, too, are currently using the one bibliographic record approach to
provide access to all formats.  For example, when we have print and
electronic [and sometimes microfilm] access to a journal, we use the
single record for the print version and make appropriate notes and links
to other versions -- including the 856 field for electronic versions. When
we have electronic access only to a journal, we use the record for the
electronic resource or online version.  This has led us to a new dilemma
about about how much maintenance to put into updating the 78x fields in
our local records to ensure accuracy to related title info. in our local
catalog (for example for titles where we have title A with print and
electronic holdings and related title B with electronic holdings only, we
find we have to update the 78x fields in the records that we import from
OCLC so that the linking info. is accurate in our local catalog; this is
turning out to be a fair amount of work).

I, too, am wondering what other libraries are doing.  I know this question
has come up before on SERIALST and at NASIG and in various other forums.
There seems always to be good reasons for using single or separate records
(i.e., either way).  However, given some of the maintenance issues, I,
too, am wondering if the tides are shifting for one approach over the
other.  Clearly, our patrons and public services staff opt for the single
record approach.

I'm also wondering, when folks use the single record approach, what they
are doing about linking fields (78x) in records for related titles where
your library patrons have access to journals titles in electronic format
only that are related to journal titles where patrons have access to
electronic & print formats.  In other words, how much maintenance are you
doing on the linking info. in those single records?  And do you find that
the maintenance is ongoing?

        Birdie MacLennan
        Coordinator, Serials & Cataloging
        University of Vermont
        birdie.maclennan@uvm.edu

----- Original message -----
"Charles F. Tremper" <cftrempe@library.syr.edu> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Currently, whenever possible, we are using one bibliographic record to
provide access to all formats--print, microform, online.  We are
reconsidering this policy due to the record maintenance involved and the
inability to simply load records for groups of titles.

What are other libraries doing?

In the real world, is there a trend toward one record or multiple records?

Does the decision depend on the type of electronic access--a JSTOR
archive vs. titles in aggregators?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

chas.tremper

Charles F. Tremper
Head, Serials Dept. and Serials Catalog Libn.
Syracuse University Library
Syracuse, N.Y.  13210
Phone: (315) 443-9775
Email: cftrempe@library.syr.edu