This issue was discussed on the CONSER email list several months ago and
there were about as many different opinions as there are possible ways of
handling this. Lucy Barron from the Library of Congress said that they are
keeping the 780 for the earlier title, but deleting the subfields x and w.
They are coding the first indicator of the 780 1 and adding a 580 note that
says:

Original print version of this title was preceded by an earlier title
called: ...

I liked this idea, so I have added it to our local procedures for deriving
electronic version records from print version records. If anyone is
interested, that procedure is available at:

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/staffweb/depts/cat/serials/deriving.html

It covers monographs, integrating resources, and serials. The information
about the 780 and 580 is in section B3.

This is not a CONSER policy, just our own local policy. You are correct
that there are no CONSER guidelines on this, but I'm hoping that we will
come up with some.

Renette Davis
Head, Serials & Digital Resources Cataloging
University of Chicago Library

At 11:49 AM 8/31/2004, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>I have a question concerning including a 780 field linking to a print
>journal in a MARC record for an electronic journal that does not directly
>succeed that print title.
>
>If a print serial title undergoes a title change and is succeeded by a new
>print serial and that new print serial subsequently becomes available also
>in electronic form, does the 780/785 relationship apply between the
>original print title and the electronic format of the new title? (Of
>course there would be a 776 field to link the electronic version of the
>new title with the print version of the new title.)
>
>In OCLC when I use a bib record for a print serial as the basis for
>creating a new record for the online version of that print serial, how
>should I handle a 780 field linking to a preceding print serial title:
>
>-Delete the 780 field from the record for the electronic version
>
>-Leave the 780 field in the record for the electronic version, as is
>
>-Leave the 780 field in the record for the electronic version, to provide
>a link to the former title, but delete the $x and $w subfields, which link
>to the record for the print version of that former title
>
>-Leave the 780 field in the record for the electronic version with
>subfields $x and $w intact but add a 580 note to explain that the print
>version succeeded such and such print journal (and how, more precisely,
>should I phrase such a note?)
>
>I did not find anything that provided explicit direction in the CONSER
>Cataloging Manual or the CONSER Editing Guide, but I may have overlooked
>it.  If there is specific instruction somewhere in the cataloging
>literature, I would very much appreciate having it brought to my attention.
>
>Thank you in advance for your help.
>
>Linnea Marshall
>Catalog Librarian
>University of Idaho Library
>linneam@uidaho.edu