> Could someone point me the correct rule?

ROTFL.  Sorry, just had to get that out.

Maija -- The rule is going to depend on how you judge the resource.  Is it a reproduction (LCRI 1.11A)?  CONSER practice or strict AACR2?

If the newsletter is still being published, I would probably not catalog it as a reproduction (ie, transcribe from the original and use 533).  Although it is not likely the that online version will cease in favor of the CD-ROM, I think this is handled within existing rules by considering it a CD-ROM cumulation, rather than a reproduction (as reproduction is strictly photo-mechanical process, not sure without examining the piece in hand whether what you have falls under that category).  Does the publisher mention if future CD-ROMs will be published?  Do the individual discs carry numbering? (I assume problably the numbering of the original?)

If cataloging as a CD-ROM, I would use disc label as chief source (if it makes sense), physically describe as

300   CD-ROMs ....

(as you don't know whether more will be coming out if the original is still being published), note (580) the fact that it is a CD-ROM cumulation of the online version and provide 787 links between the two records.  CONSER Catalog Manual module 17.2 discusses cumulations so you can really see whether what you have in hand fits the characteristics of a cumulation.  Good luck.

Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian  *****  shadle@u.washington.edu
University of Washington Libraries      ***     Phone: (206) 685-3983
Seattle, WA 98195-2900                   *        Fax: (206) 543-0854

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Maija Cravens wrote:

> Serialsters,
> I have in hand a 6-disc set that contains in .jpeg format all the issues published so far (1947-2005) of The fare box : a monthly news-letter for transportation token collectors (OCLC #13323392). How should a retrospective manifestation like this be cataloged? Should I just catalog it as an electronic version of the original journal? Or, should I catalog it as I would catalog a microfilm, with the body of the description for the original and a 533 field for information about the reproduction? Or, should I describe this as 300 $a 6 CD-ROMs, and describe the original in a note?
>
> Could someone point me the correct rule?
> Maija
>
> ___________________________________
>
> Maija Salo-Cravens
> Head,  Catalog Section
> Division of Library/Archives
> Wisconsin Historical Society
> 816 State Street
> Madison, WI 53706
> (608)264-6522  Fax: (608)264-6520
> mscravens@whs.wisc.edu