Note:  this is a reply to a question which was posted on GOVDOC-L, but I
thought copies of my reply would be of interest also to catalogers on
Serialst, Autocat, and Advanc-L.  -- Mitch
=====================================================================

Mark:

  the problem you asked about is not limited to Government documents.
This has been discussed in the serials cataloging community for a VERY
LONG time.  Essentially the issues are:

1.) Do you care about the information which is specific to the fiche
edition (e.g. additional series, place of reproduction, publisher, etc.)
which may be lost by combining the two versions into one record?  If not,
and you are NOT sharing these records in a national database, you MAY be
better served by having the bibliographic information in only one record
but having the check-in record distinguish the different holdings for the
different versions.

2.) Do you share records in any kind of utility or union list?  If so,
there needs to be agreement on WHICH record will be the "master" record
for all versions.  This is not always as easy as it sounds.  Especially
for some titles which you may only have in microfiche and other users may
only have in paper.

3.) Although the cataloging rules are very clear that you cannot combine
different versions into one bibliographic record, they are rather vague
when it comes to holdings standards.  I think (I have not kept up to date
on this) that the USMARC format for holdings is still not "official".  If
you interpret this as a holdings problem (as opposed to a bibliographic
problem) then the only limitations are those imposed by your local online
catalog/serial check-in system.

4.) If you are doing ORIGINAL CATALOGING for any of these titles and you
are sharing them in a NATIONAL (or International) database, then you MUST
either create separate bibliographic records for both versions, or just
create a bibliographic record for one version and make no mention of the
other (reproduction) version.  In your local system you can essentially
do whatever you want.

I hope that helps.

-- Mitch

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 14:16:30 CST
> From: Mark Gooch <mgooch@govtdoc.law.csuohio.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L <GOVDOC-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
> Subject: Integrated record for fiche & paper
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> I have recently been cataloging some documents microfiche and am now in
> the quandry of whether I should put both formats on one record.  I
> realize that by strict cataloging rules I should have separate records.
> However, I believe that the patrons will be better served if all holdings
> are indicated on one record.  As far as gov docs are concerned, I don't
> believe that much more relevant information is gained from the separate
> microfiche record other than the indication of the format.  Another
> factor for me is that we have just come up on the Innovative Interfaces
> system which allows us to specifically indicate on an item record the format
> and location for each item.  Also, we are able to indicate on a checkin
> record the same information.
>
> I would appreciate any and all comments on the subject.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Gooch
> CSU Law Library
> mgooch@govtdoc.law.csuohio.edu
>
>

  _^_                                                 _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
 |   |                                               |   |
 |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
 |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
 |   |     Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu                 |   |
 |   |                                               |   |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
   V                                                   V
       Rule #1: Don't sweat the small stuff.
       Rule #2: It's ALL small stuff.