Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 11:36:00 -0800
From: Jones Wayne <WAJ@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>
Subject: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials
X-To:         CONSERlist <consrlst@sun7.loc.gov>,
 Emedia <emedia@vax1.elon.edu>, SERIALST <serialst@uvmvm.uvm.edu>,
 VPIEJ-L <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
X-cc:         Yuen Christina <CHY@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>,
 McKeen Elizabeth <EMK@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>, Meldrum Jan <JAM@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>,
 Pickett Susan <SUS@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>

To: Regina, Les, Melissa, Bill
From: Wayne Jones, Head, Serials Section, National Library of Canada;
wayne.jones@nlc-bnc.ca

Here are my own opinions on your multiple versions question. This opinion is
not necessarily identical to that of the NLC, and in fact are only my
thoughts right now: I reserve the right to change my mind!:)

Thanks for soliciting opinion on this important question. ((This message is
cross-posted to EMEDIA, CONSERLST, VPIEJ-L, and SERIALST)) .....

     If the multiple versions question had already been solved, not only for
remote-access electronic serials but also for relatively mundane
publications and their versions, then of course there should be only ONE
bibliographic record for all these versions, with "sub-records" within that
bibliographic record for each version. Given that the multiple versions
problem stil exists, though, I think that there should be a separate
bibliographic record for each distinct version of an electronic serial. A
separate version should be judged on two separate criteria: substantial
differences in intellectual content; and/or significant technical or access
differences.
     Differences in intellectual content should be handled similarly to the
way they are handled for print etc. materials. Different geographic
editions, different language editions, etc., get different records. An added
consideration for remote access serials is that any issue may not really be
"stable" in the way that print etc. versions are: the editor may revise or
add to or delete from an issue, perhaps from a desire to distinguish between
a "preliminary" edition and a "final" edition, so that, for example, the
vol. 1, no 4 you access one month may not be identical to the vol. 1, no. 4
you access in a later month. Personally, I don't think that this would
constitute separate versions or consequently necessitate separate records.
If some bibliographic institution wanted to maintain the preliminary as well
as the final views of that serial, they could do so in their own archive,
but I don't think there should be separate records.
     Significant technical or access differences should also necessitate
separate records. *Significant* ones only, though. For example, if a
remote-access serial existed in Hypertext, ASCII, PostScript, Word, and
WordPerfect versions, I would say -- keeping in mind that my knowledge of
PostScript is somewhere between nil and meagrely informed -- that there are
3 versions (and 3 records) here. One for the HyperText, one for PostScript,
and one for the other ones. I don't think differences in text-formatting are
alone enough to qualify for versions.
w

***

From: Regina Reynolds, Head, US ISSN Center (NSDP)
      Les Hawkins, Senior Cataloger, US ISSN Center
      Melissa Beck, CONSER Cataloger, UCLA
      Bill Anderson, CONSER Specialist, LC

To:  CONSRLST
     EMEDIA
     SERIALST
     VPIEJ-L

Re:  Multiple versions for remote access serials

Date: Jan. 3, 1994

     The authors of this posting are associated with various
institutions in CONSER.  We are considering some of the problems
associated with cataloging remote access serials and would like
to generate discussion on the issues described below.  We plan
future postings to solicit input on various areas of cataloging
these serials.  Please reply to your listserv.

     How many catalog records should be created for remote access
serials that appear in multiple electronic versions? What
criteria should be used for deciding when variations in file
content, hardware or software requirements, or intellectual
content necessitate separate records?

     In assigning the ISSN, NSDP has considered World Wide Web
versions of a title to be separate bibliographic entities from
plain ASCII versions and has thus created separate records and
assigned separate ISSN.  This decision is based on the fact that
World Wide Web documents can link to, or "contain" a variety of
file types, -- sound, image, video -- as part of a given issue.
There are also differences in hardware or software requirements.

     What is to be done with other versions that seem to be less
different?  How do we treat remote access serials that are
available in different text formatting versions (plain ASCII,
WordPerfect, and Postscript, for example).

     How many records are necessary to serve the needs of local vs
shared cataloging environments?

     What other suggestions do you have for treating versions of
remote access serials?