To:       CONSRLST, EMEDIA, SERIALST, VPIEJ-L, INTERCAT
From:     Jean Hirons, Acting CONSER Coordinator, Library of
          Congress
Subject:  Multiple versions for remote access serials
Date:     March 16, 1995

Thanks to Bill, Les, Regina, and Melissa for all of their hard
work on this issue.  In the interests of generating discussion,
I would like to express my opinion that we should keep all remote
versions on one record.  While this may be a change from our past
practice of describing differences in content as separate
"editions," I feel that this medium requires a somewhat different
approach.  Here are my reasons for favoring one record:

1.  I think one record will better serve our users.  One record,
with appropriate instruction as to the availability of different
formats and modes of access, will serve better than multiple
records.  I find the examples of one record to be clear and
consise and I don't think the multiple records add anything.  I
don't think we have to tell our users just what the differences
are, and quite frankly, for serials, this is probably impossible
to keep accurate.

2.  Creating separate records, causes unnecessary complications
for the cataloging: uniform title qualifiers, links, notes, and
edition statements.  There are already distinctions in these
records between note and linking tags (530 vs. 580, 775 vs. 776)
that I find to be needlessly confusing.  If we create one record
for all remote formats and link to other formats (CD, paper,
etc.) it will be much clearer.

3.  Creating separate records requires the cataloger to
distinguish "significant" changes in content that may be
difficult to determine.  In addition, these differences may
change over time.  For example, we found one serial where the Web
format did not have any appreciable difference from the other
formats.  In this case, all formats would be kept on one record.
But is it not possible that in time, as the publisher becomes
more sophisticated, that the Web version might become very
different?

4.  The addition of new formats with later issues can cause
confusing descriptions.  Note the last example of Postmodern
culture (World Wide Web) which began with Vol. 4, no. 2 (Jan.
1994).  By creating a separate record, we are forced to have a
different beginning date.  The 515 note is meant to cover this,
but I don't think it is terribly clear.  I still find myself
looking for a 780 field!  I'm sure that formats will come and go
and trying to keep all of this straight on different records,
linked to other records, could become a bibliographic nightmare.

These are my thoughts.  I urge you all to share yours so that we
in CONSER can develop a working resolution to this very critical
issue.