This message is being posted to: CONSRLST, SERIALST, AND INTERCAT

Thanks to Leanne McKinnon for opening up the discussion of a one-
record policy for electronic serials.  I and many others in
CONSER are also very much interested in pursuing the issue.

At the recent CONSER Operations Committee meeting we discussed
what we are encountering in the realm of online serials.  One
category was dubbed by one of our members as "abbreviated
relatives"!  These are web cites that contain tables of contents,
a few sample articles, and other types of information regarding
the serial, but not the full contents.  We found it easy to agree
that these should be taken care of with an 856 and some kind of
note on the record for the paper serial.

A more important development is that many publishers are
beginning to make their journals available in electronic form in
conjunction with the paper.  We've dubbed these "online
equivalents."  Examples are Project Muse from John's Hopkins
Press and journals from the Institute of Physics and Academic
Press.  In most cases, there is very little difference, the
primary difference being the lack of advertisements and the
presence of hypertext links (in some).  Other projects are making
electronic versions of back issues available to save on shelf
space (e.g., J-STOR).  The primary motivating factors seem to be
to make the information available more rapidly, and, in some
cases, to be able to provide meaningful links between journals
within a cite.

Other serials are, of course, going online to take advantage of
the new technological advantages of the Web by integrating sound,
video, etc. into their publications, such as a journal on dance
with actual performances.  There is no doubt that these serials
are quite different from print counterparts, if indeed there is
still a print version at all.

These are the two clear-cut ends of the spectrum, but I'm sure
there is a wide array in between.  Will the "online equivalents"
gradually become less and less "equivalent"?  Will the print be
discontinued, even though publishers are now saying they intend
to continue the printed versions?  We don't know.

What we do know is that we are finding ourselves confronted with
a great proliferation of online "versions" of one sort or another
and not enough in the way of cataloging resources.  We are also
being asked by reference librarians to keep it simple.

Assuming that it is possible to identify an "online equivalent"
and to limit this type of version alone to the one-record
approach, how would we do it?  With a 530/856 or 533/856 with an
optional 006 and 007?; an expanded 776 field; other
possibilities?  I personally favor the 530/856 approach with the
addition of an 006 and 007.  But none of these is perfect.  What
we really need is a hierarchical record structure that will allow
for ALL versions.  But short of that, we will need to live with
imperfect solutions.

What will the impact be on our catalogs?  Hopefully, we can
provide the information more quickly and cost effectively and
also in a manner that is more useful to the patron.  Will this be
the case?  Will local displays be able to make it clear that
there is an online version and how to get it?  What are we
losing?  And what about the records that are too long and the
fact that only CONSER catalogers can make changes to the OCLC
record?  These are my concerns but they don't outweigh my desire
to try it out.

We will be discussing the issue at the upcoming meetings of NASIG
and ALA.  Bill Anderson will address the issue at NASIG and I
will be discussing at the meeting of the Preservation and
Reformatting Committee on Sunday morning.  We are eager to hear
more from all of you, either over the list or in person.

Jean Hirons
Acting CONSER Coordinator
Serial Record Division
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540-4160
(202) 707-5947
fax: (202) 707-6333
email: jhir@loc.gov