Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:21:51 -0800 (PST) From: Mary Grenci <mgrenci@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Cataloging question (fwd) I would like to revisit the 538 vs. 530 question yet again because I am still confused as to which field to use for System Requirements and Mode of Access notes for remote access ejournals. According to the message below, the 538 field was used for these purposes at a NASIG conference presentation. Later, Conser issued guidelines which stated that the 530 field should be used for this purpose. Okay, this is clear enough. My confusion comes from reading the Conser documentation on Cataloger's Desktop (1996, Issue 3). Module 31 of the Conser Cataloging Manual as shown on the Desktop clearly states that the 538 field is to be used. >From the field definitions and explanations, it seems to me that the 538 field is the most logical place to put this information, but since we catalog serials according to Conser practice I can't just go with my 'gut feeling'. Does anyone know what Conser's final decision was? If we are to use field 530, does anyone know why? Thank you. ___________________ Mary Grenci Serials Catalog Librarian Knight Library 1299 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1299 mgrenci@darkwing.uoregon.edu ---------------------------- > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:36:00 -0700 > From: Crystal Graham <Crystal_Graham@UCSDLIBRARY.UCSD.EDU> > Subject: Re[2]: Cataloging question > > Mitch et al.: > > It is true that the examples I showed at NASIG used the 538 and 856 fields to > represent the electronic version of a print serial. In the interim, however, > CONSER has instructed us to use the 530 and 856 fields. Below please find an > excerpt from a message from Jean Hirons (Library of Congress) giving the tagging > instructions. We now follow the national guidelines instead of the tagging > shown in the NASIG examples. > > Crystal Graham > Head, Digital Information and Serials Cataloging Section > University of California, San Diego > > CONSER GUIDELINES FOR DESCRIBING REMOTELY-ACCESSED SERIAL > VERSIONS > > TWO RECORDS: > [You may be creating both records or one may already exist] > > * Link using field 776 in both records > > * Add the 530/856 in both records. > > [FYI: LC will create separate records.] > > ONE RECORD: > [You have chosen not to create a separate record for the e- > serial] > > * Add 530/856 to the record for paper (or other original) > > * Do not add other fields to the CONSER record that > relate solely to the e-serial > > * If a separate record is later created by another CONSER > library, that library will add the 776 links to both > records and retain the 530/856 fields > > 530 FIELD: Use the 530 note to indicate the existence of the > online version as well as differences in content that you are > aware of, differences in title, and restrictions on access. If > not all issues are available, give a general note such as > "Current issues available online ..." Avoid giving specific > designations because they are likely to change as the publisher > digitizes back issues. > > 856 FIELD: Use a note in subfield $z that will indicate what the > URL refers to. If the e-serial is a reproduction or other version > where you are confident of the contents, use "z Online version:" > If there is no one-to-one relationship between the serial and its > online counterpart or you are unsure, use "z Related internet > site:". Input the subfield z preceding the URL. [The usefulness > and display of this subfield will vary, depending on your > system's programming, but we need standardization in CONSER > records on the national databases.] > > WHEN TO APPLY THE ONE-RECORD OPTION: For the present, it is up to > you to experiment and determine the situations in which this > option is best applied. However, in cases where it does not work > well, don't force it and create an incomprehensible record. > Please keep notes so that you can provide feedback on the types > of situations that work and those that don't. > > DOCUMENTATION: We are currently working on updates to the CEG and > CCM and the policies will be documented in both. We will outline > the policy in Module 31, and include policies, procedures and > field-specific data in the CEG as well. Mod. 31 will be > available on the CONSER homepage. > > > > > > Ann: > I am responding to your question, but I am posting the response to > Serialst, in addition to Autocat, because I believe that other serials > catalogers are interested in both your question and the responses. > > >From a workshop given by Crystal Graham at the NASIG (North American > Serials Interest Group) conference, June 21, 1996 at Albuquerque, N.M.: > > First of all, Multiple versions cataloging is prohibited by AACR2, which > requires separate records. In addition, format integration requires > different formats for the print and the electronic version records. > HOWEVER, _Guidelines_for_the_Bibliographic_Description_of_Reproductions_ > provide tacit approval of single record. > > Crystal then gave some examples of how you can put the print and > electronic versions onto one record. > [I am not reproducing the entire record here -- Mitch] > > 245 00 Classical and quantum gravity. > 538 Mode of access (electronic version): Internet. Address: > http://www.iop.org/EJ/welcome > 856 7 $z View the electronic version of the journal (Access restricted > to UCSD IP addresses only) $u http://www.iop.org/EJ/welcome > $2 http > > Your suggestion of 500 "Also available as ..." would be just as valid, in > my opinion. > > -- Mitch > > ============================ORIGINAL MESSAGE================================== > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 17:35:59 -0700 > From: "D. Ann Gener" <gener@unr.edu> > Subject: Cataloging question > > I am cataloging a serial publication called Nevada Department of Business > and Industry Directory. The publication includes a note indicating that > it is also available as an Internet site. > > I'd like to include their www address in the record, but I'm not sure > exactly where to put it. I don't feel right adding an 856 because the > cataloging record is for the paper copy rather than the Internet version > and I can't use a 530 because it doesn't seem to be an additional > "physical" form to me, so I am thinking about just adding a 500 note > saying "Also available at:..." > > Can anyone give me some advice on how this situation is handled by other > libraries? > > Thanks in advance > Ann Gener > Cataloging Librarian > Nevada State Library & Archives > gener@equinox.unr.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. >
