In response to Ann Leslie Jones' message about The craftsmen on CD-ROM, I
find this all rather interesting.  The record is a CONSER record and I
believe it has been cataloged correctly according to current guidelines
(although I find the "published in 1997" in field 362 a bit strange and
redundant).  What this points out to me is the problem that we are having
with our current rules.

Our rules currently stress carrier over content.  For microforms, we have
developed an LCRI that has allowed us for years to ignore this.  For paper
reprints, we've been able to deal with it all bibliographically because
the carrier was the same.  But there is no such provision for electronic
publications at the moment. Thus, this is cataloged from the CD-ROM
foremost with a note about the original.  Perhaps the 530 note might give
more information about the extent of the work being scanned and the
expected no. of discs.  The note might be tagged 580, but CONSER has tried
to standardize tagging so that physical versions and reproductions are
noted in field 530, while the more formalized reprint note for printed
reprints is given in field 580.

There may be question as to whether something intended to come out in 5
discs should even be considered a serial.  LC discussed this issue many
years ago when dealing with finitely-issued reprints and decided that they
should be treated as serials because the works (if not the manifestations)
were serials, and that we would want our holdings, etc.  to be together.

If we change AACR2 to focus more on the work and the content, I do believe
that we can reach a more consistent approach across all physical formats.
For the time being, we have to live with the inconsistencies, as best we
can.

Ann asks about two 006 fields, but I see one 006 and one 007, both of
which are appropriate.

Jean Hirons
CONSER Coordinator
Serial Record Division
Library of Congress
(202) 707-5947
email: jhir@loc.gov