-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: 006 in Print record with Ref to Electronic -- Beth
Guay
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:28:32 -0700
From: Crystal Graham <cgraham@ucsd.edu>

OCLC requests that we include an 006 for computer file in records that
actually describe the electronic version so that people limiting by /com
will retrieve the record for the electronic.  They ask us not to include
an
006 when making single records for both versions (variously known as
single
records, multiple version records, composite records) so that those
records
will not be retrieved when people limit by /com.  Eventually there will
be
a fixed field code for this purpose, but the 006 is the mechanism to be
used in the meantime.  (For details on the fied field codes see
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1998/98-06.html).

I think the problem with the OCLC documentation is the juxtaposition of
two
true but somewhat unrelated statements.  If you add the connecting
phrases
given in brackets, it makes perfect sense.

CONSER...permits a single record for a non-electronic item to include
information for the
electronic version.

[OCLC also allows a single record.  In fact], OCLC's guidelines are
compatible with CONSER's [in all respects] except THAT OCLC REQUESTS
THAT
YOU ADD FIELD 006 as described in this document."

Crystal

At 07:31 AM 10/15/99 , you wrote:
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: 006 in Print record with Ref to Electronic -- Michelle P.
>Fiander
>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:15:37 -0400
>From: Beth Guay <bg53@umail.umd.edu>
>
>
>Hi Michelle,
>Perhaps you have identified an editorial error. These things happen to
>those who nit-pick,
>i.e., catalogers! I think that the last sentence quoted below should
>read: OCLC's guidelines
>are compatible with CONSER's. {Period} To my understanding, neither OCLC
>nor CONSER permit the
>addition of a 006 for computer file characteristics to a "single" record
>describing printed
>material and noting the existence of its electronic counter-part. There
>is some excellent
>guidance on this matter in the CEG, Section E: Technical Guidelines on
>the "Use of fixed fields
>006/007/008 and Leader Codes in CONSER Records."
>
>Of course, these are my opinions, and not institutional position
>statements of any kind!
>Cheers,
>Beth Guay
>
>Serials Cataloger
>University of Maryland
>College Park, Md. 20742
>
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 006 in Print record with Ref to Electronic
>> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:27:08 -0500
>> From: "Fiander, P. Michelle" <mfiander@IUPUI.EDU>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>> I've been reading the OCLC MARC guidelines for Electronic Materials,
>> specifically the section on using a "Single record with reference to the
>> electronic item."  Isn't there a contradiction between the following two
>> statements? It's really confusing me. I hope someone can clarify.
>> Thanks,
>> Michelle Fiander
>>
>> 1.      In the step-by-step guidelines for this procedure, it says:  "DO
>> NOT
>> INPUT FIELD 006 FOR THE ELECTRONIC VERSION."
>>
>> 2.      Two paragraphs later, however, it says: "CONSER...permits a
>> single
>> record for a non-electronic item to include information for the
>> electronic
>> version. OCLC's guidelines are compatible with CONSER's except THAT OCLC
>> REQUESTS THAT YOU ADD FIELD 006 as described in this document."
>>
>>
>> See http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/type.htm
>> <http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/type.htm>  for entire document.
>

Crystal Graham
Head, Digital Information & Serials Cataloging
and Serials Librarian
University of California, San Diego #0175K
La Jolla CA   92093-0175
cgraham@ucsd.edu
V: 858-619-534-1283
F: 858-832-0349
H: 858-792-1128
Tech Services Website: http://tpot.ucsd.edu