530 notes (Paula Coulthard) ERCELAA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu 15 May 2002 16:17 UTC
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:49:46 -0500 From: Paula Coulthard <paula.coulthard@UNI.EDU> Subject: 530 notes We are debating the use of the 530 field in a single record approach for journal titles in our local database. I have found when using OCLC that most print records will contain a formatted 530 note, using the subfields a, b, & c. In checking OCLC's version of Bibliographic Formats, it says under |a: a Additional physical form available note A description of the additional physical forms and any text not belonging in other subfields. Pre-1989 serial records may have availability source, availability conditions, and order number in subfield a. Current practice is to use subfields b, c, and d for such information. 530 Issued also on microfiche. 530 Issued also on microfilm from University Microfilms. 530 Also available via the World Wide Web. Yet under the description for the |u, the note lacks a |b and puts the availability source (The New Bartleby Library) in |a: u Uniform Resource Identifier A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), for example a URL or URN, that provides electronic access data in a standard syntax. Use this data for automated access to an electronic item using one of the Internet protocols. Repeat subfield u only if one location of the digital object has multiple identifiers (URIs). Repeat the field if the digital object has multiple locations. 530 a Online version available via The New Bartleby Library u http://www.bartleby.com/99/index.html On OCLC, I have been finding the records for the print version often have a 530 as such (subfields a,b,&c are used): 530 Also available via World Wide Web; ßb at the Kluwer web site and at OCLC FirstSearch Electronic Collections Online; ßc Subscription required for access to abstracts and full text. My questions: 1. Is it a valid use of the 530 Additional Physical Form Available Note, to note the availablity of an online resource (ie, it is not "physical"). 2. I cannot find anything in the Conser Manual or LC's Bibliographic Formats that says it is valid to use the subfields b & c in a 530 in serial records, only OCLC makes this statement for records since 1989. 3. If you are using the 530 with subfields b & c, why is that better than placing everything in |a as a straight forward note? We are debating the use of this field in our library now as we are piggybacking online full text journals to the print record when we own it. I am in favor of using the formatted 530 note as I could see indexing the |b. Right now, we are also creating a 7XX added entry for that information. Also, I am inputting a 530, subfield a only. Thanks for your input! Paula Coulthard Rod Library, UNI Cedar Falls, IA 50613