Re: Multiple versions for remote access serials William C. Anderson 16 Mar 1995 19:03 UTC
To: CONSRLST, EMEDIA, SERIALST, VPIEJ-L, INTERCAT From: Jean Hirons, Acting CONSER Coordinator, Library of Congress Subject: Multiple versions for remote access serials Date: March 16, 1995 Thanks to Bill, Les, Regina, and Melissa for all of their hard work on this issue. In the interests of generating discussion, I would like to express my opinion that we should keep all remote versions on one record. While this may be a change from our past practice of describing differences in content as separate "editions," I feel that this medium requires a somewhat different approach. Here are my reasons for favoring one record: 1. I think one record will better serve our users. One record, with appropriate instruction as to the availability of different formats and modes of access, will serve better than multiple records. I find the examples of one record to be clear and consise and I don't think the multiple records add anything. I don't think we have to tell our users just what the differences are, and quite frankly, for serials, this is probably impossible to keep accurate. 2. Creating separate records, causes unnecessary complications for the cataloging: uniform title qualifiers, links, notes, and edition statements. There are already distinctions in these records between note and linking tags (530 vs. 580, 775 vs. 776) that I find to be needlessly confusing. If we create one record for all remote formats and link to other formats (CD, paper, etc.) it will be much clearer. 3. Creating separate records requires the cataloger to distinguish "significant" changes in content that may be difficult to determine. In addition, these differences may change over time. For example, we found one serial where the Web format did not have any appreciable difference from the other formats. In this case, all formats would be kept on one record. But is it not possible that in time, as the publisher becomes more sophisticated, that the Web version might become very different? 4. The addition of new formats with later issues can cause confusing descriptions. Note the last example of Postmodern culture (World Wide Web) which began with Vol. 4, no. 2 (Jan. 1994). By creating a separate record, we are forced to have a different beginning date. The 515 note is meant to cover this, but I don't think it is terribly clear. I still find myself looking for a 780 field! I'm sure that formats will come and go and trying to keep all of this straight on different records, linked to other records, could become a bibliographic nightmare. These are my thoughts. I urge you all to share yours so that we in CONSER can develop a working resolution to this very critical issue.