---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 19:53:00 -0700
From: Crystal Graham <cgraham@GORT.UCSD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Records for Different Format (Charles Tremper)

Ed -- I will shameless promote an article that I wrote on this very
topic.  "Microform Reproductions and Multiple Versions: U.S. Cataloging
Policy and Proposed Changes" appeared in Serials Librarian v. 22 (1992),
pp.213-234.  (This was also issued by Haworth as a separate monograph
called Serials Cataloging: Modern Perspectives and International
Developments).  This article explains the AACR2 approach, the LCRI
approach, the USNP approach, and the "mulver" approach to dealing with
microform reproductions, with examples.  (Since you are new to
serials cataloging  you will find many articles of interest in the volume,
by the way).

In my own library (where we use Innopac) we follow the policy similar to
that outlined by Charles Tremper, but we don't put a 533 in the record
for the print version.  We just use the record for the print version and
append holdings records (called "checkin records" in Innopac) for each
format.

We are still considering the question of electronic formats -- as we
become more involved in digitization we find that a single record might
be the most cost-effective and user-friendly way to go for those too.

Because of my many years developing standards for cataloging preservation
microfilms, I do feel compelled to add that a separate record with
complete information about the preservation master should be made and
shared in the national databases.  But in your case of cataloging
commercial microforms, a single bibliographic record is strongly recommended.

The recently published Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of
Reproductions (from ALCTS) give official sanction to the idea of a
single complete record with details in appended records.  Unfortunately
few (if any) automated systems provide the capabilities needed to
implement the Guidelines as such.  Nonetheless we now have tacit approval
(from ourselves) to move in that direction.

Crystal Graham
Serials Librarian
University of California, San Diego
"Multiple Versions Person"

On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Marcia Tuttle wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 16:30:55 EST
> From: CFTREMPE@hawk.syr.edu
> Subject: Re: Records for Different Formats (Ed Kownslar)
>
> Syracuse University is a NOTIS library and at the time we transferred to
> NOTIS, we made the decision to have one bibliographic record and separate
> copy statements for paper, microfilm and/or microfiche.  We are aware that
> this decision violates current cataloguing practice, but believe it helps
> our users by consolidating all holdings information on one record. For
> many popular titles we have a mixture of bound volumes and microfilm
> and/or fiche. We use the paper bibliographic record and add 533-fields
> beginning Microfilm copy: or Microfiche copy: for the descriptive data for
> the microform. We do not add |h in the 245., or add title tracings
> containing |h
>
> We do, however, maintain separate records for electronic formats.
>
> Charles Tremper
> Head, serials Unit
> Syracuse University Library
>