One record policy for serials Jean L. Hirons 05 Jun 1996 22:46 UTC
This message is being posted to: CONSRLST, SERIALST, AND INTERCAT Thanks to Leanne McKinnon for opening up the discussion of a one- record policy for electronic serials. I and many others in CONSER are also very much interested in pursuing the issue. At the recent CONSER Operations Committee meeting we discussed what we are encountering in the realm of online serials. One category was dubbed by one of our members as "abbreviated relatives"! These are web cites that contain tables of contents, a few sample articles, and other types of information regarding the serial, but not the full contents. We found it easy to agree that these should be taken care of with an 856 and some kind of note on the record for the paper serial. A more important development is that many publishers are beginning to make their journals available in electronic form in conjunction with the paper. We've dubbed these "online equivalents." Examples are Project Muse from John's Hopkins Press and journals from the Institute of Physics and Academic Press. In most cases, there is very little difference, the primary difference being the lack of advertisements and the presence of hypertext links (in some). Other projects are making electronic versions of back issues available to save on shelf space (e.g., J-STOR). The primary motivating factors seem to be to make the information available more rapidly, and, in some cases, to be able to provide meaningful links between journals within a cite. Other serials are, of course, going online to take advantage of the new technological advantages of the Web by integrating sound, video, etc. into their publications, such as a journal on dance with actual performances. There is no doubt that these serials are quite different from print counterparts, if indeed there is still a print version at all. These are the two clear-cut ends of the spectrum, but I'm sure there is a wide array in between. Will the "online equivalents" gradually become less and less "equivalent"? Will the print be discontinued, even though publishers are now saying they intend to continue the printed versions? We don't know. What we do know is that we are finding ourselves confronted with a great proliferation of online "versions" of one sort or another and not enough in the way of cataloging resources. We are also being asked by reference librarians to keep it simple. Assuming that it is possible to identify an "online equivalent" and to limit this type of version alone to the one-record approach, how would we do it? With a 530/856 or 533/856 with an optional 006 and 007?; an expanded 776 field; other possibilities? I personally favor the 530/856 approach with the addition of an 006 and 007. But none of these is perfect. What we really need is a hierarchical record structure that will allow for ALL versions. But short of that, we will need to live with imperfect solutions. What will the impact be on our catalogs? Hopefully, we can provide the information more quickly and cost effectively and also in a manner that is more useful to the patron. Will this be the case? Will local displays be able to make it clear that there is an online version and how to get it? What are we losing? And what about the records that are too long and the fact that only CONSER catalogers can make changes to the OCLC record? These are my concerns but they don't outweigh my desire to try it out. We will be discussing the issue at the upcoming meetings of NASIG and ALA. Bill Anderson will address the issue at NASIG and I will be discussing at the meeting of the Preservation and Reformatting Committee on Sunday morning. We are eager to hear more from all of you, either over the list or in person. Jean Hirons Acting CONSER Coordinator Serial Record Division Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4160 (202) 707-5947 fax: (202) 707-6333 email: jhir@loc.gov