Re: 006 in Print record with Ref to Electronic -- Crytsal Graham Stephen D. Clark 18 Oct 1999 07:17 UTC
-------- 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