Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach (2 messages) Birdie MacLennan 24 Jan 2001 21:01 UTC
2 messages, 74 lines: (1)--------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:18:52 -0800 From: Cindy Zwies <CZwies@GETTY.EDU> Subject: Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach This is what I found in the CONSER Cataloging Manual under "Single record approach" (Module 31), it reads, "In the record for the original...If a separate ISSN has been assigned to the online serial but a separate record doesn't exist, add field 776 with subfields $t and $x..." So I guess it's okay to add the field--unless I'm interpreting this wrong but it seems pretty clear. We use the single record approach and this has met our needs so far. Cindy Zwies Cataloger / Getty Research Library 1200 Getty Center Dr., Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049 <CZwies@GETTY.EDU> (2)--------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:29:21 -0800 From: Ryan Finnerty <Ryan@LIBRARY.UCSD.EDU> Subject: Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach It is possible to use the 776 field in the print record if no record for the online exists. CONSER Cataloging Manual 31.3.5 states: "If a separate ISSN has been assigned to the online serial but a separate record doesn't exist, add field 776 with subfields $t and $x." http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/module31.html If you want to record the name of the aggregator in the record, you can put it in the 791 field. This isn't fudging--these fields were created so libraries could tailor catalog records to meet the specific needs of their users. In our case, this means stopping the proliferation of records and helping patrons find resources more easily. I feel it is better to peeve the cataloger than the end users. Ryan Finnerty Serials & Electronic Resources Cataloger Geisel Library University of California, San Diego ryan@library.ucsd.edu >>> Christine.W.Blackman@WILLIAMS.EDU 01/24/01 08:22AM >>> I believe, unless I've missed changes, that if you are using the single record approach, you are not able to use the 776 field for an alternate format. There is no record for an alternate format, therefore you can't refer to it with a 776 note. This is one of my problems with using the single record vs. the multiple record approach -- you can't put down the information that you want to retrieve about the alternate format on a record for the other format. Think aggregators, how do find them in your catalog when you use single record method? E-ISSNs are just another argument for multiple records. I don't like the idea of fudging cataloging rules just to make life easier. My pet peeve. Chris Blackman Catalog Librarian Williams College Libraries Williamstown, MA 01267 (413) 597-4403 cblackma@williams.edu [remainder of quoted text deleted; previously posted in SERIALST messages of 24 Jan. 2001, Re: ISSN for online serial in single record approach. -ed./bml]