Re: OCLC holdings for E-periodicals Crystal Graham 10 Nov 1998 20:40 UTC
UCSD follows the same procedure, using the "multiple versions" approach.
We use the record for the print version REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE OWN IT.
We checked with OCLC and they said we did NOT need to add a holdings byte
when we don't own the print. (It messes up interlibrary loan if you add
the holdings byte), The reason we made the decision to always use the
print copy was so that all the UC campuses records would merge in Melvyl
-- if we based the decision on ownership, we'd create two clusters of
holdings, one for folks who owned print and one for folks who did not.
Our users like the consistent approach and the catalogers appreciate using
existing records instead of having to catalog the ejournals from scratch.
Head, Digital Information & Serials Cataloging
University of California, San Diego
>---------- Original message ----------
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:21:40 -0600
>From: Patricia Thompson <pthompso@SEWANEE.EDU>
>Subject: OCLC holdings for E-periodicals
>What is the correct procedure for attaching our holdings symbols to OCLC
>records when cataloging electronic periodicals? We have decided to use the
>"multiple versions on one record" approach outlined by Conser. Should we
>modify the record for our own use and attach our symbol to the record for
>the print version? For example, we have a new subscription to the Moscow
>Times on the web. There is a record in the worldcat for the Moscow Times in
>print format, and we could use this record and modify it for our use by
>adding certain fields such as 856. (We cannot modify this record on OCLC
>because we do not have Enhance status.) Should we attach our holdings to
>Does this just depend on the guidelines of whatever union list you belong to?
>What are the rest of you doing?
>Patricia R. Thompson
>Head of Cataloging
>Jessie Ball DuPont Library
>University of the South
>735 University Avenue
>Sewanee, TN 37383
>(931) 598-1702 (fax)