I am all for the single record except in situations where you have online access and the content is located at different URLs.  I then prefer using separate records with the relevant URL in each one.  But if it’s just for print and/or all of the content is at the same URL, I would use the single record.

 

-Leah

 

Leah Donley

Information Specialist

Research Library

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Upton, NY

donley@bnl.gov

 

 

I am working with the Serials department in cataloging a set of ACM conference proceedings for which there are 13 separate records in WorldCat for the various title changes.  These are all “pcc” records, except for one.

 

There is also a single record in WorldCat for the conference proceedings – OCLC # 505744110 -  coded as successive entry, with multiple 246 fields for the title variations.

 

Some here feel we should use the above single record (created in 1984, with encoding level “L” Full-level input added from a batch process) rather than the 13 separate records.  There are 8 libraries with holdings attached to the record.  What would the arguments be for and against using this record? 

 

Thank you for your input!

 

Mavis B. Molto

Serials Cataloger

Merrill-Cazier Library

Utah State University

Logan, UT 84322-3000

(435) 797-2751

mavis.molto@usu.edu

 

***********************************************
* You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum)
* To unsubscribe, send an email to the server address: LISTSERV@LIST.UVM.EDU . Do NOT include a subject line. Type as an email message these two words: SIGNOFF SERIALST
* Have questions or need help? Contact: SERIALST-REQUEST@LIST.UVM.EDU
* For additional information, see SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines.
***********************************************