last updated Fri Oct-12-2007  06:46
Preliminary Cataloging of Electronic (HTML, PDF, etc.) printouts
Templates for preliminary cataloging of printouts of electronic materials are found in the CATSS Preliminary folder
If there is a record for a paper version already in the database, and you are adding a printout from a webpage (not a xerox copy of the paper copy, but a printout of the same information from a webpage):
If there is a record for an electronic resource already in the database, and you are adding a printout of that electronic resource:
If the original is an electronic resource and it is the first version into the database:
If the piece being cataloged is a printout of an electronic resource and it is the first version into the database:
If the piece being cataloged is a printout of material originally known to have been released in print but the printout was obtained by printing out an electronic resource and it is the first version into the database:
FYI History
This is an answer from Jay Weitz (OCLC) to a question on the CORC list about OCLC policy on cataloging printouts of Web sites.  This is exactly the practice we've been following, except that we would use MFHD 843 instead of bib 533 for the printout.  "Printout" is the term we've been using in the ‡a, by the way, so I'm glad to see that this is the same
term Jay Weitz suggests here.
Suzanne, Bobby and other CORC users:
The following is some information that Jay Weitz (Consulting Database Specialist, Metadata Standards and Quality Division), who deals with the Computer Files format and other electronic cataloging issues at OCLC, sent me when I asked if he had dealt with these types of questions.  I thought you might find this useful.
Ellen Caplan
OCLC, Metadata Services Division
Response from Jay:
Ellen:  Here's an edited version of what I've been saying about similar cases.
Under the current guidelines, a computer printout of a primarily textual Web resource would be coded as Type Code "a" and would require a Computer File 006 for the electronic aspects.  LCRI 1.11A WOULD apply to such printouts.  This means that the (published) Web document would be described in the 245 (with ‡ h [electronic resource]), 250, 260, and 4XX, as appropriate.  The printout should be described in a 533 note; describe the item as a "Printout" in ‡a; include a ‡n along the lines of "Description based on printout of Web site on Mar. 11, 2002." The appropriate Computer File 007 would be created, as well as field 856 for the URL (with second indicator "1" for "version of resource"). Don't forget the code "s" (for electronic) in the "Form" fixed field.
Hope that helps.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bothmann [mailto:bothm001@UMN.EDU]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: HTML Print Out
Hey Suzanne,
this is a really sticky one, and we've been starting to see this type of thing as well.
What we did was:
1. catalogue the electronic resource per chapter 9 rules
2. create a MARC Holdings record which has a note:
Library has copy (xxii, 93 p. ; 28 cm.) printed from Web on Feb. 26, 2002.
That way the resource is accessible as it exists at whatever point in time you look at it, but the print-out we have in the library is noted to be from a specific point in time. That way we're not breaking, bending, or completely throwing AACR2 out the window.
Looking at the specific situation you have, I think it would be easier to catalogue this instance as a print resource and note that it was printed from the Web, just as you propose. I agree that you should not treat it as a reproduction, because it really isn't one. But you may
want to add in your note that the Web site is now gone.
Hope this helps.
Suzanne Pilsk wrote:
Dear Fellow E-Catalogers,
We have before us a printout from a Web site to catalog.  This is NOT a PDF file.  This is a >dynamic site that changes - and in fact has already changed since the printout was made.
Our patrons seem to be interested in the data that they captured on the day they printed >out the screens.  The data may have changed since then, but they would like to keep a >frozen picture of this site.
Here is what I am thinking of doing:
1. Cataloging this as a published item (not a manuscript), since Web sites are considered >to be published.
2. Giving a note that it was viewed from the Web from the hosting homepage with the name >of the browser (if I can get that) and the date (which is on the print out).
3. I am NOT going to give the url in the 500 tag because we do not have a URL checker >program for that field. And the URL has even changed since it was printed. (Oy)
4. I am NOT treating this as a reproduction because I do not know much about the original >site (it has changed). So, no 533.
What do you all think?  Are there some other aspects I should bring out
about this document?

This page is created with TreePad