Different carriers constitute different manifestations, warranting separate records. As Mac Elrod responded, the physical descriptions would be different.
The single-record/multi-version approach had an appeal at one point, primarily to avoid presenting patrons with multiple records for a single title (particularly for serials). When serial records were handled one-by-one, there was a certain labor saving aspect to appending a different format to the existing print record, particularly for a card catalog environment but sufficiently so even in early ILSes. As digital formats emerged and subscription packages proliferated, the original labor saving aspect was overtaken by the ability to download record sets for a package. Multiple records have been the norm for some time. Resolving matches to existing titles in the database has become less efficient than allowing records to live side-by-side. Multiple records allow easier management of records when holdings in either format are dropped. The development of ebook packages have only magnified this dynamic, as a single ebook package may constitute several years worth of monographic cataloging if performed on a one-by-one basis (which could allow single-record treatment). Just as the labor saving benefits of the old approach were overtaken by new efficiencies obtained by using multiple records, so too was the perceived convenience of the patron under the old approach offset by new benefits of multiple records. Multiple records offer cleaner filtering of results when limiting by format. The expedited ability to transfer records into the database is far preferable to significant delays to providing access at all. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Audrey Williams < awilli...@regent-college.edu> wrote: > How does RDA treat alternative formats in the same database (intellectual > content identical, but the content is delivered on different physical > carriers). Specifically, I would like to know best practices for the > following: > > > > if a print edition of an E-book is already in the database, is it better > to add a link to the E-book on the bibliographical record of the print > expression or add a new bibliographical record for the electronic version? > What are the implications of each? > > > > Thank you >