AV Cataloger v3.3 serial key or number

Calcific aortic valve (AV) disease, including calcific AV stenosis and its antecedent preclinical phase aortic sclerosis, is a result of progressive pro-inflammatory and fibro-calcific changes resulting in calcium deposition and ectopic bone formation in the AV causing restricted mobility of its leaflets. No effective medical therapy exists for the ~12% of the population over the age of 75 with calcific AV stenosis and 3% with severe calcific AV stenosis. The incidence is projected increase due to the aging of the population.¹ The natural history of calcific AV stenosis is progression from development of symptoms to heart failure and ultimately death. Currently, transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) and surgical AV replacement (SAVR) are effective options for those who develop severe symptomatic calcific AV stenosis. However, both procedures are performed at relatively late stages of the natural history of calcific AV stenosis and can also be associated with a low but not insignificant rate of complications including disabling stroke, life-threatening bleed, vascular complications, need for permanent pacing, and death. Over 20 studies (Table 1) have established lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a genetically determined and likely causal risk factor for calcific AV stenosis and a predictor of faster calcific AV stenosis progression. These studies have bolstered the need to further understand the role of Lp(a) in the disease and as a potential therapeutic target.

Table 1: Published Studies Demonstrating the Association Between Lp(a) and Calcific AV Disease

Lp(a) consists of a particle of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) bound covalently to apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)], encoded by the LPA gene. The LPA gene arose from duplication and modification of its neighboring PLG gene, and apo(a) contains kringle domains KIV and KV and an inactive protease domain, which are highly homologous to those on plasminogen. However, apo(a) has 10 types of KIV domains, with KIV₂ present at varying copy numbers ranging from 1 to >40 on each allele. Only one copy of KIV₁ and KIV_3-10 are present, but the number of KIV₂ repeats determines the apo(a) isoform size in each individual. Importantly, two key properties on KIV₁₀ of apo(a) are relevant to calcific AV stenosis.² First, Lp(a) is the major lipoprotein carrier of pro-inflammatory oxidized phospholipids (OxPL), a large proportion of which are covalently bound to apo(a), likely on key histidine residues on KIV₁₀, but also present in the LDL moiety. Second, strong lysine and fibrin binding sites are present on apo(a) KIV₁₀ that allow Lp(a) to bind tightly to valvular and vascular subendothelial spaces, resulting in its accumulation. In concert with accumulation, Lp(a) can then deliver its cargo of both unoxidized and oxidized lipids to induce pro-inflammatory and pro-calcifying changes in valve leaflets.

Lp(a) levels are highly heritable³ in an autosomal co-dominant pattern. Readily measurable aspects of Lp(a) genetics, such as apo(a) isoforms and SNPs, have been instrumental in establishing potential causality for Lp(a) in calcific AV disease that is not confounded by environmental and lifestyle factors. Apo(a) isoform size is inversely related to plasma Lp(a) levels, with larger isoforms less efficiently secreted from hepatocytes. SNPs such as rs3798220 and rs10455872, present in ~3% and ~15% of European populations, respectively, in various regions of the LPA gene are associated with higher plasma Lp(a) levels, whereas others, including rs41272114 and rs143431368, are associated with lower plasma Lp(a) levels. Mendelian randomization analysis links apo(a) isoform size or LPA SNPs, plasma Lp(a) levels, and calcific AV disease risk, thereby eliminating reverse causality, and has complemented traditional observational studies in providing strong evidence for Lp(a) as a likely causal risk factor for calcific AV disease (Table 1).

The mechanisms by which Lp(a) mediates calcific AV disease are under investigation, but based on currently available data, a working model is that Lp(a) along with its lipid and protein cargo accumulate within the AV, mediating inflammation and calcification that ultimately results in calcific AV stenosis. Lp(a), as well as its OxPL, the enzyme ATX that generates pro-calcifying lysophosphatidic acid from OxPL, and the protein apolipoprotein C-III (apoC-III) associated with elevated triglycerides and metabolic syndrome are found in proximity to calcified regions of human stenotic AV leaflets (Figure 1).^4,5 Animal models of OxPL neutralization with a natural antibody E06⁶ and of diet-fed lysophosphatidic acid, the enzymatic product of ATX,⁷ have demonstrated their respective roles in augmenting AV calcification in vivo. Although animal models interrogating the role of Lp(a) and calcific AV disease are ongoing,⁸in vitro studies have suggested that Lp(a) promotes valvular calcification.9 Lp(a) or recombinant apo(a) exposure to valvular interstitial cells derived from human AVs results in upregulation of genes involved in osteogenic differentiation including IL-6, BMP2, and RUNX2, in addition to augmenting calcium deposition in vitro.^9,10 It is interesting to note that OxPL neutralization with E06 and recombinant apo(a) lacking OxPL both resulted in significantly attenuated transcriptional osteogenic changes,10 suggesting a key role for the OxPL on Lp(a).

Figure 1

The pro-calcific mechanisms attributed to Lp(a) have translated well into clinical observations. Persons with elevated Lp(a) above 35 mg/dL¹⁰ or above 75 nM¹¹ had increase in AV microcalcifications as detected by ¹⁸F-NaF positron emission tomography computed tomography, a predictor of developing calcific AV disease. Moreover, elevated Lp(a) (>35 mg/dL) was associated with 3 times faster progression of AV calcification compared to those with Lp(a) <35 mg/dL, with median (interquartile range) (309 [142 - 483 arbitrary units/yr] vs. 93 [56 - 296] arbitrary units/yr; p = 0.015) in 51 patients with calcific AV stenosis who had baseline and 2-year follow-up computed tomography scans.¹⁰ Like Lp(a), those with elevated OxPL-apoB—a measurement of OxPL on apoB containing lipoproteins reflecting in large part (50-80%) the OxPL content of Lp(a)—also had increased AV microcalcifications and faster progression of macrocalcifications.¹⁰ In line with the key role of AV calcification in the clinical progression of calcific AV disease,¹² patients with elevated Lp(a) in the top tertile of patients with mild-moderate calcific AV stenosis and followed prospectively had more rapid echocardiographically determined hemodynamic progression, as measured by peak velocity across the AV (Vmax). Vmax progression (mean ± SD) in the ASTRONOMER study (n = 220) was 0.26 ± 0.26 m/s/yr with Lp(a) >58.5 mg/dL versus 0.17 ± 0.21 m/s/yr with Lp(a) <58.5 mg/dL; p = 0.005.¹³ In the SALTIRE and Ring of Fire studies (n = 129 with serial echocardiogram studies), Vmax progression was 0.23 ± 0.2 m/s/yr with Lp(a) >35 mg/dL versus 0.14 ± 0.2 ms/s/y with Lp(a) <35 mg/dL; p = 0.019.¹⁰ There was a linear relationship between Lp(a) levels and the annual rate of Vmax increase in the ASTRONMER study, with 1.10 OR per 10 mg/dL (95% CI, 1.03-1.19; p = 0.006).¹⁴ Of even greater importance, elevated Lp(a) was associated with a higher risk for AVR or CV death in ASTRONOMER¹³ and the SALTIRE and Ring of Fire¹⁰ studies. Moreover, similar findings of faster hemodynamic progression and hard clinical endpoints were observed in individuals with the highest tertiles of OxPL-apoB^10,13 and Lp(a)-associated apoC-III,⁵ again suggesting important roles for these Lp(a) components as mediators of calcific AV disease progression.

The strong association between Lp(a) and calcific AV disease and its clinical progression has two main clinical implications. First, as our understanding regarding the optimal timing of TAVR or SAVR in individuals with asymptomatic calcific AV stenosis evolves, biomarkers including Lp(a) and OxPL-apoB (now clinically available) can guide appropriate frequency and modality of tests and imaging for surveillance. Second, given the lack of effective medical therapies, including LDL cholesterol-lowering with statins, which increases Lp(a),¹⁵ to prevent calcific AV disease progression,¹⁶ likely causal risk factors such as Lp(a) represent logical therapeutic targets. Clinical trials evaluating calcific AV disease progression with Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors are ongoing. PCSK9 inhibitors are an attractive candidate because they can dramatically lower LDL cholesterol and also lower Lp(a) by ~14-30%. Unfortunately, they are least effective in subjects with elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dL), with only a 14% reduction.¹⁷ Furthermore, there is burgeoning evidence that PCSK9 may be directly involved in calcific AV disease. Plasma PCSK9 levels were higher in 112 individuals with calcific AV stenosis versus 32 controls.¹⁸ Moreover, individuals with the PCSK9 loss of function mutation R46L, known to have lower PCSK9 plasma levels, had decreased incidence of calcific AV stenosis in over 103,000 prospectively followed Danish individuals.¹⁹ Although PCSK9 R46L is also associated with lower LDL cholesterol and Lp(a) levels, AVs from PCSK9-deficient mice have lower calcium content than controls,²⁰ suggesting a direct effect of PCKS9 in development of calcific AV disease. However, much larger reductions in Lp(a) may be needed to effectively slow progression of calcific AV disease, as suggested by mendelian randomization analyses estimating a 67.5-100 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) required for a 25% risk reduction in coronary artery disease.^21,22 Therefore, novel strategies to prevent calcific AV disease progression, such as neutralizing OxPL or apoC-III, or potent Lp(a) lowering with antisense oligonucleotides targeting LPA,²³ will be of great interest. Approximately 30-35% of subjects with AS or undergoing TAVR have elevated Lp(a);^11,24,25 therefore, identification of subjects at risk for calcific AV stenosis progression can be easily accomplished, and a phase 3 trial can be designed to lower Lp(a) substantially and test the hypothesis that lowering Lp(a) and its bioactive cargo including OxPL can reduce the progression of AS and need for AVR.

References

1. Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1002-12.
2. Boffa MB, Koschinsky ML. Oxidized phospholipids as a unifying theory for lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2019;16:305-18.
3. Rao F, Schork AJ, Maihofer AX, et al. Heritability of Biomarkers of Oxidized Lipoproteins: Twin Pair Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2015;35:1704-11.
4. Torzewski M, Ravandi A, Yeang C, et al. Lipoprotein(a) Associated Molecules are Prominent Components in Plasma and Valve Leaflets in Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis. JACC Basic Transl Sci 2017;2:229-40.
5. Capoulade R, Torzewski M, Mayr M, et al. ApoCIII-Lp(a) complexes in conjunction with Lp(a)-OxPL predict rapid progression of aortic stenosis. Heart 2020;Feb 13:[Epub ahead of print].
6. Que X, Hung MY, Yeang C, et al. Oxidized phospholipids are proinflammatory and proatherogenic in hypercholesterolaemic mice. Nature 2018;558:301-6.
7. Bouchareb R, Mahmut A, Nsaibia MJ, et al. Autotaxin Derived From Lipoprotein(a) and Valve Interstitial Cells Promotes Inflammation and Mineralization of the Aortic Valve. Circulation 2015;132:677-90.
8. Yeang C, Cotter B, Tsimikas S. Experimental Animal Models Evaluating the Causal Role of Lipoprotein(a) in Atherosclerosis and Aortic Stenosis. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2016;30:75-85.
9. Yu B, Hafiane A, Thanassoulis G, et al. Lipoprotein(a) Induces Human Aortic Valve Interstitial Cell Calcification. JACC Basic Transl Sci 2017;2:358-71.
10. Zheng KH, Tsimikas S, Pawade T, et al. Lipoprotein(a) and Oxidized Phospholipids Promote Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:2150-62.
11. Després AA, Perrot N, Poulin A, et al. Lipoprotein(a), Oxidized Phospholipids, and Aortic Valve Microcalcification Assessed by 18F-Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography. CJC Open 2019;1:131-40.
12. Pawade TA, Newby DE, Dweck MR. Calcification in Aortic Stenosis: The Skeleton Key. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:561-77.
13. Capoulade R, Chan KL, Yeang C, et al. Oxidized Phospholipids, Lipoprotein(a), and Progression of Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1236-46.
14. Capoulade R, Yeang C, Chan KL, Pibarot P, Tsimikas S. Association of Mild to Moderate Aortic Valve Stenosis Progression With Higher Lipoprotein(a) and Oxidized Phospholipid Levels: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol 2018;3:1212-17.
15. Tsimikas S, Gordts PLSM, Nora C, Yeang C, Witztum JL. Statin therapy increases lipoprotein(a) levels. Eur Heart J 2019;May 20:[Epub ahead of print].
16. Yeang C, Wilkinson MJ, Tsimikas S. Lipoprotein(a) and oxidized phospholipids in calcific aortic valve stenosis. Curr Opin Cardiol 2016;31:440-50.
17. Stiekema LCA, Stroes ESG, Verweij SL, et al. Persistent arterial wall inflammation in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) despite strong low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction by proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 antibody treatment. Eur Heart J 2019;40:2775-81.
18. Wang WG, He YF, Chen YL, et al. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 levels and aortic valve calcification: A prospective, cross sectional study. J Int Med Res 2016;44:865-74.
19. Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG, Benn M, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Kamstrup PR. PCSK9 R46L Loss-of-Function Mutation Reduces Lipoprotein(a), LDL Cholesterol, and Risk of Aortic Valve Stenosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:3281-7.
20. Poggio P, Songia P, Cavallotti L, et al. PCSK9 Involvement in Aortic Valve Calcification. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:3225-7.
21. Lamina C, Kronenberg F. Estimation of the Required Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapeutic Effect Size for Reduction in Coronary Heart Disease Outcomes: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2019;4:575-9.
22. Burgess S, Ference BA, Staley JR, et al. Association of LPA Variants With Risk of Coronary Disease and the Implications for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2018;3:619-27.
23. Tsimikas S, Karwatowska-Prokopczuk E, Gouni-Berthold I, et al. Lipoprotein(a) Reduction in Persons with Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med 2020;382:244-55.
24. Ma GS, Wilkinson MJ, Reeves RR, et al. Lipoprotein(a) in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Angiology 2019;70:332-6.
25. Wilkinson MJ, Ma GS, Yeang C, et al. The Prevalence of Lipoprotein(a) Measurement and Degree of Elevation Among 2710 Patients With Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis in an Academic Echocardiography Laboratory Setting. Angiology 2017;68:795-8.

Clinical Topics:Dyslipidemia, Valvular Heart Disease, Advanced Lipid Testing, Hypertriglyceridemia, Lipid Metabolism

Keywords:Heart Valve Diseases, Lipoprotein(a), Apolipoprotein C-III, Kringles, Aortic Valve, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Calcinosis, Receptors, Lysophosphatidic Acid, Calcium, Lysine, Histidine, Apolipoproteins B, Interleukin-6

3.1  Provider-Neutral Cataloging
3.1.1  Online Resources
3.1.2  Photocopies and Print-on-Demand Reproductions
3.2  Related Parts and Publications
3.2.1  "In" Analytics
3.2.2  Offprints and Detached Copies
3.2.3  Supplementary and Accompanying Material
3.2.4  Parts of a Multipart Monograph or Serial
3.3  Special Types of Publications
3.3.1  Electronic Resources
3.3.2  Integrating Resources
3.3.3  Local Recordings
3.3.4  Microforms
3.3.5  Technical Reports
3.3.6  Theses and Dissertations
3.4  Local Information in Records
3.4.1  Copy- or Institution-Specific Information

This chapter contains instructions for cataloging practices and special materials that present unique problems to catalogers.

3.1  Provider-Neutral Cataloging

The provider-neutral cataloging model results in a single bibliographic record to describe all instances of the same manifestation of an online resource, a photocopy, or a print-on-demand reproduction regardless of which content publisher, aggregator, or provider has made the manifestation available.

Provider-neutral cataloging is a practical solution to cataloging the growing number of online resources, photocopies, and print-on-demand reproductions for identical resources. Provider-neutral cataloging guidelines often conflict with other established cataloging instructions with which they are used.

Provider-neutral cataloging guidelines were first developed for cataloging online resources and later expanded to include photocopies and print-on-demand reproductions. Provider-neutral cataloging of online serials began in 2003 and was expanded to include online textual monographs in 2009 and all other online resources in 2011.

Provider-neutral records function as "base" records in the shared cataloging environment by omitting provider-specific details. If you want to include provider-specific information, create or edit the record in accord with these provider-neutral guidelines, then follow the guidelines outlined in section 3.4.1, Copy- or Institution-Specific Information.

3.1.1  Online Resources

Definition

Online resources are any form of digital material accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network. They may contain text, notated music, still images, moving images, etc.

OCLC policy

Use the following provider-neutral instructions when cataloging online resources in all formats in WorldCat regardless of the cataloging rules used or the language of cataloging. This will result in a single bibliographic record that represents multiple instances of the same online resource for any one language of cataloging. The resulting single bibliographic record will omit details about the provider of the online resource as well as omitting details about technical specifications and system requirements.

Use this technique only when the contents of two online resources are identical. Different manifestations of an online resource still need to be cataloged on separate bibliographic records (e.g., 2nd edition vs. 3rd edition).

Provider-neutral guidelines are applicable when cataloging the first instance of an online resource rather than applicable only when the resource is known to be available online at different locations.

Guidelines

If there is an existing record for an online resource that is cataloged in accord with these provider-neutral instructions, use that existing record for a new instance of the same online resource.

If there is an existing record for an online resource that is not cataloged in accord with these provider-neutral instructions, you may revise the existing record to conform to this policy.

If there is no record for an online resource, but there is a record for related tangible resource, you may derive a new record from the existing record and edit the new record to conform to this policy and revise the description of the original resource in the new record to conform to current cataloging instructions.

Use one record for all instances of the same online resource regardless of:

• Differences in providers
• Differences in provider-specific edition statements
• Differences in provider-specific places of publication, distribution, etc.
• Differences in provider-specific dates of publication, distribution, etc.
• Differences in provider-specific series statements
• Differences in provider-specific accessibility
• Differences in provider-specific file formats, file sizes, technical requirements, etc.

Provider-neutral guidelines include online resources issued simultaneously online and in a physical format, online reproductions of resources originally issued in a physical format as well as born-digital resources. The guidelines make no distinctions between these situations related to describing the online resource. Online resources are not cataloged as reproductions even when digitized from existing print resources. The same online resource digitized independently by different providers and placed online at different points in time are represented by one provider-neutral record.

If you want to include provider-specific information, create or edit the record in accord with these provider-neutral guidelines, then follow the guidelines outlined in section 3.4.1, Copy- or Institution-Specific Information.

When creating or upgrading records for online resources, do not include:

• Providers as name access points
• Providers as publishers, distributors, or manufacturers
• Provider-specific edition statements
• Provider-specific places of publication, distribution, etc.
• Provider-specific dates of publication, distribution, etc.
• Provider-specific series statements and access points
• Provider-specific notes (except for source of description notes)
• Information about access restrictions or subscription information
• Information about devices or system requirements
• Information about file formats
• Information about file sizes

Exceptions are made to the provider-neutral cataloging guidelines for digital preservation information included in fields 506, 533, 538, and 583 to which subfield ǂ5 is added.

Example:

For more information about provider-neutral cataloging of online resources, see Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Provider-Neutral E-Resource MARC Record Guidelines.

Example

Example of record for an online resource available from seven different providers:

3.1.2  Photocopies and Print-on-Demand Reproductions

Definition

Photocopies are print reproductions that are produced using xerography or similar processes where the original source is a physical document. Print-on-demand (POD) reproductions are print reproductions that are not printed until an order is received. They are most often printed using digital techniques where the source is a digital document such as a PDF file, although the source may also have been issued as a physical document.

A photocopy or POD reproduction may be made in-house, or it may be ordered from a photocopy or POD service provider. The source of a photocopy or POD reproduction may itself be a reproduction.

OCLC policy

Use the following provider-neutral instructions when cataloging photocopies and POD reproductions of textual materials, scores, and cartographic materials in WorldCat regardless of the cataloging rules used or the language of cataloging. This will result in a single bibliographic record that represents multiple photocopies and/or POD reproductions of the same original resource for any one language of cataloging. The resulting single bibliographic record will omit details about the photocopy or POD service provider as well as omitting details about its manufacture, extent, and size.

Do not apply this technique to regular print publications, republications, reprints, formal facsimile reproductions, etc., or to microform reproductions. Use this technique only when the contents of both the original resource and the photocopy or POD reproduction are identical.

Contrary to LC-PCC PS 1.11, also use this technique when cataloging a photocopy or POD reproduction of a book chapter or journal article. In case of doubt as to whether an item meets the criteria outlined above, do not apply this policy.

Guidelines

If there is an existing record for a photocopy or POD reproduction that is cataloged in accord with these provider-neutral instructions, use that existing record for a new photocopy or POD reproduction of the same resource.

If there is an existing record for a photcopy or POD reproduction that is not cataloged in accord with these provider-neutral instructions, you may revise the existing record to conform to this policy.

If there is no record for a photocopy or POD reproduction, but there is a record for the original resource, you may derive a new record from the existing record and edit the new record to conform to this policy without re-describing the original resource to conform to current cataloging instructions. Optionally, you may revise the description of the original resource in the new record to conform to current cataloging instructions.

Use one record for all photocopies and POD reproductions of the same original resource regardless of:

• Differences in places of reproduction
• Differences in reproduction providers or publishers
  
• Differences in dates of reproduction
• Differences in extent resulting from the reproduction (e.g., leaves vs. pages, 2 volumes in 1 vs. 2 volumes, etc.)
• Differences in size resulting from the reproduction (e.g., 22 cm vs. 28 cm)

If you want to include provider-specific information, create or edit the record in accord with these provider-neutral guidelines, then follow the guidelines outlined in section 3.4.1, Copy- or Institution-Specific Information.

For more information about cataloging photocopies and POD reproductions, see LC-PCC PS 1.11.

Example

Example of photocopy and/or POD reproduction record:

3.2  Related Parts and Publications

This section contains instructions for cataloging resources that are related to other publications, including the cataloging of "in" analytics, offprints and detached copies, supplementary and accompanying material, and parts of a multipart monograph or serial.

3.2.1  "In" Analytics

Definition

If a separate bibliographic record is needed for a component part, you may prepare an "in" analytic entry. A component part is a bibliographic unit that is physically contained in another bibliographic unit, referred to as the host item, in such a way that the host item must be identified to locate the component part (e.g., an article in a serial, a chapter or paper in a book, or a track on a sound recording).

Do not use "in" analytic cataloging conventions for:

• detached copies
• offprints
• single issues of a serial
• single volumes of a multi-volume set
• a collection within a collection (e.g., a collection of correspondence that is contained within a larger archival collection of the papers of an individual or corporate body)

Field 773 can be used for a single issue of a serial, a single volume of a multi-volume set, and a collection within a collection; however, these are not cataloged as "in" analytics.

Guidelines

Use field 773 for information about the host item. Use the following guidelines:

Element	Guidelines for "in" analytics
BLvl	Code for the mode of issuance of the component (e.g., a for monograph, b for serial)
Ctry	If place of publication information is available in field 773 subfield ǂd, code accordingly. Otherwise, code Ctry as xxfor unknown.
Dates	Use date in field 773 subfields ǂd or ǂg as appropriate
018	Use for copyright article-fee code
260/264	Do not use field 260 or field 264
300	For records coded RDA or AACR2, record the extent in field 300 subfield ǂa and not in field 773
773	Use subfield ǂd when the host item is a monograph. Use subfield ǂg to record the location of the component part within a serial or multipart item

In the case of host items that are serial or multi-volume in nature, information in subfield ǂg is necessary to point to the exact location of the component part within a bibliographic item.

Example when host item is a serial:

Example when host item is a monograph:

Example of a serial issued within a serial:

3.2.2  Offprints and Detached Copies

Definition

An offprint is a copy of an article, chapter, or portion of a publication reprinted from the same plates, file, or image, usually at the same time as the original but issued separately, with or without a cover. Traditionally, offprints have usually been intended for the author's personal use or limited distribution.

A detached copy is a copy of an article, chapter, or portion of a publication that has been removed from the original work.

Both offprints and detached copies may not have a title page but retain pagination from the original publication.

Guidelines

Separate bibliographic records may be created for offprints or detached copies.

Do not use "in" analytic cataloging conventions for offprints or detached copies.

Use the following guidelines for cataloging offprints and detached copies:

• Use RDA 3.4.5.7 or AACR2 2.5B6 to record pagination
• Indicate the relationship to the larger work in a field 580 note. Begin the note with "Offprint:" or "Detached from:" as appropriate.
• Use the authorized access point of the source item in field 580. If the item is a serial, include the numeric and/or alphabetic designation preceded by a period. If appropriate, use the chronological designation enclosed in parentheses.
• If the item is detached from another monograph, consult RDA 27.1.1.3 or AACR2 1.7A3 in citing the source. Access points may be made for the larger work (RDA 25.1.1.3 or AACR2 21.30G).
• In addition to field 580, consider also including field 787

Examples

3.2.3  Supplementary and Accompanying Material

Guidelines

You may catalog supplementary items or accompanying material independently or dependently. When separate records are created for supplements, they are not considered duplicates to records for the entire work.

Do not use these guidelines for kits containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is predominant. Kits may also be single-medium packages of textual materials (e.g., lab kits).

Cataloging supplementary items and accompanying material independently

Cataloging independently refers to cataloging separate records for the supplementary or accompanying material.

• Relate any separate bibliographic record for supplements to the record for the main work via the appropriate authorized access point or linking field or both. When creating a 772 linking field on the record for the supplement, include the OCLC number and LCCN when available.
• Determine the mode of issuance to decide whether to catalog the supplementary item as a monograph, integrating resource, or serial as appropriate
• Do not create records for the individual updates to loose-leaf publications

Cataloging supplementary items and accompanying material dependently

Cataloging dependently refers to cataloging the supplementary or accompanying material on the same record as the main item. If the supplement is in a different format, consider adding 006 field(s) to reflect fixed-field coding of the supplementary item(s). It is not necessary to catalog a dependent supplement as a serial just because it has a stated frequency (e.g., an annual supplement to a monograph).

3.2.4  Parts of a Multipart Monograph or Serial

Guidelines

You may catalog a volume or part of a multipart monograph or serial individually using a separate record or you may catalog the set on one record. When separate records are created for individual volumes or parts, they are not considered duplicate records for the entire multipart monograph or serial.

If a record for an item as a whole exists, you may create a record for a part and vice versa. For RDA cataloging, see instructions 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 and related LC-PCC PSs.

Example of a multipart resource cataloged as a set:

Example of volume one cataloged on a separate record:

Example of volume two cataloged on a separate record:

3.3  Special Types of Publications

This section contains instructions for cataloging special types of resources, including electronic resources, integrating resources, local recordings, microforms, technical reports, and theses and dissertations.

3.3.1  Electronic Resources

Definition

RDA defines a digital resource as: "A resource, consisting of data and/or one or more programs, encoded for manipulation by a computerized device. The resource may require the use of a peripheral device directly connected to a computerized device, an application program, and/or a connection to a computer network." This definition excludes digital resources that do not require the use of a computer, for example, music compact discs and videodiscs. The terms digital resource and electronic resource can be used interchangeably. 

Electronic resources fall into two categories:

• Tangible electronic resources, which include DVD-ROMs, CD-ROMs, etc.
• Online resources
  

Guidelines

Separate records vs. single record

Option for separate records

Prefer creation of separate records when both online and tangible versions of the resource exist. If you are cataloging an online resource, however, you do not need to verify the physical existence of a tangible version or whether it has been cataloged. Similarly, when you catalog a tangible resource, you do not need to verify whether an online version exists. In both cases, you may catalog the resource as if no other version exists.

Example of a CD-ROM version record noting the existence of print and online versions:

Example of a print version record noting the existence of CD-ROM and online versions:

Type	a
Form
245	0	0	Child abduction response plan : ǂb an investigative guide
250	2nd ed.
264	1	Quantico, Virginia : ǂb Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, ǂc 2008
300	vi, 64 pages ; ǂc 28 cm
336	text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
337	unmediated ǂb n ǂ2 rdamedia
338	volume ǂb nc ǂ2 rdacarrier
776	0	8	ǂi Reproduced as (manifestation): ǂt Child abduction response plan. ǂb 2nd ed. ǂd Quantico, Virginia : Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, 2008. ǂh 1 CD-ROM ; 4 3/4 in. ǂw (OCoLC)759590491
776	0	8	ǂi Online version: ǂt Child abduction response plan. ǂb 2nd ed. ǂd Quantico, Virginia : Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, [2008] ǂw (OCoLC)855440238

Example of an online version record noting the existence of print and CD-ROM versions:

Option for a single record for the tangible resource with a reference to the online resource

Separate records are preferred for the tangible resource and the online resource. If, after consultation with your local system vendor and other partners, you decide that a single record approach works better for your local environment, follow the instructions for tangible resources in the table above. Include fields 006 and/or 007 only when applicable to the tangible resource described in the body of the record itself or to other tangible aspects of that resource, such as accompanying material. Always provide the location of any online manifestation in field 856. Use 2nd indicator 1 when the address is for a version of the resource other than the one described in the body of the entry or 2 when the address is for an otherwise related resource.

Example of a single record for the tangible non-electronic resource with a reference to the online resource:

Type	a
Form
245	0	0	Child abduction response plan : ǂb an investigative guide
250	2nd ed.
264	1	Quantico, Virginia : ǂb Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, ǂc 2008
300	vi, 64 pages ; ǂc 28 cm
336	text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
337	unmediated ǂb n ǂ2 rdamedia
338	volume ǂb nc ǂ2 rdacarrier
776	0	8	ǂi Reproduced as (manifestation): ǂt Child abduction response plan. ǂb 2nd ed. ǂd Quantico, Virginia : Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, 2008. ǂh 1 CD-ROM ; 4 3/4 in. ǂw (OCoLC)759590491