ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES NEWSLETTER OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM Vol. 20, no. 05 GP 3.16/3-2:20/05 February 25, 1999 LPS CATALOGING POLICIES FOR INTERNET RESOURCES: A REVIEW REMARKS BY THOMAS A. DOWNING CHIEF, CATALOGING BRANCH Before the Federal Documents Task Force and Cataloging Committee, Government Documents Round Table American Library Association Philadelphia, PA January 31, 1999 Good morning. It is a pleasure to be with you to provide a review of our Internet-related cataloging policies and a description of how they have evolved. After my presentation, Laurie Hall, Program Analyst, Library Programs Service (LPS) will provide you with a summary of recent efforts by LPS staff to refine services and establish procedures within the context of developing the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) Electronic Collection. Recording of URLs Our initial effort to provide access to Internet-related works published by U.S. Government agencies was to record URL-related data in the 530 note field of serial records. Approximately four years ago, this effort consisted of transcribing URL data from the pages of paper editions of serials to the 530 note field. During this early period, people who were sufficiently savvy could type this address in a browser to gain access to works that, unfortunately, were often inconsistent with what the records represented. This early form of indirect access could take users to advertisements for sales publications or to other inappropriate types of information unrelated to our records. Increasingly, as time passed and as the practices of publishers evolved, these URLs led to more relevant resources such as a specific issue of a serial or a clickable index or search window that led to a run of issues. Answering the Question: What to Do with Internet Resources? Faced with an increasing number of works in paper, both serials and monographs, that contained URL data that reflected evolving practices of publishers, we began looking at options for providing access to such works. During a Depository Library Council meeting held in Washington, DC in April, 1996, we presented a proposal for providing access to Internet-related works. We proposed creating very brief records that consisted of a title, series (if available), SuDocs class number, and hot-linked URLs. Our proposal was intended to provide people with low-cost access as an alternative to more expensive AACR2 cataloging. Our concerns for low-cost access were based upon the then all-too-frequent practice among agency webmasters of removing works from agency servers very soon after posting. We reasoned that the costs of cataloging exceeded the benefits of such short-term access. People responded to this proposal by expressing the view that AACR2 cataloging for such works was essential and should take precedence over cost-related concerns. It appears that this advice was based upon an underlying principle that access to the many important Internet-related works should be available in the context of library online public access catalogs, or OPACs, in preference to specialized resources that are maintained independently as "stand alone" applications. Understandably, we appreciated this advice, respected these perspectives and continued to provide an indirect form of electronic access to Internet-related works via URL information in the 530 note field of our Monthly Catalog records. The initiative to provide short form electronic access was set aside in favor of a traditional approach. Our efforts to develop "non-traditional" approaches to providing access to Internet resources have resulted in the suite of Pathway Services, which provide browseable access and GILS (Global Information Locator Service) access. Role of CONSER (Single Records and 856 Field) Fortunately, at approximately the same time that we affirmed our initial approach to providing Internet-related information in Monthly Catalog records, members of CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) and OCLC personnel were developing policies and practices that provided a national level context for Internet-related cataloging initiatives. For their part, CONSER members advocated the use of a "single record" approach as an option to creating separate records for Internet resources. As members of CONSER, we were authorized to use a single record option for providing access to works that had been published in paper, microfiche, and other physical formats. Use of a single record for Internet purposes was consistent with our well-established policy of using a record for a work in paper to also represent microfiche reproductions. In effect, LPS does not catalog most FDLP Internet works (in the sense of creating unique separate records for them) but makes them accessible via the recording of hot-linked PURLs/URLs in the 856 field of records that represent works in physical formats. CONSER's "single record" option which allows CONSER institutions to record URL/PURL data in records for physical formats or, conversely, to use a record for an Internet-related work for representing physical forms of such a work, helps to promote access without requiring institutions to produce separate records. From my perspective, the lower costs of this approach and the value this approach has for eliminating the need to produce separate records for works in different formats of the same title are sufficient reasons to follow this policy. A second contribution of CONSER was to advocate the use of the 856 field of OCLC records to provide direct access to electronic works. The hot-linked 856 field saves users the trouble of producing a printout or copying an address and then typing an address into a browser. The American Library Association (ALA) Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) Cataloging Committee approved use of these policies has done much to support our Internet-related cataloging operations. Role of OCLC and PURLs Although useful, our application of CONSER policies alone are insufficient to provide cost-effective electronic access to Internet-related works. OCLC's freely available PURLs, (Persistent Uniform Resource Locators) software, which was developed several years ago, provides institutions with a seamless redirect function in which users click on a PURL in the 856 field of a bibliographic record and are routed through a server which connects the PURL to the most active URL at a Web site or archive. PURLs servers are easier to maintain than frequently changing URLs in bibliographic records. More importantly, our efforts to maintain electronic access through the use of PURLs means that librarians will not need to change URL addresses in GPO-produced records within their local OPACs. OPAC users are directed to our PURL server which then re-directs users to, in most instances, valid URLs. PURLs were designed specifically for cataloging operations and provide institutions with an environment that supports efforts to maintain electronic access. Recognizing that LPS PURLs applications are on a very large scale (currently more than 2,000 PURLs), OCLC worked with LPS personnel to upgrade its PURLs software. Machine-generated assignment of PURLs and improved reports modules have made it possible for LPS staff to use PURLs as an important tool that supports efforts to provide electronic access to an increasing number of Internet-related works. As you can appreciate, maintaining accurate URL information in PURLs records is quite a task. PURLs are not perfect and PURLs are not magic. Our maintenance of PURLs now requires the assistance of approximately two full time equivalent LPS personnel. Our personnel are engaged with several important tasks that include choosing the best available URL to a resource for initial association with a PURL, reviewing exceptions reports that indicate broken links, attempting to locate new URLs for resources with broken links, and assuring that the re-connected resource represents an official version of what had initially been identified. As can be seen, maintaining PURLs requires considerable human intervention and professional judgement. In the future, it is possible that additional improvements to PURLs software may be made or that other successor software will provide improved support for access. PURLs and LPS Operations Our PURLs applications currently support electronic access to Internet-related works via both Browse Electronic Title (BET) entries and Monthly Catalog records. In a sense, BET entries, which are not integrated within OPACs, represent what had been our initial proposal for short-form records for Internet-related titles. Monthly Catalog records at the GPO Web site provide users with OPAC-based electronic access for many Internet-related works and, through the locate function, the shelf locations for thousands of physical form works that have been cataloged and distributed. Current Cataloging, Indexing, and Locator Service Policies and Operations Now I would like to provide a summary of Internet-related cataloging policies and operations. When electronic works have been cataloged as physical forms (paper, microfiche, CD-ROMs, etc.) prior to becoming available electronically, we upgrade many existing records by adding an electronic availability note (often, "Also available via the Internet") and an LPS PURL to the 856 field for electronic access. Our use of existing records to record Internet-related information, use of the 856 field, and addition of an electronic-related note are consistent with CONSER guidelines. These policies also reflect the approval of the ALA GODORT Cataloging Committee. When no suitable record for a physical format version of an electronic work is available to be upgraded, we produce an "electronic only" record as the means of providing access. In some instances, records representing works that existed only in electronic form and were cataloged initially as "electronic only" are upgraded by the addition of physical description data to reflect subsequent publishing of paper and other editions. Thus, a record for a work cataloged as "electronic only" may itself be upgraded to reflect the availability of later physical form editions. Our most recent cataloging policy initiative is to create "collection level" records for providing access to related, multiple electronic works accessible from a single main address. This policy is consistent with AACR2 and its use was authorized by the ALA GODORT Cataloging Committee. This policy was implemented in 1998 and provides users with reasonable access to works, through OPACs, as they are actually accessible at agency Web sites. Collection level records contribute to our efforts to provide access to electronic works even as we continue to catalog and, through the locate function of the Monthly Catalog Web edition, provide locations for physical format works distributed to depository libraries. Application of our collection level record policy gives LPS the flexibility to provide aggregate cataloging records for Internet sites and products that are valuable to users but cannot reasonably and cost-effectively be "dissected" and cataloged at the "piece" level. With responsibility for managing the national Cataloging and Indexing Program for U.S. Government publications, we make concerted efforts to work with the Depository Library Council, the ALA GODORT Cataloging Committee, and CONSER to assure that our Internet-related cataloging policies meet national standards and provide access to electronic works for as many libraries as possible. In doing so, we have worked through several phases in an incremental manner to consult with people, to test concepts, and to establish increasingly large-scale operations in the context of FDLP services. Our Internet policies are available for review at the FDLP Administration Web page. As with our operations, these policies evolve as they are applied and tested against real world conditions. Services in the Context of an Evolving FDLP Electronic Collection To assist with efforts to enter a new evolutionary phase of services in the context of an FDLP Electronic Collection, we have asked Laurie Hall, LPS Program Analyst, and Judy Andrews, Electronic Transition Specialist, to work with librarians and technical staff from areas within the Library Programs Service and the Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services. This group was formed several months ago to advise LPS management on issues associated with electronic FDLP services and to review policies and procedures. This group also was asked to investigate how more efficient operations could be established in the context of an electronic collection that incorporates archiving as a service. Our staff members have worked to advise LPS management on various matters. As such, Laurie's presentation reflects current thinking rather than new policies that have been firmly established, although, as you will hear, some experimentation and testing is underway. We look forward to hearing your comments concerning the substance of Laurie's presentation. We at LPS recognize that, as in the past, our future initiatives and proactive efforts to move the program towards an increasingly electronic FDLP benefit from hearing your comments and from consulting with many of our program's stakeholders. As always, it is a pleasure for me to be here to meet with colleagues from throughout the United States. I appreciate this opportunity and look forward to your comments. I hope this presentation has provided a useful context for Laurie's presentation.