The Access to Electronic Resources Working Group received its charge on June 11, 1998 and held its first meeting July 15. Below please find a short synopsis of the group’s effort to carry out its charge over the course of its first year.
Charge 1: Documentation of record structure to represent CCOL resources in MIRLYN
We have prepared two documents currently under review by the Cataloging Policy Council and in interim use: Guidelines for the Use of the 856 Field and Best Practice Guidelines for the Use of Copy Holdings Information for Electronic Resources. An additional document is under construction: Guidelines for Determining Whether an Electronic Resource Should be Described as a Serial or a Monograph. A controlled set of topics was established for the Electronic Journals list. In addition, policies and documentation were established to enable the creation of MARC record 690 fields whose content is used to populate the topic list with individual journal titles.
Future efforts(Responsible parties in parentheses): Further documentation and publication of recommendations of the group and official acceptance of guidelines as policy (Group, CPC, NISC). Examination of problematic display of some electronic records in MCAT indexes(Group). Experiments with linking 856 to holdings records rather than bibliographic records (Group, Systems Office).
Charge 2: Analyze options and recommend strategies related to "level" of cataloging for e-resources (e.g., item vs. Collection)
The group has come to general agreement that journals acquired in aggregate be analyzed, including most trials, with very large and very short trials to be negotiated with Serials Cataloging. Minimal level cataloging is being done for trials. Databases that form parts of aggregations are also being analyzed. In both cases, aggregator names are being used as added title entries in records so that aggregation contents may be collocated.
Future efforts: Decisions regarding policy for handling of monographs (Group, CPC). Formal statements of principle to be written and distributed (Group). Compiling lists of aggregators and publishers to be used as enrichment outside the catalog display(Group, Web Architecture).Compilation of guidelines for Gateway screens created by selectors/eTeams for providing access to aggregated resources that cannot be reached directly through a URL(Group, selectors, Web Architecture). Make policy recommendations to eTeams suggesting efforts during contract negotiations to influence vendors to provide individual URLs for individual electronic resources (Group, eTeams).
Charge 3: Assess options and develop plan for reflecting holdings information for CCOL electronic resources:
Best Practice Guidelines for the Use of Copy Holdings Information created. Currently serial holdings are being represented by a collapsed single holdings record in MCAT. Work is underway to arrange for this collapsed holdings information to display in the Electronic Journals List as well as in the catalog record.
Future efforts: Experiments with linking 856 to holdings records rather than bibliographic records, so that holdings may be more specifically associated with particular URLs. Although MARC standards permit this usage, it will require extensive local NOTIS systems development as it cannot be accomplished with our current NOTIS implementation (Group, Systems Office). Implementation of display in Journals List (Group, Systems Office).
Charge 4: Identification of relevant administrative metadata (e.g., access rights, ownership) to be represented in records:
Access information is generally being limited to portions of the 856 field, with LAN access information restricted to assignment of sublocations in holdings records, producing a simple public display that references explanatory screens for more complex instructions. Standardized language was developed to describe basic access restrictions. These language guidelines were incorporated into the 856 Best Practice Guidelines and deployed in both full records and in the eJournals List. Sublocations were established so that materials available to users via LANs could be located. Complete implementation of this strategy for CD-ROM LAN materials awaits construction of the explanatory screens by the MIRLYN Group.
Future efforts: Decision on how to handle expiration dates (via eTracker or in record?) Assist in implementation of eTracking database and the accompanying use policies (Group, eTeams, eTracker developers). Further development of explanatory screens(MIRLYN Group). Assess cost-effectiveness of bringing earlier language used in records to describe access into compliance with guidelines (Technical services). Publicize recommendations and implementation to a broader audience (Group).
Charge 5: Analysis of issues associated with relationships between print or other media resources which are equivalent or closely associated with electronic resources. Recommend practices to integrate, link, or create references between these related resources:
Serials Cataloging is using the CONSER interim guidelines for e-resources, adding e-resource information to records for the paper version. Local cataloging guidelines take into account the possibility of multiple 856 fields co-existing in a single record for cases where more than one electronic version exists. In contrast to serials, database and monograph records generally supplant rather than augment previous records. Additional relationship information (such as references to previous, but not identical resources) must be specifically requested on an individual basis by the relevant eTeam. Since much of the need for adding to a record rather than creating a new one for a new form is a result of system display limitations, further discussion of the issue may be more appropriately considered during consideration of next-generation catalog systems.
Future efforts: Compilation and display of aggregator lists and presentations(Group, eTeams,Web Architecture). Monitoring of and participation in national discussion of one-to-one resource representation. Determination of policies regarding representation of eMonographs and this issues’s relation to the broader issue of multiple version representation of other formats, including microforms. (Group, CPC, Technical Services, national Standards groups). Examination and documentation of individual multiple-format monograph treatments currently existing in the collection(Group). Documentation and publication of policies(Group, CPC).
Charge 6: Develop process and format for non-CCOL networked resources to be included (possibly using software for selectors tools, such as MARCIt to "grab" information from the network). Issues to be resolved include: what elements should be in record, how to handle items of transitory nature (e.g., expiration date) and what process to follow to get item from selector into cataloging workflow:
Pre-existing Digital Registry records were reviewed by selectors and moved into MCAT. Cataloging request form proposed as part of eTracking database will allow selectors to request that records for selected non-CCOL networked resources be added to MCAT. CORC (which incorporates MARCIt-like qualities) is being examined as alternate proposal/cataloging tool.
Future efforts: Test usability of eTracking request form(Group, Technical Services, Selectors). Test applicability of CORC(Group, Technical Services, selectors). Establish policy on handling of expiration dates (Group, CPC, eTeams, eTracker developers).
Charge 7: Document and communicate these policies and practices to the Library staff:
Communication has included Librarynewsletter articles, reports to NISC and Senior Managers, documents submitted to CPC, and shared subcommittee work with the MIRLYN and Web Architecture Groups.
Future efforts: Further writing of documentation, publicity and reports to NISC, Senior Managers, Web Architecture Group, Screens Group, eTeams, Selectors(Group) Greater efforts to publicize work of group to a broader audience via newsletter (Group).
Charge 8: Track development and assess functionality of SET CAT, MCAT and MDAS options:
An MDAS file containing all "electronic" resources (networked, CD-ROM, software, etc.) was designed. Procedures were put in place for weekly updates that are now well-established and running successfully.
Future efforts: Testing addition of holdings information (Group, Systems). Minor display improvements. (Group, Systems) Defining relation to Web Architecture Group's vision (Group, Web Architecture).
Charge 9: Analyze and recommend ongoing and maintenance responsibilities for selectors, e.g., review of linked resources to ensure continued relevance:
A basic link-checker was implemented. Results are reviewed by Serials Cataloging and the Authorities and Database Maintenance Units.
Future efforts: Determine guidelines and policy, assign responsibilities for maintenance (Group, CPC, Senior Managers,eTeams). Review of current commercial link-checking software (Group, Technical Services, Systems).
Charge 10 (additional): Create an eJournals List.
This was an unexpected addition to our charge and resulted in our deferring our efforts to work on several other charges. It was, however, far and away the most successful of our efforts and has been extremely well-received by both the Library and our user community. In addition, it has had a big impact: As just one example, use of MUSE electronic journals tripled in use between the last quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999. We can ascribe this increase to no other explanation except the eJournals List, which was implemented during the final quarter of 1998.
In summary, it was a successful year for the group. We feel we have made remarkable progress considering the complexity of the charge and are grateful to have had the opportunity to effect change at this level of intensity and impact.
Group members:
Final report date: 6/2/99
URL=http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jaheim/access/annrep9899.html