|
Untitled document
Cataloging Electronic Resources/Electronic Resources Display in the OPAC Task Force (2009) | Minutes
Oct. 14, 2009
Cataloging Electronic Resources/Electronic Resources Display in the OPAC Task Force
Attending: Judith Dzierba (RSH), Lynnette Fields (SIE), Andrea Imre (SIC), Kristin Martin (Chair)(UIC), Sandy Roe (ISU), Tammy Schnell (LLC), Helen Zhou (UIU), Jessica Gibson (CARLI)
The meeting was brought to order by Kristin Martin at 1:00 p.m.
1. Approval of minutes
Motion was made by Judith to approve the Sept. 24 meeting minutes as revised. Motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
2. Other issues concerning access to e-resources
a. Provider Neutral E-Monograph Record Task Group Report
To begin the discussion, some questions were asked. 1. How will provider neutral records influence our report? 2. Will we separate e-serials and e-monographs in our report, addressing each as a separate group for better clarity?
Kristin reported that OCLC has not started consolidating vendor records yet, but the process will be automated as much as possible. This does not preclude local libraries beginning to consolidate records themselves manually. This led to a discussion of how merging records will change holdings in OCLC and in the local and universal catalog environments. There also will be issues and implications on vendors as they continue to provide records as the consolidation happens. In all cases, OPAC display issues need to be considered. “Clean-up” of local bibliographic and holdings records will need to be addressed as consolidation happens.
More questions were raised regarding cancelling a subscription, particularly an e-monograph package. Is it possible to remove 856s from bibliographic records easily (possibly through MarcEdit)? Will entire bibliographic records need to be deleted?
Potential recommendation: Keep separate MFHDs for each vendor because of this issue.
b. Batchload issues at CARLI (discussion flowed into this topic although agenda placement was item 2c.)
The question was raised – How do we reconcile the batchloading limitations of Voyager with our report’s recommendations. It became clear that our report in some manner needs to raise the issue of batchloading record sets into local library databases which then promote to the universal catalog level, de-duplicate, and add holdings.
Potential recommendation: CARLI examine the batchload process.
Further questions were raised – Is it possible to keep e-resources out of the universal catalog? Should this happen? Is it possible to have a separate Voyager instance for e-resources? Is it possible to have batchloaded e-resource records flagged and handled differently so not to tax the current process? How will MFHDs be created if the vendor neutral report is adopted?
The group then discussed the manner in which bibliographic records are promoted to the universal catalog. The group also discussed how MFHDs are created during a batchload based on information found in certain fields of the bibliographic record. There are various merge-options available in the Voyager Bulk Import rules that are not used often but may help in this situation.
If we pursue e-resources not moving into the universal catalog, this issue will need to be raised with I-CAT as the group responsible for determining the “049 no uc” guidelines.
One potential idea is to investigate subscribing to a record service provided by Serials Solutions, SFX, etc… Some products/companies, however, do not provide records for e-monographs.
Potential recommendation: Libraries should use a record service provided it is cost effective.
Potential recommendation: Libraries follow vendor neutral guidelines to the best of their abilities.
Potential recommendation: Some group (this one?) constructs guidelines for preparing a batchload. Draw on the expertise of libraries already performing this function.
Potential recommendation: Provide an expert demonstration/training on how to use MarcEdit in preparing batchloads.
There was support for peer-to-peer communication either through a wiki or site visits or other communication mechanisms.
c. MARC Record Guide for Monograph Aggregator Vendors
The group discussed the possibility of establishing guidelines for libraries to follow as they create vendor neutral records. Instead of re-creating what PCC has already done, the local guidelines would be a pared down version of this document with locally specific examples and recommendations. In this, we need to recognize that there will always be exceptions (Marcive being one), and we should look for commonalities among vendors. Kristin will provide an example of how a vendor neutral record can look and act in the local and universal catalogs for the next meeting.
3. Review Best Practices for Bibliographic Records from Non-OCLC sources
The group discussed referencing this document versus repeating the information in our report. The group decided to reference the document, but also to add new information to the Best Practices as applicable and needed.
Questions, answers and discussion regarding control numbers also resulted. All agreed that consistent control numbers in the 035 involving prefixes and numerals is important.
4. Update on CARLI membership survey (Andrea and Sandy)
Everyone reviewed the draft survey on the wiki item by item. Much discussion occurred regarding the first questions which ask for size of electronic collections represented in the catalog. Is this information attainable elsewhere? Do these questions need to be included? Are the number ranges meaningful? The group decided that the number ranges can be correlated to other questions which will help us determine trends.
The group also discussed how to survey the I-Share membership regarding the current recommendations. Are libraries aware of the recommendations? Are they complying and to what degree?
Andrea and Sandy will post a second draft of the survey on the group’s wiki and each member is asked to share the survey with a staff member to get further feedback. The group will finalize the survey at its next meeting.
Time was running short and the last two items were moved to the next meeting:
5. Survey of current report recommendations
6. Determination of timeline (will be first agenda item at the next meeting)
|
View Calendar 
Email Lists
