Present:  B. Alan (HOTS/recorder), P. French (D), C. Graham (SD), L.  Hayman (SB),  
C. Hixson (LA), R. Doherty (CDL) 

1.      Minutes (prepared by C. Hixson) of the Nov. 20 conference call 
         approved with revisions. 

 2.     French reported that a TFER2 web site is being established at 
         Davis.  URL should be distributed soon.   Web site will contain 
         minutes, background documentation, links to relevant sites, and 
         TFER2 membership, including e-mail addresses and phone numbers. 
         All agreed that Web site should be open to all interested parties, 
         and the TFER listserv will be closed to TFER2 members only. 

 3.      Separate record versus single record:   Hayman prepared and 
         distributed prior to conference call "thought piece" on advantages 
         of separate record versus single record. 

         Points raised during discussion: 

         Primary point of entry: MELVYL or CDL Directory or equally 
         important? 

         What should we consider to be the primary point of entry for 
         electronic resources, the CDL Directory or MELVYL?   The CDL 
         Directory was not in existence when the TFER recommendations were 
         made.   There was agreement that catalog records for electronic 
         records should be added to MELVYL.   Does the CDL Directory also 
         need complete MARC records as well or are the access points the 
         most important portion that need to be included in the CDL 
         Directory?  Or could hot links take one from the CDL Directory 
         to the record in MELVYL in addition to linking to the web 
         resource itself? Agreement that the CDL Directory should take 
         advantage of the MELVYL MARC records, and it would be very 
         useful to feed data based on MARC record back into the 
         Directory.  Possibly a brief record in CDL with access points 
         would be the model. Agreement that the MARC record should 
         continue to serve as the basis for access and description.   At 
         this time, conversion of metadata to MARC leaves much to be 
         desired though it can serve as information for the cataloger. 

         Are holdings statements necessary if there is a link to either CDL 
         Directory or the electronic resource?. 

         Hayman suggested a triangular model with links back and forth 
         between MELVYL, CDL Directory, and the resource.   The CDL 
         Directory currently provides links back to MELVYL.  Graham pointed 
         out that the holdings statements for electronic resources are most 
         often easier to construct since there are no gaps in the holdings 
         to consider.   UCSD and Davis are currently adding the LIB HAS 
         statement and holdings to the 856 $3 or $z and will continue to do 
         so.  Feel the standard and structure of MELVYL holdings function 
         adequately.  MELVYL is currently the only place that provides 
         access to all formats and campus holdings.   The CDL is a 
         co-library and the CDL Directory may not necessarily represent all 
         electronic holdings accessed at all campuses. 

         Maintenance of single versus separate records 

         Is maintenance of single record more difficult than separate 
         records?   Concern that as the digital resource continues to grow 
         and change, the single record will become very large and difficult 
         to maintain.   If using a separate records can easily go back and 
         link to changes that go back and forth between the catalog records 
         and the resource.     However, the maintenance will need to be 
         completed no matter if on single or multiple records.   Also may 
         be more time consuming to go back and complete maintenance, e.g. 
         provide links, between separate records representing multiple 
         formats than maintaining link(s) on single record. 

         Does single record or separate record provide the most efficient 
         access in the catalog?  Will the user understand description of 
         a print resource linked to the CDL Directory if the single 
         record model is adopted? Does the catalog user need separate 
         full MARC records for the electronic versions?  Or is a note in 
         the record for print version briefly describing the electronic 
         with the 856 link sufficient?  Which approach will offer more 
         consistency to the catalog user? Graham pointed out that GPO has 
         been using the single record concept and GPO records are being 
         added to the catalogs that conform to the GPO guidelines.   What 
         would we do about the GPO records if a separate record concept 
         is adopted? 

         LC and CONSER guidelines currently provide for the use of single 
         record and separate records based on decision points. 

         Hayman favored separate records for dynamic resources based on 
         the observation that the content of dynamic resources most often 
         greatly vary from print resource. The single record will not 
         provide adequate access or description of the electronic version. 
         This led back to earlier discussion of need to fully describe 
         each version in the catalog. Graham indicated that the catalog 
         user is more likely to overlook another bibliographic record for 
         the electronic resource than to click on URL in the catalog 
         record for the print.   More efficient to have everything 
         together with exception of CD-ROM which is currently a problem. 
         There may also be some categories of web based resources such as 
         electronic newspapers that need to be dealt with separately since 
         the content is most often very different from the print. 

         What is the level of description required?  Hixson suggested 
         model that would have record for the work with additional 
         description information and access points for various 
         manifestations. It is very important that the guidelines limit 
         the number of decisions points that catalogers need to make each 
         time they are cataloging an electronic resource.   The more 
         decisions that need to be made the less efficient and more time 
         consuming the cataloging process will be. 

         Impact of new MELVYL architecture? 

         Doherty reported that planning has only begun and the team is 
         looking at distributed system using Z39.50 protocol.  Records may 
         not merge and therefore use of separate records may  be more 
         difficult.  But emphasized that planning is only in the 
         preliminary stages. 

         What about title changes? 

         Graham referred to paper she and Jean Hirons prepared for the 
         Toronto conference that proposed the use of latest entry.   There 
         is currently a task force working on proposal.   There is a 
         movement away from full description since electronic resources are 
         such moving targets.  All agreed that it is becoming increasingly 
         difficult to provide full description since the resources are 
         continually changing.    Access is more important. 

         CONSER proposal currently being developed that would use 
         successive latest entry to preserve history of the resource, 
         including separate ISSN's. 

 4.      Action items 

         Action: Graham will look at the questions Hayman raised in her 
                 thought piece on the advantages of separate records and 
                 prepare chart of issues that need to be 
                 addressed - pros and cons of single versus multiple 
                 records. 

         Action: We will look at the decision points that need to be 
                 made.  What are the boundaries and the decision points? 
                 What categories of electronic resources are best served by 
                 single versus multiple records? Will put thoughts on 
                 listserv and combine them together. 

         Action: Doherty will inquire about the possibility of CDL hosting 
                 a PURL server 

 5.      Future conference calls: 

         Thursday, Dec. 10: 1-3  (530-752-1419) 
         Friday, Dec. 18: 10-12  (530-752-1430) 
.