Present:  Bob Alan, HOTS;  Pat French, UCD;  Crystal Graham, UCSD;  Lynne 
Hayman, UCSB (Recorder);  Carol Hixson, UCLA;  Rebecca Doherty, CDL 

1. Approval of Last Meeting's Minutes.   Revised minutes distributed by 
Alan on Wednesday had not been received by task force members, and he will send them again. 

2. Recap of HOTS Position on TFER Report.  Alan conveyed HOTS support for 
recommendations embodied in the original TFER report including the single 
record approach, as an expedient means of providing access to the large 
and growing number of titles being subscribed to through the CDL.  Hayman 
expressed that given a decision had already been made, a continuing focus 
on the advantages/disadvantages of single vs. separate record approaches 
was not advised.  She noted that her original thought piece on the 
advantages of separate records had been intended to address 12 problem 
areas in meeting the first goal of the SOPAG charge to TFER2, namely 
guidelines for the cataloging of internet resources to be used by all 
University libraries that would enable each library to load and use 
records produced by a designated cataloging site.  Those problems had not 
yet been addressed and would need to be.  Hixson noted that the charge 
directed the Task Force to address the single record approach for all or 
selected materials, and that colleagues at UCLA had supported that focus 
and the arguments in favor of constructing separate records.   

3. Task Force members then referred to and addressed background documents 
and e-mail correspondence produced since the previous meeting. 
[Distributed materials: Hixson's thought piece; Decision points for single vs. separate records (Graham); Ohionet separate record examples (Hayman); 
Attributes of single vs. separate records (Graham); French's thoughts on 
single vs. separate records, conveyed by e-mail dated 12/10].  Hayman 
remarked that French had drawn Task Force members' attention to the fact 
that neither CONSER guidelines nor LC's Interim Guidelines characterized 
the single record approach as cataloging.  The term cataloging, said 
French, "really is a misnomer.  If we do not describe the ER itself, we 
are not really cataloging it.  It would be more accurate to understand it 
as a technique used to give access to ERs which are closely associated 
with bibliographic items already represented in the catalog."  Hayman 
observed the single vs. separate records question is really not an 
either/or choice.  The choice is whether and for what resources cataloging would be produced or produced at this time. 

4. The group noted the issue of value for cost is one that will be 
considered by each library in making a decision to purchase records 
produced by a designated cataloging agency.  

5. Graham referred to previous discussion related to record content, 
whether better to distribute full records or just those fields to be added to print records that would delineate electronic versions.  The group 
agreed full records would be preferable.   

6. The group agreed each library would have to make local decisions about 
how to use these records, depending upon the history of former cataloging 
practice, the adequacy of machine matching for overlay, the necessity of 
manual record review, the need to protect certain fields, and each local 
system's ability to do so.  The most sophisticated level of work 
associated with the single record approach would be identification of 
matching bibliographic records, first by the cataloging agency identifying related print version(s) to be supplemented, and later by libraries in 
identifying records to be overwritten that may not carry a matching key. 
Graham noted that in UCSD's A&I project, trained student assistants were 
able to do a good job searching and matching.  The group noted that 
matching against records already existing in each catalog represented a 
"messy, but temporary" clean up process.  Hayman noted that the prospect 
of UCSB's conducting such a project in the near term was small.  Hixson 
noted this type of activity would in future fall off as ever fewer digital resources had print equivalents. 

7  Some discussion of matching keys ensued, the OCLC number vs. the ISSN 
vs. the LCCN, with the LCCN seeming most promising. 

8. Related to information to display to users, the group had some 
questions associated with restrictions for individual campus access. 
Graham will talk with Karen Cargille and bring information back to the 
Task Force. 

9. The group moved to the question of record distribution, it being agreed the most workable means would be establishment of an FTP site, from which 
libraries could retrieve files of bibliographic records, either an OCLC 
FTP site, or one established by the cataloging agency.  Graham expressed 
UCSD's interest in serving as the central cataloging site, and will talk 
with Bruce Miller before the next meeting about the potential for UCSD's 
establishing an FTP site from which files of records could be retrieved. 

10. Finally, the group focused on how records would be linked to the CDL 
directory.  Users should be able to link from a CDL Directory entry to a 
record in the MELVYL database.  Hixson observed this approach had already 
been adopted by several systems and volunteered to investigate and bring 
information to the group.   
  

Lynne M. Hayman  
Head, Cataloging and Acquisitions Services  
Davidson Library 
UC Santa Barbara 
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 
hayman@library.ucsb.edu 
phone: (805) 893-2866 
fax: (805) 893-3276