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

Pat introduced Rebecca, a new library assistant at Davis, who will be working  
with Pat on creating records for electronic resources.  Rebecca was  
invited to listen in on this call.  Perhaps she can become the recorder for the group  
when she becomes more familiar with our discussions.  
 

Minutes for Dec. 4 were already approved on email and have been posted on the  
TFER2 web site.   Minutes for Dec. 11 were approved with correction submitted  
by Rebecca Doherty regarding who proposed following up on ideas for linking  
CDL Directory and MELVYL.  Pat will be credited with the idea and Carol  
confirmed that she will follow up with other institutions which have experimented with  
this sort of link.  Lynne will send the final version to Pat to post on the web.  

ACTION: Carol will follow up with other universities which have linked web  
sites and catalogs.  
 

Several substantive email messages were exchanged since the last call,  
which we reviewed and discussed.  

A.  "Answers to Questions" (Graham, 12/14)  

1. In her report on the access limitations in some electronic journal licenses,  
Crystal posed the question: What we will do if the centralized cataloging  
agency does not have access to a group of journals because it is on a  
nonparticipating campus?  The group discussed various alternatives, including  
selecting an alternative agency to do the cataloging (which might be require  
additional training/distribution), having a subscribing campus furnish  
surrogates of the web sites, or investigating whether an additional IP address  
for the cataloging agency might be added to the license agreement.  All  
agreed the last option would be desirable.  

ACTION: Crystal will follow up with Karen Cargille on whether the IP address  
option might be viable.  

2. In Crystal's discussion with the UCSD Systems Dept. about using FTP  
to distribute records to the different campuses, the question arose whether each  
campus could have an FTP site of its own, so that only records for the  
services to which the campus subscribed would be distributed to it.  All agreed this  
would save each campus from ferreting the file for the appropriate records  
and might also enable campuses to wait to collect records until they are ready to  
load them.  

3. Crystal reported that Phyllis Mirsky, chair of SOPAG, clarified that the  
investigation of the relationship of CDL and government documents is just  
beginning.  A consultant will be selected to report on the role of depository  
libraries in an age of electronic distribution.  Given the time frame of that  
investigation, TFER2 will set aside cataloging of government documents for  
the time being.  

B.  "OCLC FTP Site" (Alan, 12/15)  

Bob reported that he has sent an inquiry to OCLC about the cost of an OCLC  
FTP site, but has not yet received a response.  Davis is  currently using the service  
for distribution of PrompCat  records and he can investigate  
its utility for TFER2 as well. In addition to pricing, he will find out about customization, e.g., having a separate file for each library as described above.  Lynne suggested we  
investigate local workflows before committing to a specific plan for an FTP site.  

C.  "Misc. items" (Doherty, 12/17)  

1.  In Rebecca’s email, she reported that two studies will be conducted about  
future MELVYL architecture.  One will look at a virtual catalog and the other  
will investigate commercial software that could merge CAT and PE.  
Information on these studies will be distributed to campuses soon.  The studies should be  completed this summer, followed by discussion and implementation.  She  
concurred that the present architecture will probably remain in place for 2-3  
years so our recommendations should be focused on that time frame.  

2.  Rebecca’s report stated that the CDL group has been discussing the  
possibility of linking the CDL record to the MELVYL record for the purpose of  
displaying print holdings in the CDL Directory.  We had considered bringing  
electronic holdings into MELVYL but not vice versa.  Rebecca’s group  
suggested that the ISSN number be used as the link since it would require the least  
development.  

Lynn pointed out that it is ISDS policy to assign different ISSNs to the  
electronic and print versions.  (Crystal added that an exception is made when  
the electronic version is an exact digitization of the original print, as  
with JSTOR).  If the ISSN is to be used as the link, it is essential to make sure  
that the link is made when the A&I service uses either ISSN.  Is the 776 $x  
indexed in MELVYL?  Pat reported that the idea of indexing it was submitted  
and approved but shortly thereafter MELVYL programming was “frozen” so she  
didn't think that had ever been implemented.  

It’s increasing clear that we need to get a clearer idea of what CDL has in  
mind for the CDL Directory.  Rebecca reported that Brian Warling would be  
happy to participate in one of our calls next year.  Pat suggested that  
she speak one-on-one with Brian prior to the phone call to give him some background 
and prepare him for our questions.  

ACTION: Pat will speak with Brian Warling about plans for the CDL Directory.  

3.  Following up on Pat’s comment on the need to display the 856 $3 and $z in  
MelWeb, Rebecca reported that this would be easy to implement and they could  
probably do this before we submit our report.  She says $z already displays  
when $u is present in MelWeb and both $z and $3 display in MELVYL telnet.  

ACTION: Rebecca will talk to MelWeb programmers about displaying 856 $3.  

4.  In response to inquiries about whether CDL would be willing to host a  
PURL server, Rebecca reported  that CDL might be willing to host the server, but  
would be unwilling to maintain the persistence function.  We speculated on  
advantages and disadvantages of housing the server at CDL and OCLC.  Carol  
offered to consult Eric Jul for more information on PURL servers.  In the  
meantime, all were encouraged to look at the purl web site http://purl.oclc.org.  

ACTION: Carol will consult with Eric Jul on PURL server models.  

Rebecca suggested we might make a recommendation about PURL servers in our  
final report or we might write to Joan Gargano to formally request that CDL  
investigate the possibility while we continue our work.  The task force  
agreed we should pursue both options.  Lynn offered to write to Joan after the  
holidays.  

ACTION: Lynne will write to Joan Gargano about the possibility of CDL  
hosting a PURL server.  

One question that arose was whether the URLs for each campus are the same for  
CDL-licensed electronic journals.  Crystal volunteered to ask Karen  
Cargille or Terry Vrable if they know the answer.  

ACTION: Crystal will ask Karen Cargille or Terry Vrable about whether the  
same URL is used by all campuses for CDL-licensed resources.  

5.  Rebecca reported from Karen Coyle that setting up an FTP server is very  
easy and the software can be obtained for free from the Internet.  Crystal  
cautioned that UCSD’s Systems Dept. mentioned the expenses associated with  
compiling the files, allocation of sufficient disk space, etc., so there are  
costs associated with hosting the server.  

6.  Rebecca reported that she’s been thinking more about different central  
cataloging agency scenarios and their ramifications for CDL and the campuses.  
She will send a summary sometime after the holidays.  

ACTION: Rebecca will send the group her thoughts on central cataloging  
scenarios.  
 

Having already discussed PURL servers, we did not have any other old  
business.  
 

Pat reported on her conversation with Phyllis Mirsky.  SOPAG will be  
satisfied if we can develop guidelines and a plan for Tier 1 and 2 electronic  
journals.  (Tier 1 journals are those licensed to all campuses and Tier 2 are licensed to at  least two campuses).  It would be acceptable to propose addressing other  
types of materials in subsequent planning steps, whether it's by an  
extension of this group or by expanding the work to include other specialist catalogers.  
(As an aside, Lynne mentioned that she is involved in the work of the Online Archive of  
California and would be willing to look into concerns related to archival encoded  
descriptions when appropriate).  

We discussed the action plan that Pat presented:  
With that in mind, I propose that we consider the following strategy:  

A.  Limit our focus to purchased electronic serials.  Most or many of these  
will have print equivalents.  Adopt the single record approach as used as  
UCSD.  Refine the specifics by considering the decision points we've  
identified (plus any others that surface).  

There was unanimous approval for this plan of action.  Lynn stipulated that  
our report should include background information on why the “single record  
approach” was adopted.  The report should emphasize that we propose to  
delineate the existence of the electronic  version in the print record,  
not to create a record that intertwines information about both records into a single  
record.  The fields added to the print record delineating the existence of an  
electronic version record would be added even if separate records were  
created, so the integrity of the print records is not compromised.  

In our final report, we will probably want to recommend an extension of the  
life of TFER2 or the appointment of TFER3 to make recommendations for other  
resources.  Crystal raised the question whether networked CD’s are considered  
electronic journals.  The group thought that was beyond the scope of our  
current focus.  

B.  Concentrate on cataloging guidelines that meet our needs in MELVYL and  
write them as guidelines for MELVYL alone.  Think about and clarify how a  
campus could deviate from these guidelines locally if they chose to create  
separate records (i.e., not send them to MELVYL).  

Lynn suggested that it is premature to envision how local systems might  
deviate.  Crystal pointed out the example of 856 $z and $3, where some local  
systems display only one of the two subfields.  The central cataloging agency  
should follow national guidelines and campuses could deviate in the local  
system if necessary.  Pat emphasized the importance of suppressing records  
that deviate from the “single record approach.”  Having unclustered  
records of both types would bifurcate holdings and undermine the whole approach.  

Concern was expressed about separate records coming in from CONSER and other  
input sources.  Crystal volunteered to write up the problems for further  
discussion with Rebecca or Laine.  

ACTION: Crystal will write up concerns about inputting separate records from  
outside sources.  

C.  Concentrate on devising a method of record distribution that will be  
useable locally, but leave the decision of whether and how to load CDL  
records up to the campus.  

All agreed with this approach.  

D.  Begin by working through the decision points one by one.  Record the  
decisions made in a new area on the website.  

All agreed with was a good idea.  Pat will post the list on the web site and  
keep the decisions up-to-date.  

ACTION: Pat will post the decision points on the web site.  

E.  Create a skeletal outline of a guidelines document and begin filling  
it in as we go.  What would the main areas be?  
  

• Introduction  scope, intent, context, application of guidelines
• Cataloging approach  explanation
• Record content and tagging
• Application  when to use a single record, when to make a new record

Integration  when to make additions to related records (other formats)

F.  Assign a couple of us to simultaneously investigate record distribution  
options on a technical level (Rebecca and Bob?).  They could report to us as  
they work but keep the focus of the group meetings on the guidelines during  
January.  

Bob and Rebecca are already working on various aspects of this assignment.  

G.  Meet more than once a week during early January?  

Most members indicated they did not have time to “meet” more than once a  
week.We noted that email correspondence was very productive over the past two  
weeks and we should continue to pursue substantive discussion online.  Pending  
Rebecca’s agreement, all agreed that continuing to meet on Fridays  
10:00-12:00 in January was satisfactory.  

ACTION: Ask Rebecca whether she can meet at this time in January.  
 

Decision points for single vs. separate:  
1. Titles of paper and electronic differ (often by the addition of the word “online”)  
2. Paper version ceases  
3. Paper version changes title requiring successive entries; ejournal at one site  
4. Library has CD as well as paper/microform and electronic  
5 Presentation differs, e.g., paper in separate issues; electronic in  
integrated database, e.g., Encyclopedia of Associations  
6. Electronic full-text available within an indexing service such as MAGS,  
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, or Ethnic Newswatch, accessible only on  
article level, no chief source for journal  
7. Content differs, e.g., newspaper sites have only current issue or omit  
advertising  
8. Electronic has additional features, such as bulletin board, news, links to  
related sites  

Category #7,  “content differs” was immediately identified as the most  
problematic.  Lynne said she finds such a vague concept difficult to apply  
and Carol said it was also the main sticking point for her.  Pat suggested  
that we take a different approach -- that suggested in the LC guidelines.  LC  
designates three categories of relationships for which they would include a  
URL for an electronic version in the record for the print.  

1.  Reproduction.  In this case, the electronic version serves as a  
functional substitute for the print.  
2.  Subsets.  In this case, the electronic version includes only a part of  
its print equivalent, such as the table of contents or current issues.  
3.  Adjuncts.  In this case, the electronic supplements the print version but  
is not intended as a substitute.  

Pat suggested that the important thing is for us to use the proper 856  
indicators and subfields, with first indicator 1 used for reproductions and 2  
used for related sites.  The inclusion of 856 $3 or $z detailing the  
relationship of the electronic version to the print version is critical  
whenever there is not a one-to-one correspondence.  

Crystal mentioned a few cases where separate records are needed.  In a few  
cases the online version and paper version have entirely different articles.  
It was noted that in the few known cases, this fact was clearly stated on  
both versions so the cataloger did not need to compare the contents.  The other  
case was newspapers, where linking to the electronic version in the NEWS  
database had led to many patron complaints, since the content of the electronic  
version was very abbreviated for the four papers in that database.  
Newspapers may require an exceptional policy.  

There was unanimous agreement that a difference in title between the  
electronic and print version would not be a reason for creating separate  
records.  The CONSER guidelines make provisions for including this information in the 530 note and making a 740 added entry.  

The issue of making separate records when the print ceases proved more  
controversial and was postponed until the next meeting.  
 

ACTION: Pat will distribute number for Wednesday’s call.  

Summary of ACTION items:  

Since most of us will be away over the holidays, most action items will be  
deferred until January.  The “decision points” discussion will probably  
occupy us for the next meeting or two.  Crystal noted that she is having surgery on  
Dec. 29, but expects to be online again in time for the January 8 call,  
even if she is still convalescing.  

• ACTION: Carol will follow up with other universities which have linked web sites and catalogs.
• ACTION: Crystal will follow up with Karen Cargille on whether the IP address  option might be viable.
• ACTION: Pat will speak with Brian Warling about plans for the CDL Directory.
• ACTION: Rebecca will talk to MelWeb programmers about displaying 856 $3.
• ACTION: Carol will consult with Eric Jul on PURL server models.
• ACTION: Lynne will write to Joan Gargano about the possibility of CDL hosting a PURL server.
• ACTION: Crystal will ask Karen Cargille or Terry Vrable about whether the same URL is used by all campuses for CDL-licensed resources.
• ACTION: Crystal will write up concerns about inputting separate records from outside sources.
• ACTION: Rebecca will send the group her thoughts on central cataloging scenarios.
• ACTION: Pat will post the decision points on the web site.
• ACTION: Ask Rebecca whether she can meet at this time in January.
• ACTION: Pat will distribute number for Wednesday’s call.