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

1. Review/approve minutes of 12/18/98 

The minutes from 12/10 have been approved.  Hayman will send them out after the holiday. 

Graham will finalize the minutes from 12/18 when she has Hayman's comments. 

2. Announcements 

Regarding cataloging titles that the cataloging agency has not purchased:  
Graham talked to Karen Cargille about CDL licenses. So far most licenses  
have been accepted by all UCs except UC San Francisco. It  may be   
possible to license one IP address at the central cataloging campus for a 
small fee for the purpose of cataloging.  The Group agreed that, should 
the need arise, paying to license one extra IP address for cataloging 
would  work better for this process than using surrogates. 

Regarding attaching holdings code for electronic titles in OCLC:  
OCLC has made conflicting statements regarding holdings in OCLC. The  
group agreed that we should not add holdings because it would be confusing for 
ILL and electronic publishers generally prohibit lending in their licenses.  

ACTION: UCSD will write a formal letter to OCLC attempting to persuade 
OCLC against requiring the holdings byte. GRAHAM 

Regarding PURL server:  
Hixson will continue to pursue contacting libraries using a PURL server  
to see how they manage their sites. 
  
Regarding libraries who are linking their catalog and web pages:  
Hixson is continuing to try to reach people at Iowa State and Cornell. 
  
Regarding CDL:  
French has contacted Brian Warling, and he will be happy to participate in 
a phone conference call. They will talk again in early January.  Following that 
he will join the group for one meeting. 

Regarding email from Alan about WEB of Science:  
WEB of Science is a CDL title with access from all campuses. It is an  
online version of three ISI print indexes, Science Citation, Social 
Science, and Arts & Humanities. The CDL access is limited to the past  
five years but at least a couple of campuses have paid ISI to allow 
access to the past ten years. This is an example of different access 
provided for a CDL title at different campuses. The holdings segment 
for the CDL portion would not be correct for those campuses that 
purchased additional years. This brings up issues of integration, 
guidelines for separate record content, and the content and holdings  
segment scheme. All agreed to consider this when discussing decision points. 

Regarding the scope of our task force work:  
French suggested the group develop guidelines for separate records also,  
including such things as call number and location display, and use of 
specific fields. 

3. Report outline on website: suggestions for improvement  

French reported that there is a skeletal outline of the report on the  
website, and she has started adding points that we will want in the report.  
The group agreed that there need to be notes added for various purposes:  

- to express that these topics are under active discussion and still negotiable,   
- to direct questions and comments to task force members,  
- to state that this page is considered to be a communication mechanism,  
- to indicate that minutes from previous meetings are available for reference. 

ACTION: French will draft a disclaimer and add it to the web page at the 
top of the outline.  FRENCH 

4. Continued discussion of Decision Points:  

Paper version issues:  

DECISION POINT #1 -Paper version ceases  
When the print version ceases, the group generally favors closing the  
record and creating a new record for the new electronic form. We discussed 
various issues associated with this approach: 

1. How should the records be linked when the electronic form needs to be  
cataloged as a database?  

a. Do cataloging rules allow using 78X fields to connect the two?  
b. All agreed that it is important to lead the user to the other record somehow.  

ACTION: Graham will investigate with LC and CONSER. GRAHAM 
  
2. Will we be required to catalog all databases as monographs?  

a. Graham reported that a draft of a CONSER working group report 
on this topic will be presented at ALA Midwinter. The report includes 
cataloging recommendations for integrating entities, looseleafs,  
unnumbered series and databases.    
b. Hixson asked for the membership list for the CONSER working group.  
ACTION: Graham will forward the membership list and ask permission to  
send this group a draft report before the ALA Midwinter. 

3. When a record is closed would we keep the 856 and the CDL location  
symbol on the closed record?  
There are several changes possible:  

a. retain the 856  
b. close out 856 $3  
c. close out the fixed fields and publication date  
d. make linking entries  

ACTION: All agreed that it was important to consult with their respective  
staffs before making a decision. 
  
DECISION POINT #2 -Paper version changes title requiring successive  
entries; ejournal at one site 
  
In this case, the general consensus seemed to be that we would favor  
having the 856 on ALL of the relevant print records. The maintenance work 
would be done by the central cataloging agency and updated records would  
be distributed out to other sites to load (or not). We discussed the 
possible complications for Melvyl arising from having the same 856 on 
multiple bib records or multiple  856s on the same bib records or series 
of bib records. There are still technical issues to be uncovered. We 
need to understand more about the implications for linking with the CDL  
directory and with A&I databases in Melvyl. 

ACTION: All decided this was an issue to consult about with Rebecca  
Doherty or Brian Warling. 
  
PRESENTATION ISSUES:  

DECISION POINT #3 - Presentation differs but content the same as single  
print source (e.g. paper published in separate issues, electronic organized  
into a database) 

The cataloging approach would be determined by how much the content  
matches the print source. Whenever the content meets our definition of  
equivalency we would continue using the print record. All agreed this was acceptable. 

DECISION POINT #4 - Presentation differs but content the same as more than  
one print source (example=Encyclopedia of Associations, WEB of Science) 

Discussion seemed to favor creating a separate bib record for the electronic  
database, with 856s added to each of the related records for the print titles-  
up to some as yet undetermined number. The amount of analysis of titles  
contained within the database that would be provided will depend on the 
level of funding provided to support cataloging. Discussion so far seemed 
to favor using a 520 on the database record to record the titles  
(and modifying that information if the title changed) and  
adding title added entries for the separate titles on the database record  
(if the number is relatively small). Our cut-off point for analyzed titles  
might be in the range of 6-10. No individual access to titles would take place  
(in the form of 856s on print records or 520 notes or added title fields on  
database records) if the number of titles went beyond the agreed upon number. 

DECISION POINT#5 - Electronic full-text available within an indexing  
service such as MAGS, Lexis-Nexis, Academic Universe, accessible only on 
article level, no chief source for journal. 

These databases present a special challenge for providing access to the  
titles they contain. 

ACTION: Graham will write up a description of the problem of aggregator  
databases for future consideration. GRAHAM 
  
The next meeting will be Friday, January 9AM-12PM, phone number TBA. The  
group agreed to meet for three hours every Friday for the duration of the  
project (except Jan. 29, which will be rescheduled to another day of the week).  
The agenda items for the next meeting are:  

-to consider the decision points related to content issues  
-guidelines for separate records  
-Pats conversation with Brian Warling  
-preparation for the phone meeting with Brian. 
  
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS: 
ACTION: UCSD will write a formal letter to OCLC attempting to persuade 
against requiring a holdings byte for electronic titles.  GRAHAM  

ACTION: French will draft a disclaimer regarding the 
intended use of the web page and add it at the top of the outline.  FRENCH   

ACTION: Graham will investigate linking records when the electronic 
form needs to be catalogued as a database with LC and CONSER.  GRAHAM 

ACTION: Graham will forward the membership list for the CONSER 
working group and ask permission to send this group a draft report 
before the ALA Midwinter.  GRAHAM   

ACTION: All agreed that it was important to consult with their respective 
staffs before making a decision about the 856 field and CDL location on a 
closed record.  EVERYONE 

ACTION: Graham will write up a description of the problem of aggregator 
databases for future consideration.  GRAHAM