re: PURL servers 
Hixson is continuing to contact sites who use PURL servers about 
maintenance issues they have encountered.  Hayman has received a 
response from Joan Gargano, Director of CDL Technologies, indicating CDL's 
willingness to investigate and perhaps host a PURL server (see 
minutes of Jan. 8).  The task force agreed to concentrate our work on 
outlining the preferred functional aspects of a central PURL server from 
an operational point of view.  CDL Technologies can provide the technical 
analysis.  Issues to consider include: 
        - Should we add PURLs to CDL cataloging records only, or make the 
                PURL server available for campuses to use for other Internet 
                resources also? 
        -Should we add PURLs to the OCLC record also? 
        -Who should have access to the PURL server for reporting/updating 
                purposes? 
        -What are the staffing implications for CDL PURL maintenance? 
        -How frequently must URL verification be done to maintain an 
                acceptable level of URL functionality in CDL records? 

ACTION: Hayman and Hixson will work together to outline the issues 
associated with operating a centralized PURL server and develop 
recommendations to include in the report. 

In the future, the group agreed to communicate about progress made 
regarding pending action items via e-mail (in order to save time during 
phone conferences). 

ACTION: French will send out a list of pending action items to the group. 
 

The meetings for February will be on Friday the 5th from 10-12 (Hixson 
will not be able to attend), and on Thursday the 11th from 2-4 pm. 

Hayman commented that she would like Warling's input on the 
sample records chosen to illustrate the cataloging guidelines. 

Graham raised the subject of the CDL Directory's broad subject 
categories and how to correlate them to LC subject headings.  This is an 
important aspect of the overall coordination of the directory and the 
union catalog.  It is also an aspect which needs public services input. 
There was general agreement that the task force should recommend that the 
CDL subject vocabulary be incorporated into cataloging records for CDL 
titles.  The cost of assigning CDL terms during the cataloging process 
needs to be analyzed.  USCD currently assigns local headings in a 690 
field for electronic resources, but would be willing to change this 
practice for CDL titles.  UCSD will consider the possibility of using the 
CDL vocabulary in place of their own local headings.  Graham will be 
speaking with Susan Starr, AUL for Sciences at UCSD, next week.  UCSD also 
currently assigns a 655 genre heading for electronic resources. 

ACTION: Graham will report back on UCSD's interest in adopting the CDL 
subject vocabulary. 

re: Linking with the CDL Directory: 
Our report should include detailed explanations of the three theoretical 
possibilities for linking MARC records and the CDL Directory (please see 
Minutes from 1-15-99).  Graham emphasized the need to know what kind of 
holdings reporting scheme will be needed in cataloging records.  This will 
need to be worked out with the assistance of CDL Technologies.  R. Doherty 
will give a preliminary report to the group soon.  We also need to outline 
what kind of data is needed by the directory which is not currently 
available in MARC records.  We will plan to outline each option, the kinds 
of function each would support and the additional data which would be 
needed in each scenario. 

ACTION: Hixson will prepare a preliminary outline of options. 

Everyone in the group should read the Requirements Analysis Document for 
the new Melvyl System and send comments related to its relationship with 
the CDL by Jan. 28. 

Graham proposed that we use the UCSD guidelines for single 
records, and Nancy Olson's guidelines for separate records, (perhaps 
with modifications of both) for cataloging CDL titles.  Graham will do an 
initial editing of UCSD's document to remove local practices that might not be 
desired for the CDL and to highlight those areas she thinks we will want 
to discuss. 

Graham will also write up a list of potential modifications to Olson's 
guidelines. Becky Culbertson at UCSD has also been working on this and 
they will continue to work on it together.  A new edition of Olson's 
guidelines is in the works and suggested changes are appearing on 
cataloging listservs.  Graham and Culbertson will monitor these 
suggestions and include them for our consideration.  Graham will also 
prepare a list of general additions and data we would add to every CDL 
record.  These will include: 856 formatting specifications, special notes, 
notes on access restriction, 9xx holdings data, policy on assigning call 
numbers, etc. 

ACTION: Graham will produce three lists: one  for proposed 
changes to UCSD's guidelines, one for proposed changes to Nancy 
Olson's guidelines, and one of general additions to all records.  She will 
send this out via e-mail.  She will also provide an edited version of 
UCSD's document in HTML. 

The task force will concentrate on these documents at the Jan. 27 meeting. 

During the past week task force members continued to clarify their 
positions via email on two questions which have been the subject of much 
debate: 1) Decision Point No. 2 (what cataloging treatment to give an 
electronic resource when its paper equivalent changes title and a new 
successive entry record is made); and 2) Whether supplementary separate 
records for the digital resource might be distributed to campuses to 
provide more local record loading options. 

One of the basic questions regarding Decision Point No. 2 is whether to 
make a separate record for the electronic title when the print equivalent 
undergoes a title change.  UCSD currently adds notes to each print record 
and does not treat the electronic resource separately. UCSD is willing 
to modify this practice for the CDL, however, and would agree to create a 
separate record for the electronic version.  AACR2 currently requires 
creating successive entry records for the electronic site also when the 
title changes.  This practice creates a dual succession of records (one 
group for the print and one for the electronic) which track the title 
changes and which carry fixed field dates for the period of coverage of 
each title. This is problematic for an electronic site because frequently 
the site does not carry the past titles per se (even though the overall 
coverage may include their content).  There is unlikely to be a chief 
source for each title or sometimes even any trace of each title's 
existence.  This rule is being debated by a CONSER task force examining 
changes for AACR.  Graham serves on this task force and is strongly 
opposed to making successive entry records for the electronic site.  An 
alternative would be to create one record for the electronic site which 
carries the entire combined coverage dates reproduced at the site in the 
date fixed fields and add title added entries for changing forms of the 
title.  All task force members agreed that this approach was sensible and 
recommended that CDL cataloging adopt this model even though it deviates 
from today's cataloging rules.  The question will be addressed at the 
Committee to Study Serials Cataloging meeting at ALA Midwinter and we will 
watch for any developments. In the meantime, we will consider Decision 
Point No. 2 settled. 

ACTION: French will update the Report Outline to reflect this decision. 

Regarding record distribution options, French suggested that the task 
force present each option which has been identified along with the 
associated merits or drawbacks of each.  This would include the option of 
distributing separate records for the electronic resource as a supplement 
to the single records, as has been requested by Hayman.  Whether this or 
any other option proves to be justifiable on the basis of cost will need 
to be specifically analyzed.  The report could also convey the task 
force's opinion of each option, including recording points on which 
opinion is mixed or is held by a particular campus.  Another distribution 
option that could provide an alternative to overlaying records would be 
outputting the CDL cataloging in the form of a resource file which could 
be used for cut-and-paste additions to local records.  We still very much 
need R. Doherty's expertise in outlining technical considerations for 
record distribution. 

It is becoming clear that no one distribution process is likely to meet 
every campus' needs and that every distribution option will require some 
degree of local staff time to complete the process of adding CDL records 
to their local Catalogs.  This fact needs to be conveyed very clearly in 
the final report. 

ACTION: Alan will prepare a preliminary outline of record distribution 
options and issues associated with them. 

        A. DECISION POINT NO. 2: PAPER VERSION CHANGES TITLE REQUIRING
                SUCCESSIVE ENTRIES; EJOURNAL REMAINS AT ONE SITE 

The group agreed to create one record for the electronic site which
carries the entire combined coverage dates reproduced at the site in the
date fixed fields and add title added entries for changing forms of the
title.

        B. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER FORMATS (CD-ROM, MICRO, ETC.) 

The group agreed that although it would be helpful to catalog 
users if electronic access notes were added to equivalent records for all 
formats, this goes beyond what it reasonable to ask a centralized 
cataloging agency to do.  We will recommend that the centralized 
cataloging agency create records targeted at adding electronic 
access onto the print record. It will be a local decision whether to add 
notes about electronic resources to additional formats of the same title. 
Not all campuses have the same formats, and it would be problematic for 
the centralized agency to keep track of the collection of each library. 
Campuses can be encouraged to add to records for additional formats and 
send the records to Melvyl.  This could expand the access available 
locally and in Melvyl, but would not be part of the CDL cataloging 
operation.