ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES

A. The minutes for Jan. 27 were approved as revised.

B. Re: CDL subject tagging
French referred question to Karen Coyle (CDL) regarding tagging of CDL directory
vocabulary. Waiting for reply.

C. Re: Access restriction notes
French will distribute examples of access restriction notes used at UCD.

D. Re: UCSB workload study
Hayman announced that UCSB has completed a brief workload study to confirm the
process involved with creating separate records for mainstream electronic journal
titles.  Their conclusion is that most records have already been cataloged in OCLC
and that these records would require a minimal amount of effort to use locally.
All represent titles for which the digital content mirrors the print.  All are
titles for which the CCA will have cataloged using the print record as the
official CDL record, so that cataloging attention will already have been applied
by the CCA.  It is likely UCSB will go ahead and load separate records in
addition to the print where print is held and would be willing to make the
records available for other campuses to use.  Hayman feels that this is an
important option to include as this will provide records that certain campuses
could load and use right away.  So far, UCSB has no fixed idea regarding the
record distribution and/or the need to be reimbursed for these records.  Once the
draft guidelines are released, campus input should be sought to determine which
campus, if any, would want to load these separate records locally.  This will help
determine whether separate complementary records created by UCSB should be seen as
an integral part of the official CDL centralized cataloging record distribution.
We also need to clarify whether these separate records are intended to be added to
Melvyl, or whether it will serve as a resource file for other campuses.  French
and Graham expressed reservations about loading these records into Melvyl because
they would not merge with the CCA records, bifurcating holdings data between two
records for the same resource.

ACTION: Hayman will draft a statement requesting campus input on their interest in
having access to UCSB record complements.

French suggested that the final report reiterate the profound effect having
separate databases in Melvyl continues to have on our decisions.

1. FORMAT OF 856 FIELD, INCLUDING SUBFIELD $3:
Graham asked if we wanted to include coverage dates, formatting of gaps, what to
do when only latest issues (years) available or in the case of JSTOR when the
latest three years are not available.

It was generally agreed that we should include coverage in years and volumes (but
not necessarily at issue level).   Alan and French will consult NISO
39.71-199x "Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items" (draft) and
determine if the proposed standard can be applied.   Examples will be
distributed to TFER2.  The NISO standard is the standard used for formatting
holdings statements carried in USMARC Format for Holdings Data (UFHD)
records. It was noted that the 856 field exists in the UFHD format also.
Following the NISO standard in 856 for $3 now could provide for seamless
crossover between the two formats in the future.  This may not be the prime
consideration, but is worthy of note.

French asked about TFER example (IV.D.5) that included phrase in 856 $3
"available online at".   We agreed that this phrase was not necessary for Melvyl
records.

The "+" in the holding string should be replaced by "-", because the "-" is the
symbol used by existing holdings display standards.

Some electronic sites have holdings which are difficult to characterize with a
traditional holdings statement.  Examples of this are sites whose holdings are
suspected to be highly changeable, are difficult to tie to issues or dates, or have
a mix of materials present (such as abstracts for some years and full text for
others).  When this is the case, a textual note will be used in $3 to characterize
the nature of the holdings and the note will be as descriptive as possible.

Re: Access restrictions
We agreed to use the note in 856 $z "Access restricted to UCD, UCSB, UCSD".  We
will not use phrase "IP address(s)"in this note,  as access may be controlled
through other mechanisms on different systems.

Re: Related web sites
We agreed that CCA would leave 856 fields for related sites (856 second indicator
"2") in records but will not attempt to add URLs for related sites to CDL records.
856s for related sites added by campuses will display on Melvyl for everyone's
use.  Only an 856 is added for a related site (not an 007, 530, or 740).

Re: Capitalizing "Internet"
We agreed that "Internet" should be capitalized.

Use of GPO's 530 wording re: contents of site:
Graham had previously sent an example of a 530 note GPO has begun using to
characterize complex or changeable content at an electric site.  We agreed that
this wording may be appropriate for use in some CDL records at the discretion of
the CCA.  The note reads:
"Internet version also available (content may vary from the physical
version and/or the content of the electronic version may have been changed
by the publishing agency)."

Re: PURLs
We agreed that if a PURL server is established at the CDL, the  CCA would enhance
the OCLC records by adding the CDL PURL, as long as no problems with this plan
are identified.

2. GUIDELINES RELATED TO N. OLSON'S MANUAL
Graham indicated that the Olson manual should be followed when cataloging
monographs or web sites (non-serials) and the CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31
should be the authoritative source for creating separate records for serials.
Almost all of the present CDL TIER 1-2 titles are serials.

3. FIELDS COMMON TO ALL CDL RECORDS
French suggested that our guidelines document might include a section outlining
fields, wording and tagging conventions that will be applied to all CDL records,
regardless of the record form.

ACTION: Graham will draft a general guidelines section.

4. 776 FIELDS
Hayman recommended that the 776 field be added to all TIER 1-2 titles that will be
distributed.   Doherty reported that Laine Farley (CDL)asked that we consider the
impact on the retrieval of all records with the 776 link retrieved.   French and
Graham suggested that the 776 be retained if found in a record but that
the CCA not search for and add if it's not present.  Hayman will prepare more
detailed arguments why the 776 should be included for all records and what the
content of 776 should be (e.g. OCLC control number, ISSN, etc).

5. FEBRUARY 15TH REPORT
Hayman distributed a draft narrative for the report on Feb. 3.   Task force
members should review and provide comments back to Hayman next week.   French
recommended that the first draft of the report presented to SOPAG  on Feb. 15 be
focused only on the cataloging guidelines. Record distribution, costs, etc. will
be added later.   French also suggested that we should indicate in the report that
the issue of aggregator databases is still under discussion at the
national level and new developments will be forthcoming.  Graham felt that
we are already dealing with aggregators, as most of the packages are
collections of journals by publisher or vendor. There are questions of how to
define what an aggregator is.

French suggested that the cataloging guidelines be put on the TFER web site and
that we recommend to SOPAG that there be an official comment period so that all
campuses can examine and comment on them. We can continue to work on perfecting
the format of the document during the comment period.  There are other final
formatting questions to consider when the whole report is assembled.  Two that were
mentioned is whether to pull out the recommendations themselves to list in a
special section and whether an executive summary will be needed.  We will also
want to think about recommendations we make for continuing the planning beyond
the life of this task force.