French suggested that we could speak with Karen Coyle as a group regarding her 
ideas on tagging for CDL vocabulary terms. 

Alan spoke to Bruce Miller and Roberta Corbin about setting up a local FTP site 
for record distribution.   Graham mentioned that she is meeting with them soon and 
will discuss this. 

Hixson has contacted Brian Warling to continue exploring ideas for linking MARC 
records with the CDL Directory.  She hopes to have more discussion with him soon. 

Doherty reported that the Melweb programmers are ready to display the $3 but want 
to be sure that all other subfields in the 856 are in the order the group thinks 
is best.  She will send a copy of the proposed order to us for comments. 

Doherty also suggested that the group include indexing the 776 subfield x as 
part of the recommendations. 

A.  QUESTIONS FROM GRAHAM REGARDING THE GUIDELINES DOCUMENT 

1.  Re: Including access restrictions in the 530 note 

French had reported via email that one of the catalogers at Davis has expressed 
the desire that general access restrictions also be stated in the 530 note.  The 
group had previously decided that this was unnecessary.  The group agreed that 
this note would be included in both single and separate records. The 530 access 
restrictions note should be general; campus specific access restrictions would be 
noted in 856$z and can be modified locally if needed. 

2.  Re: The format of single record guidelines 

Graham mentioned that including both general guidelines and guidelines 
for single records was making the guidelines very long and redundant.  The group 
agreed that the explanation is good to have as a reference, and agreed that it 
would be best to create two versions of both the single and separate records- one 
fully explicated, one "cheat sheet" list of the guidelines.  Hot links can be 
added in the cheat sheet to take people to the more complete explanation. 

3.  Re: Campuses being required/encouraged/permitted to use the 655 genre term 
"Online Resources" 

"Online Resources" is a genre term created and used by UCSD to facilitate 
retrieval of online resources.  It is not an official genre term. The group agreed 
that it is useful to include it and that it can be removed if it becomes 
problematic. The guidelines document should make the origin of the term clear and 
explain the reason for including it in the records. Alan mentioned that the 655 is 
searchable on Melvyl so this is a way to limit a search to online resources by 
campus.  Local libraries can decide whether to use the 655 with the knowledge 
that if they choose to use it with every title, it could help the clarity of their 
searches.  The group agreed to encourage, but not require local libraries to use 
the 655 genre term "Online Resources". 

4.  Re: Adding the word "Online" in an Added Entry 

The idea of automatically including an added title entry in the record consisting 
of the print title and the additional word "Online" was discussed.  Some people 
feel that this is a useful searching tool.  Graham reported that she received a 
negative response about this from Esther Fulsaas (UCB), Hayman received the same 
reaction from UCSB staff.  The general reason for the response was that there are 
already enough rules to remember when creating a record, and if "Online" is not 
officially in the title, it is an unnecessary step.  The group agreed not to 
include this added entry if the word "Online" is not actually part of the online 
title. 

5.  Re: Suppressing the 856 $2 and $z labels in Melvyl: 

The group agreed that the display label "access note" before $z should be 
suppressed because often there are other types of information in this subfield. 

Graham mentioned that suppressing the $2 display label may be problematic, because 
not all titles are received by the same access method, even though the bulk of the 
titles we are cataloging are received by http.  The group agreed to continue to 
display the $2 with its display label ("method"). 

The order for the 856 subfields display in Melvyl Web will be $3, $z (with no 
display label), $u (after $u, any remaining subfields will be displayed in 
alphabetical order).   All subfields will be displayed in Melvyl Web with the 
exceptions of $m, $n, $o, $w, and $x. 

6.  Re: Passwords 

Some electronic titles can be accessed only by entering a password.  This 
is a situation that the CDL is trying to discourage in its licensing negotiations. 
The group agreed that a workable solution for the interim would be to include the 
statement "Password required, ask at service desk." in the 856$z note, which local 
campuses can modify to suit their needs. 

7.  Re: The standard note for display in the location segment 

Currently, if there is no call number in the location segment, Melvyl displays the 
note "no call number".  The group had previously decided that the CCA does not 
need to include a call number for electronic resources, but will not delete it (or 
display it) if it already exists in a record. The group agreed that it would be 
ideal to have nothing displayed in this section of the location segment, but if 
that is not possible, the term "Electronic Resource" is preferable to the "no call 
number" note. 

ACTION: Doherty will check with Melvyl programmers to see if it is possible to 
display nothing in the call number section of the location segment. 

8.  Re: The 856$3 holdings format 

The group discussed the fact that the new NISO standard for formatting holdings 
statements (z39.71-199x) is still in draft form. 

The draft standard has also not been widely disseminated and many libraries may 
not have a copy.  The group agreed to format the 856$3 holdings according to the 
level 3 format and provide examples of level 3 as an appendix to the guidelines 
document. 

ACTION: Alan will investigate if the NISO guidelines have been finalized and 
create a "cheat sheet" appendix of the NISO guidelines illustrating  level 3 for 
distribution. 
  

B.  ACCEPTABILITY OF THE FORMAT OF THE GUIDELINES 

The group agreed that the format currently being used is acceptable, and that 
the format can be refined  with live links and other cosmetic changes when 
the guidelines are finalized. 
  

C.  COMMENTS ON THE NARRATIVE 

Hayman reported that she has sent out a third draft of the Narrative, and would 
appreciate any comments. 

Re: The list of advantages of creating a Central Cataloging Agency 

The group agreed that the list should begin with 
1. Ensuring representation in Melvyl 
2. Currency of subscriber and coverage data 
3. Maintaining URLs 
4. Eliminating redundancy of effort 
The group agreed that Hayman should decide how to order the rest. 

The group agreed to announce to SOPAG when the report is on the web site.  French 
suggested also sending SOPAG an additional written document detailing the work the 
group is continuing to do.  The group agreed to ask for an official comment period 
(maximum 2-3 weeks), and to contact their "buddies" for comment on the feasibility 
of the plan from a local viewpoint. 

Hayman and French will speak to Cynthia Clark about the desirability of 
making a presentation of our work at a SOPAG meeting. 

When Carol talks with Brian Warling about the structure and vocabulary of 
the directory, she will ask the following questions: 
        Is it important to note the hierarchical levels when using the directory 
terms as subject headings in Melvyl? 
        How are the vocabulary scheme, data and format tied together? 
        Is the hierarchical arrangement primarily a presentation format or does 
it function structurally? 

The group agreed that accommodating CDL headings is a future goal, after other 
decisions have been made. 

The next meeting will be on Friday, Feb.19 from 9-11.  We will discuss Record 
distribution and CDL linking.