Present: B. Alan (HOTS), R. Doherty (CDL), P. French (UCD), C. Graham (UCSD), 
L. Hayman (beginning of meeting, UCSB), C. Hixson (UCLA) 

ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES 

Doherty announced that the Melweb programming for the 856 subfields has been 
implemented. 

French announced that the minutes for March 15th will be ready for review Monday 
March 22. 

Doherty has talked to Stella Sanchez-Wade at UCSD about whether UCSD would be able 
to establish a 901 field to identify CDL records.  Stella will contact Innovative 
and forward response to Doherty. 

COST MODEL 

Alan, Hayman and French reported that they spoke with Cynthia Clark about how to 
approach developing a cost model in the limited time remaining.  Clark suggested 
that we outline the cost categories and variables, and identify those which would 
be ongoing versus one-time startup costs.  It would also be very useful to 
identify those costs which would be duplicated at each campus if a centralized 
cataloging agency is not established.  The cost model will need to be general 
because many variables will remain until a CA is selected and a specific operation 
is designed.  For purposes of the estimate we will base this preliminary cost 
model on UCSD as the CCA. 

Other variables which will be identified in the cost model are units and 
compensation models, and the approximately 2,000 tier 1 and tier 2 titles the CCA 
will catalog in the first year. 

The group agreed that it would be helpful to compare what it would cost an 
individual campus to catalog the CDL titles to what it would cost to do the same 
work using a CCA.  

Doherty will send the group a list of cost variables for the CDL, not including 
the costs of establishing a PURL server, before the next meeting. 

METADATA STANDARDS WORKING GROUP 

Hayman reported that she'd conducted a phone interview with Jackie Dooley, Chair 
of the OAC Metadata Standards Working Group in order to determine whether that 
group had addressed MARC/AACR2 cataloging standards, and what relationship the 
group envisioned between cataloging records/Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and 
the CDL Directory.  The Working Group has addressed guidelines and standards  for 
EAD, as well as MARC, and is in the process of designing bi-directional 
import/export, so that data can be mapped from MARC to EAD for those campuses, 
such as UCSB, who have constructed MARC records but not EAD, and in the opposite 
direction for campuses, such as UCB, whose first generation is in some instances 
EAD. Tim Hoyer, at the Bancroft, has taken the lead in designing and proposing 
minimal level standards for cataloging.  Hayman will contact him for additional 
information to include in the TFER2 report. 

COMMENTS ON CATALOGING GUIDELINES 

Graham consolidated all comments on the Draft Cataloging Guidelines 
into one document, and the group discussed them as follows: 
  

1.  WHY NOT UPGRADE TO AACR2?  

The policy of not automatically upgrading every record to AACR2 standards is 
consistent with other retrospective conversion strategies.  AACR2 requires that 
serials cataloging be done from the earliest issue.  When the CCA uses a print 
record to delineate electronic access, it will not have the print issues in hand, 
and it may not even own the print issues to consult. 

The group agreed that it is important to be explicit in the report about the fact 
that the CCA will not automatically upgrade records to AACR2, although it is 
likely that some records will need to be upgraded and AACR2 cataloging may result 
from this work.  This will be most true for the titles with a long publication 
history for which pre-AACR2 cataloging was done originally.  We expect to 
encounter relatively few of these titles in Tiers 1 and 2.  All access points will 
be given in AACR2 form. 
  

2. WHERE DO SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES FIT IN SINGLE/SEPARATE RECORDS? 

The group agreed that decisions about what information is significant enough to 
warrant a separate record must be up to the cataloger's judgement.  This is 
consistent with many other cataloging situations under AACR2.  A statement to that 
effect will be added to the guidelines. 
  

3. TAGGING OF NOTES RE: RELATED ELECTRONIC RESOURCES  

Graham reworded the guidelines in section C. Specific Application, paragraph 1, 
sentence 3 to clarify what to do in this situation.  

Old wording: 
Do not include 007 or 530 if adding electronic information 
about a related resource. In that case, a 500 note may be added, if needed, 
and the nature of the related resource cited in 856 $3. 

New wording: 
Add fields to reflect electronic access (007, 530, 856) to all print records* 
for which equivalent content is available at an electronic site. Do not include 
007 or 530 if adding electronic information about a related resource. In that 
case, a 500 note may be added, if needed, and the nature of the related resource 
cited in 856 $3. 

In a separate record for an electronic version, online related resources 
should be noted in the appropriate field, e.g., 525 (unnamed supplement) or 580 
(linking note), depending on the relationship, and give the URL in field 856 
with second indicator 2. 
  

4.  COMPREHENSIVENESS (DOES A WEB SITE WHICH IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN THE PRINT SOURCE REQUIRE A SEPARATE RECORD?) 

Because the single record approach is based on the idea that the electronic  
version is a suitable substitute for the print version, if the electronic version 
omits information, it would require a separate record. The underlying principle 
that would be applied is that if an electronic resource contains the content cited 
from the print source, it can be represented on a single record.  If a user cannot 
use the electronic resource to find content cited from the print version, the 
electronic version needs to be treated as a separate entity and cataloged 
separately.  We will add language to the guidelines to clarify this point, 
although it will by necessity remain a matter of cataloger's judgement. 

  
5. OTHER FORMATS   

For campuses which prefer to provide one stop shopping to access resources 
issued in various formats, including CDROMs format, does TFER consider the 
option of single record approach when it involves CDROMs format? . . . 

Government documents can be among the most confusing in this respect because 
they are frequently issued in paper, fiche, CD, and Web versions.  A common  
practice has been to catalog the CD-ROM format on a separate record, although this 
now seems inconsistent with the trend to represent different electronic formats 
together. This inconsistency has been questioned by public services people on 
several campuses.  This is an area where practice is evolving and a clearer 
process is needed.  

Research has revealed that the only national policy is not to combine records for 
different PHYSICAL formats, e.g., paper and CD-Rom, but most libraries do combine 
CD-Rom and Internet.  GPO combines all formats (paper, microform, diskette, CD-Rom 
and Internet, using whichever record they first created).  The CDL guidelines 
will conform to this practice as much as is practical. 
  

6.  CESSATIONS 

The guideline to create a separate record when the print publication ceases but the 
library retains the print holdings was questioned by 5 campuses (including UCD and 
UCSD represented on the task force).  Two campuses (UCLA and UCSB) prefer to 
create a separate record in this situation.  We agreed to return to this question 
at the next meeting when Hayman could participate in the decision (she needed to 
leave early).  
  

7.  UPDATING LINKS WHEN TITLE COVERAGE CHANGES 

One campus requested that 856 links be removed when coverage changes (e.g., old 
title removed).  This prompted a discussion of the need for an additional section 
of the report which addresses maintenance for CDL records. 

ACTION: Graham will write a section for the report about maintenance. 
  

8.  TITLE VARIATIONS 

Commenters were unclear what this section was instructing. Is the intent to 
provide multiple variant titles if there are multiple sites of the electronic 
version with different title.  Upon discussion, it seemed that the use of 740 for 
added title entries was cause for confusion.  We noted, however, that this is 
based on CONSER guidelines, and agreed to keep this recommendation as is.  Graham 
added an example to further clarify this situation for the final draft of the 
guidelines. 
  

9.  TITLE CHANGES 

The draft guidelines recommend that when the print version changes title and 
the electronic version retains content of both old and new titles at a single web 
site, it is necessary to create a separate record for the electronic version.  
Several campuses questioned this practice, especially those who are already 
using the single record approach.  The group agreed that it was best to postpone 
further discussion or any decision until all members could be present. 
  

10.  ANALYTICS/AGGREGATORS  

General comment/query was received  about "Resource is a database or web site 
whose content is equivalent to more than one print source (e.g., Web of Science)" 
The question was posed whether to provide any kind of analytics for multiple 
resources that are part of a database or web site.  The stability of the content 
is a big issue and so is the need for better access at the title level. 

We have already referred this to HOTS, and Alan will contact HOTS about it again. 
The group agreed that this is an issue to identify as something to approach at a 
later date, after receiving input from HOTS and CONSER. 

ACTION: Alan will contact HOTS about Aggregator databases. 
  

11.  007 

There was concern expressed about the use of 007s on print records. In the case  
where the print and the electronic versions are not cataloged on the same record, 
it needs to be made clear that if the intent is to put an 007 on the print record. 
When separate records are used, 007s should not be put on the print record because 
it would cause double and misleading collocation 

The wording regarding using the 007 in CDL records will be changed to: "Include 
the 007 in all records describing or denoting electronic version(s)".  
  

12.  CALL NUMBER 

One campus indicated that they felt that call numbers should not be optional on 
CDL records.  The group agreed that while the CCA would not strip call numbers 
from CDL records, it was not necessary for the CCA to create call numbers for 
records which lack them on cataloging copy.  The group agreed that campuses who 
wish for call numbers on all records should create them locally.   
 
  

We will continue addressing comments on the guidelines at our meeting on March 26. 
The group discussed the need to include in the report the rationale for decisions 
made, especially the fact that including additional data requires additional cost. 
We also decided against posting comments on the web page in the interest of 
respecting anonymity and personal opinions. 

The group will discuss the responses to the Campus Surveys and the Technical 
Processing section Doherty is writing for the report to SOPAG  at the next meeting 
on Tuesday, March 23, 1-3 PM