Present:  B. Alan (HOTS), P. French (UCD), C. Graham (UCSD), L. Hayman (UCSB)  

ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES 

The minutes from March 15 have been approved. 

French reported that she spoke to Karen Coyle at the northern CDL forum on March  
24 and she is ready to meet with the group when needed. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT CATALOGING GUIDELINES 

5.  OTHER FORMATS 

Comments received: 

"For campuses which prefer to provide onestop 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? . . ." 

"Again government documents can be among the most confusing when they're in 
paper, fiche, CD, and Web versions.  Does it make sense to have the CD off by itself 
when all the other formats are on one record? . . . I know our public service people 
really prefer to have a single record for titles that are available in various formats."  

"Under the NOTE for this section, they object to the final sentence because they  
consider the reasoning specious. They consider the content of CDROM versions to  
be no more different than the content of remote electronic versus paper versions. 
They would like it to state simply that we don't do this because the national  
guidelines tell us not to." 

"Good thing that the report offers the option of linking all related records.  I would  
prefer to add the link on both print and CDROMs records whenever we apply the single approach." 

Response: 

The group agreed that the CCA guidelines should state that we are recommending 
single records only for remote electronic resources, not CD-ROMs.  National 
practice has been to catalog CD-ROMs on separate records because they have a 
distinctive physical description and location. 

The first TFER report included this recommendation.  When looking for the 
documentation of this as a CONSER or LC policy, however, we were unable to locate 
a specific policy statement.  It is unlikely that CDL would license a title in 
CD-ROM format so the CDL Cataloging Guidelines will focus on remote resources.  If 
a remote resource exists first in CD-ROM format, it is acceptable to use the 
record for the CD-ROM as the basis for providing access to the remote version 
(i.e. make a single record based on the record for the CD-ROM). 

The group reaffirmed that it is advisable but not required for campuses to add 
links to remote resources on their CD-ROM records when the single record is based 
on the print record. 

6.  CESSATIONS 

Comments: 

"Resources cease to exist in print: When [we] retain print holdings we have 
continued to use the print record as the base record. To follow your recommended 
practice, the catalogers would have to be notified of the cessation to know that 
they need to catalog the web version separately." 

"Guidelines say:  In case of doubt as to whether the print version has ceased, 
leave the bibliographic fields open and close the print holdings (if any). 
Do you have any example handy that uses a single record when resources ceases 
in print?  It might help elicit more discussion"  

[Example of ALCTS newsletter (OCLC #20820888 closed out) and ALCTS 
newsletter online (OCLC #40507269  new, separate record for online version). 
There is no overlapping content.] 

"Under Cessations, your committee has taken the opposite approach than the 
original TFER recommendation . . . I think that a patron looking up a single 
volume shouldn't have to find one record or two depending one whether the print 
has ceased. . .An example of this is William and Mary quarterly in the JSTOR collection. 
There are three titles between 1892 and 1993, but JSTOR has it on one site under 
William and Mary Quarterly.  I've added the same URL to all three of our print 
records.  I think it is a disservice to patrons to add a separate record for the 
election version just because the site missed a title change or decided not to 
create separate records.  This sort of distinction should not be imposed on the 
users of the catalog.  Even LC has added the same URL to all three records 
(#3470263, #2393831, and #1607858)" 

"I understand why it is better to use a separate record when the format of 
resource has been changed completely but this might be very time consuming when 
there are many titles fall[ing] into this category I know the proposed guidelines 
are meant for CDL titles, but the guidelines will also be ideal to be used for 
non-CDL titles, including government publications which tend to change its format 
from print to digital more easily than non governmental publications do. . ." 

"In the TFER report dated 3/25/98, recommendation IV.A.3 says "Use the print 
record to note a serial title's continuation in electronic form after the print 
version ceases unless important access points change."  Is there any pertinent 
reason for TFER to prefer the separate record approach since the recommendation 
was made last year?"  

Response: 

Graham suggested changing the name of this section to "Change in Physical Format", 
which states the situation more clearly.  In straight break or overlap 
situations, when the print ceases, the record should be closed, and a separate 
record started.  

The group agreed to change the terminology and add language to clarify the 
intention to create new separate records for the electronic version when it 
replaces the print. Link the print and electronic records together using the 776 
and 78x fields. If there were an overlap in coverage, the 856 would remain in the 
print record.  

9.  TITLE CHANGES: 

Comments: 

" Print version changes title and electronic version retains content of 
both old and new titles at a single web site  [One of our catalogers] reports that 
we've encountered this at least once already. She created a record for the 
print title change and added the 856+ fields to the new print title. We 
end up with 2 records instead of 3. Again we can follow the guidelines." 

"They found this section confusing. They didn't see why a different approach 
should be taken for a title change depending on the URL of the electronic 
versions. Myself, I would find a chart useful showing what to do in each 
particular case. Something like: 
Print Title A1 Digital Title A1 (URL http://abc) 
use single record 
Print Title A2 Digital Title A2 (URL http://abcd) 
use new single record (successive) 
Print Title A2 Digital Title A2 (URL http://abc)" 

". . . in the case of the 3 title changes vs. one JSTOR title, this is not a 
real title change.  The journal still has 3 title changes.  The "publisher" JSTOR 
just chose to lump them  under one website, If I were using this online, I'd want 
to plow through fewer than more records. . . . 

And in the case of cessations, I have no problem with those records for which 
there is a clean break.  But for those which overlap (print and online), which 
predominates in my experience, fewer than more records seems better. this seems 
excessive to me. 

In both cases, the description would vary but the access (headings, title and 
subject headings) is the same.  It gives me the feeling that we as catalogers need 
more records to express differences which should be transparent to users.  More is 
not misleading, just excessive.  Serials are complex enough.  We should strive 
to make our product as simple to understand as possible.  Patrons want to find 
the material, not delight in our records." 

Note: 

This is the area of greatest controversy.  As background, the most recent thinking 
presented to the CONSER AACR2 group by Jean Hirons is: 

"For electronic journals, apply the following guidelines: 

               Consider an electronic journal to be a successively issued 
serial because it is issued in discrete parts, even when an article (rather 
than an issue) equates to the discrete part. 

               When the title of an electronic journal changes, apply 
successive entry cataloging if the new title is given its own home page, or 
there is a single home page but the earlier title is presented formally within 
the site.  If the earlier title is no longer stated  formally within the site, 
apply latest entry conventions.  Consider the entire site as  a source of 
title in applying these guidelines.  Consider a formal statement to be 
one given in conjunction with an issue or article. 

Rationale.  A form of latest entry cataloging (though not referred to as such) 
is currently being used for looseleaf publications, and by catalogers 
cataloging databases and Web sites as monographs.  The practice is to change 
the title proper and give former titles in a title history note.  Thus, 
applying latest entry cataloging conventions to integrating resources is a 
matter of retaining the status quo, as well as recognizing the most 
appropriate form of cataloging for these resources. 

Electronic journals pose problems, however, because they contain articles that 
are cited under the journal title.  It is hoped that most scholarly publishers 
will understand the importance of retaining the former title and the goal 
is to continue successive entry for these journals, whenever possible, to achieve 
conformity with the print.  However, journals which are of a more popular 
nature or electronic only are more likely to contain the title only on the 
home page and when that title changes there is no record of the former title. 
Thus, using latest entry for such journals makes more sense.  (Note that this 
situation will result in the inadvertent creation of new records when 
the cataloger is not aware of the former title and its associated record at 
the time of cataloging. This has always been a problem with latest entry 
cataloging; however, in the past the former title didn't disappear from the 
earlier issues!)" 

Response: 

Most of the comments expressing concern about this aspect of the guidelines came 
from campuses who have been actively cataloging electronic journals, and have been 
following the TFER1 guidelines.  The group voted to reverse our decision 
to recommend creating a new, separate record for the electronic version when 
the print version has a title change but all content for both titles is at one 
web site.  Alan, French and Graham voted for and Hayman voted against. 
Hayman observed that while supporters of the single record concept express 
concern at the possibility of one additional record existing for the 
electronic version, they do not express a similar concern regarding users 
confusion about the number of successive entry records representing print 
that might well be required, all pointing to a single website with a single 
title. Hixson needs to be contacted regarding her vote, as she was unable to 
attend this meeting. 
 

13.  DESCRIPTION BASED ON: 

Comment: 

"246/740 and 500  For single records where the title for the electronic 
version varies from the print title, we recommend adding a 500 note to 
describe the source of the electronic title, e.g. Title from journal home 
page (viewed [date]). We haven't added the viewed date yet, but 
realized it would be useful information. The title for the web version 
will be coded as a 740." 

Response: 

Graham will contact campuses who are adding a 500 note to describe the source of 
the electronic title to clarify that we recommend limiting description on the 
record to description of the print. 

14. SERIALS ORIENTATION/single record orientation 

Comments: 

"The use conventions [for making notes] seemed to [be] slanted towards serials. We 
recommend using a source of title note for nonserials, too." 

"They were confused throughout in when the guidelines were referring to the print 
and when they were referring to the electronic." 

Response: 

The group discussed that since we are focused mainly on Tier 1 and Tier 2 titles, 
our guidelines are likely to be slanted towards serials, but suggested campuses 
refer to Nancy Olson's guide for nonserials for information regarding nonserials.  

One campus was confused about whether the guidelines were referring to print 
records or electronic records.  Because using the single record approach means 
the information for the electronic version is attached to the record for the 
print, the guidelines outline additions made to the print record in most cases. 
Guidelines that apply specifically to the record for the electronic when it is 
cataloged separately will be so indicated. 

15.  655  

Comments: 

"We've been using a different term for serials:  Electronic journal. 
We're just getting started with cataloging nonserial Internet resources 
and will decide whether to use the term you propose for everything we 
catalog." 

"Is the use of this term limited to text serials?  That is, we should not apply 
it to cartographic materials or image files? . . . The application of 655 is 
unclear.  Is this being added to the record for the paper format? Or just in 
the separate record approach? Why is it necessary if an 007 is being added  
to the record for the paper format?" 

Response: 

The Draft Cataloging Guidelines specified using a local genre term in 655 with $2 
tagged as local to support retrieval of online resources as a unique genre. 
Because there is uncertainty about the use of this field in local systems and not 
yet a standard genre term established, we have decided to postpone implementing a 
655 genre term for now.  We will remove this field from the final guidelines. 

16.  710/730 

Comment: 

"The cataloging rules & CONSER allow this for separate record approach, not 
for use on the paper format record.  I can see why it is desired if one sticks to 
the  single record approach, but hope the Aggregator Task Force comes up with a 
better suggestion.  This guidelines recommends making added entries that are not 
justified by the description" 

Response: 

The group discussed whether it is appropriate to make an added entry for a 
specific service involved in an electronic resource (i.e. JSTOR or Project Muse) 
in a single record.  

According to Module 31.5 of CONSER, if the name of a project is well known and 
considered to be useful, it is appropriate to add a 710 as long as it is mentioned 
in the 530 note.  

17.  776  

Comments: 

"The 022 is a repeatable field and up to now, we've added the ISSN 
for the electronic version in a second 022. We're willing to 
change our practice, but we have to confirm whether our III 
system indexes the 776. If not, we'll include this field in database 
reindexing we're planning. Is there a particular reason why you want to 
put the 2nd ISSN in the 776 instead of a 2nd 022 field?" 

". . . The presence of the 776 field seems to indicate that there is another 
record created, in addition, the 776 $x won't be displayed as prominently  
as 022 field is.  Thus it would look like one ISSN (for print) is showing,  
the other (for electronic) is hiding. ...Wouldn't it be safer to use duplicate  
022 fields?  . . . I still feel it is more appropriate to use 776 in separate  
records rather than single records." 

Response: 

Two campuses brought up the issue of adding a second 022 field for the ISSN of the 
electronic version.  O22 is a repeatable field, but since the record is for the 
print version, adding a second 022 does not make it clear that the second ISSN is 
for the electronic version.  Because the electronic version is an additional 
physical form of the print version, its ISSN should be noted in the 776 field.  

One problematic aspect of the 776 is that some local libraries are not capable of 
indexing it. 

The group agreed to add more explanation in the guidelines about why it is  
necessary to add the electronic ISSN in the 776 field rather than the 022 and to 
include a recommendation that CDL add the 776$x in the ISSN index on Melvyl. 
 

18. 856 

Comments: 

(Tagging of 856 41 or 856 42 if the route to fulltext is convoluted) 

"The definition of 856 second indicator here is inaccurate and would lead to 
problems in applying the guidelines.  The second indicator shows the relationship 
of the resource cited in the 856 to the cataloging record.  It cannot 
simultaneously do double-duty and show whether one has used the single-record 
approach or the separate-record approach. 

For example, whenever we need to link to an organizational page (because there 
is no journal home page or way of linking directly to the journal), we need to us 
"856 42" According to the guidelines, second indicator "2" would continue to be 
used in this case. Yet, if we have already applied "85642" then we cannot also 
have "856 41" to show that we are not creating a separate record for the resource 
unless the committee is suggesting two 856s in the  single record approach" 

Response: 

It is preferred practice when cataloging electronic resources to use the URL which 
takes the patron directly to the page containing the source. In this case, the 
second indicator "1" (Version of resource) would be used in the 856.  Using the 
second indicator "2" (Related resource), indicates that the URL is for a web site 
which does not contain the same information as the print version, although it is 
related to it and is considered to be useful.  Sometimes the URL of the page 
which contains an electronic resource is not directly accessible except through a 
publisher's page. The question was raised to the group about the correctness of 
describing the publisher's page as a Version of resource.  

The group discussed which indicator should be used if the only path to a web site 
which is a Version is through a publisher's page.  Where the resource resides 
should be the URL in the record, but where the resource resides is a function of 
how a publisher organizes inventory.   Sometimes publishers reorganize web sites 
and change the pathway to their resources.  Differentiating a Version from a 
Related resource solely by the first page viewed would entail changing the 
indicators every time a publisher reorganized.  

ACTION:  Graham will pose this question to Rebecca Gunther, and share her response 
with the group. 

 19.  SUMMARY HOLDINGS MAINTENANCE IN THE 856  

Comments: 

"I know that giving summary holdings is popular for good reason. And since the 856 
is really a holdings field, it is appropriate.  However, maintenance is a problem. 
For CDL licensed materials perhaps the committee could influence the licensing 
people to require that CDL catalogers be apprized when coverage changes.  For 
non-CDL materials cataloged at our end, this would be a nightmare to maintain. 
Could we consider a local exception to this?" 

Response: 

The question was raised about including the holdings summary in 856$3 for locally  
cataloged non-CDL electronic resources. The group agreed that although it 
strongly encourages that the $3 be included in all records containing an 856, it 
is not mandatory for locally catalogued resources. 

20.  DISPLAY 

Comments: 

"856  Currently, our III system suppresses the display of the URL address  
when we use $3, $z and/or $u. We include values in these subfields, but  
expect the local display issues to be remedied in the near  future. We  
assume the display is not a problem for MELVYL." 

"When both $3 and $z are present, the text in which subfield will be the place 
for patronsto click on for Internet connection?" 

"How will $3 be displayed in MELVYL?  . . . How will patrons know the 
information in $3 is coverage/dates if that is what it is intended for them to 
know?" 

Response: 

Improving the display of 856 subfields has been referred to CDL staff.  The 
subfield 3 has recently been added to the public display.  Each system displays 
the 856 differently.  A proposal for changing the Melvyl display should be 
forthcoming. 

21. ORDER OF FIELDS 

Comments: 

"Error: "System requirements" should precede "Mode of access" 

"In both INNOPAC & MELVYL, it seems that notes are displayed in numeric order. 
For nonserial electronic resources, is there any reason why notes are to be 
arranged in a particular order as suggested in the guidelines?" 

Response: 

The order of notes in the guidelines document was originally as it would be for 
monographs (in non-numeric AACR2 order).  Graham will follow national 
conventions and put the notes in Serials numeric order in the guidelines, noting 
that the order is different for monographs.  

22.  DEFINITIONS 

Comments: 

"What is the definition of splash screen?" 

"What is the definition of Tier 1 & 2?" 

Response: 

Graham defined splash screen as "A first screen, containing a logo and/or 
credits and/or copyright notice.  Often flashes on the screen briefly before 
displaying the home page".  The group agreed that rather than defining the term in 
the guidelines, it should be omitted. 

The group agreed that Tier 1 & 2 should be defined on our original report outline 
and cited in the introduction.  CDL has defined Tier 1 and Tier 2 collection 
levels as follows:  
Tier 1: Resources licensed for all nine campuses paid for in whole or in part by 
the CDL.  
Tier 2:  Resources licensed with CDL assistance involving two or more campuses 
with funding shared by the campuses involved. 

REMAINING TASKS 

The group agreed that the format used for the TFER1 report would also work for our 
report.  

French compiled a list of the various topics and ideas the group had wanted to  
include in the final report.  The group went over this list and assigned specific 
pieces of text to supply by early next week. 

 Update guidelines document- GRAHAM 

 Compile list of recommendations- FRENCH 

 Executive summary/introduction- HAYMAN(?)/FRENCH 

 Topics to be added: 

• reiterate the benefits of cataloging CDL materials- HAYMAN
• record distribution and CDL linking- HAYMAN
• recommendation and rationale for indexing 776$x- FRENCH
• recommendation for creating a Melvyl AT limit for CDL- FRENCH
• recommendation for making the CCA/CDL record the Base Record- FRENCH
• recommendation for changing 856 display (and reference to CDL working on this)- FRENCH
• recommendation and method for deleting records- FRENCH
• statement on updating and maintaining records- HAYMAN (in record distribution  section of narrative)
• recommendation re: OCLC holdings symbols (referred to HOTS but we should mention)- FRENCH
• recommendation on establishing 2-way communication system between CCA and campus cataloging units- FRENCH
• recommendation/statement re: further study on how to handle aggregated titles- GRAHAM
• recommendation for further areas of work: govt. docs, EAD, maps, digital images, other materials- HAYMAN

 Cost model narrative- ALAN 

 List of CCA requirements to Hayman for insertion into the narrative- ALAN 

 Possibilities for cost sharing- ALAN 

 Add text in report referring to appendices: HAYMAN  

•    CDL processing and record distribution documents
•    cost model
•    data map between CDL and MARC
•    description of CDL linking possibilities
•    survey responses (update report text to reflect responses)