TASK FORCE ON ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

REPORT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HEADS OF TECHNICAL SERVICES

MARCH 25, 1998

We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Laine Farley (CDL), librarians at UCSB, UCSC, and UCSD who submitted comments throughout our deliberations, and George Janczyn, TPOT manager.

The group conducted its work through weekly conference calls from October 1997 through February 1998, email correspondence, and a Web site: tfer_hots_home.html

The report begins with an overview of the factors and principles which guided our decision-making process. An executive summary then briefly summarizes our response to each portion of our charge. The recommendations are elaborated in five sections: the single-record approach, display recommendations, implementation recommendations, content designation recommendations, and maintenance and documentation recommendations.
 
The recommendations are best understood by referring to the examples in Appendix B.  The specifics of CDL data manipulation are summarized in Appendix C, including a full listing of 856 subfields and their respective labels.  We considered and rejected a number of scenarios requiring complex input and manipulation, which are outlined in Appendix D. Finally we have included a bibliography of standards for cataloging and coding electronic resources.
 

CONTENTS

The cataloging environment for electronic resources is complex and in a period of intense, rapid change. So, too, is the common library systems environment we share within the University of California. Within the 4 ½ months since the task force began its work, major shifts in national cataloging standards occurred (in the form of new Library of Congress Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources and the MARC Advisory Committee's Proposal no. 97-3R. Redefinition of code"m" (Computer file) in Leader/06) and more changes are certain as an outcome of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR in Toronto. The future development of the MELVYL^® System has also become a question due to the launching of the California Digital Library, the shape of which has yet to be determined. The Web interface through which our users now access research materials and bibliographic records presents us with a profoundly new paradigm for access whose implications for cataloging practices we are still learning. In formulating our recommendations, we were continually challenged to understand these changing realities, foresee what effect anticipated changes in standards will have on our decisions, and visualize how our recommendations would work in a web-based catalog.
 
The influence of Web technology on our recommendations cannot be overemphasized, especially regarding the use of a single record to provide access to electronic versions. Hypertext linking enables the catalog record to function as a direct gateway to the resource itself rather than serving merely as a descriptive surrogate of the resource. So long as the catalog record provides abundant controlled access points to help users discover and identify the resource, the hypertext links are all users need to access the electronic version. The Web offers an entirely new way to navigate and access material which users understand because they use it in many ways outside the library. With this recognition in mind, our recommendations favor making maximum use of Web catalog capabilities and departing from the traditional practice of separate records for different physical formats in most cases.
 
These factors influenced us to seek a cataloging approach for electronic resources which is compatible with evolving national standards yet is as streamlined and inexpensive as possible. We also sought a flexible approach which minimizes requirements for customization and which can be easily adapted or transferred as needed in the future. Our plan for handling 856 information in particular is simple, requires little special handling on the part of catalogers, and makes maximum use of automatic processing.
 
We strongly urge that the standards and display changes outlined in this report be accepted and implemented soon. Making these changes in MELVYL now will vastly improve MELVYL's capability to serve as an effective gateway to digital information. This functionality is critical to enabling the current MELVYL System to function as host for the California Digital Library while plans for the future system are developed. And our users will be well served today while we engage in the long-term planning and development for the future.

Early in our deliberations we adopted a set of working principles to guide our work:

•  Ease of use, consistency, and intelligibility to the user should govern our decisions.

Internet resources should be presented in attractive and familiar formats where access is intuitive and no special commands are required. Internet information should be presented in the same way for different contributing libraries, collocating the records for patron convenience.
 

• The library catalog should continue to provide the user access to the full range of research materials in all formats.

We should work to interface the catalog, library web pages, and Internet resources, rather than having separate universes for traditional library resources and Internet resources. Authority control, subject access, and other cataloging standards should be applied to these resources.
 

• We should expand access to the maximum possible while minimizing cost.

We should take advantage of existing records (e.g., GPO, CONSER), automated processes, and other techniques to minimize expenses enabling us to provide access to a wide range of electronic resources.

• We should adopt a flexible standard that can evolve as technology changes.

We should avoid strategies which require complex or nonstandard coding. Costs associated with extra coding should be avoided. All coding should conform to USMARC so that the records will be portable to future library systems and usable in a variety of local catalogs and bibliographic utilities.

•  We should conform with national cataloging policies adapted to best serve the UC community within the context of the MELVYL System.

UC cataloging standards should conform with national policies so that copy cataloging can be accepted with a minimum of local editing. National policies for cataloging electronic resources are in a state of flux, however, and libraries have the option to use either a single record or separate records.  We must adopt uniform standards within UC so that records will collocate and merge properly in the union database.

• We should define a cataloging approach for electronic resources that will provide coordinated access through the MELVYL System but that does not compromise local catalog integrity.

We must recognize the strengths and limitations of local systems and avoid requirements which would compromise their functionality. We should not prescribe which electronic resources are represented in local catalogs, but should establish standards that will maximize access for MELVYL users.
 

1.  Cataloging works in electronic and other formats with separate records versus the simple "multiple versions" approach with a single record for each work which has been recommended by HOTS.

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the use of a "multiple versions" (or, more accurately, "single-record") approach for electronic and other formats when the content of one version would serve most users as a suitable substitute for the other version. Details of our recommendations and the philosophy underlying them are found in  IV.A. Recommendation on Use of the Single Record.
 
2. Defining a new 9XX field in MELVYL that would include 856 information and other local holdings information for electronic serials.

Recommendation: We recommend that CDL create a 956 field for display of 856 information and corresponding holdings, public notes, and library affiliations. Details of our recommendations can be found in IV.B. Display Recommendations, and in Appendix C, Technical Summary.

3. Cataloging electronic versions of monographs, especially government documents.

Recommendation: We recommend implementation of the same Display Standards and Cataloging Standards for electronic versions of both periodicals and monographs. The existing UC Standard for Electronic Government Documents continues to serve as a useful summary for copy cataloging of GPO publications, although some minor revisions are needed.  We recommend that a set of UC guidelines for cataloging electronic publications be issued once the Task Force recommendations are approved and finalized.

4. Adding 856 information to monograph and serial records referring to "related" electronic resources (e.g., tables of contents, informational web sites, finding aids, etc.) rather than to the electronic version of the item itself.

Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that 856 information about "related" electronic resources be included in catalog records with clear identification of the scope and nature of the online resource specified in $3 or $z of the 856 field. (See IVD. Content Designation Recommendations
for more detail).
 
5. Surveying and evaluating the use of the 856 subfields, particularly $z (public note) and $3 (materials specified), and other local data fields to see if UC standards are desirable.

Recommendation: Libraries should follow national standards for coding the 856 subfields, as documented in Guidelines for Use of Field 856. The $3 and $z should be used extensively to specify materials covered, access restrictions, special software requirements, etc., and these subfields should be added to the public display. See IV.D. Content Designation Recommendations for more detail on coding and Appendix C for information on labels and subfield order.

Recommendation IV.A.1:

Provide access to all types of remote electronic resources in MELVYL by noting them on the print record when one exists. Follow guidelines established by CONSER ( Interim guidelines for online versions of printed serials, CONSER Cataloging Manual 31.3.5, rev. Fall 1997), Library of Congress (Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources, Jan. 1998) and the Government Printing Office (GPO Cataloging Guidelines, Computer Files No.1A) with additions as outlined in IV.D. Content Designation Recommendations.

UC libraries have been experimenting with using a single record approach for cataloging remote electronic serials since CONSER and GPO released their guidelines in 1996. This experience has demonstrated the following benefits of using a single record:

• It brings together access information for both print and electronic holdings in a format which is easy for users to understand;
• It provides a streamlined method of adding electronic access to existing titles at substantially reduced costs when compared with making separate records;
• It enables libraries to accept cataloging copy from GPO with minimal revision;
• It enhances bibliographic access to Internet resources by applying existing search structures, controlled access points and headings under authority control to electronic versions.

• Separate records are not required to manage acquisitions;
• A user will be able to get to all manifestations cited in the record and to determine their contents;
• The record gives enough information to support unambiguous interlibrary loan citations for borrowing and lending;
• Significant bibliographic details of each manifestation are identified in the record.

Recommendation IV.A.2:

Use a single record approach whenever the electronic resource would serve as a suitable substitute for most users.
 

We have learned through the MELVYL fulltext project in the A&I databases that very few electronic resources offering fulltext content are truly identical to their print counterparts. It is common for publishers to omit materials such as letters to the editor, advertisements, news items, etc., when the publication is mounted online. Web-based publications commonly vary in other ways: frequency of updates, continuous addition of articles, interactive features, different graphics, etc. While some variations are easily observed, others may be difficult or impossible to identify with certainty. This situation has bedeviled catalogers as they have begun to work with electronic resources.
 
Nevertheless, it is usually possible to determine whether the electronic publication provides the same general scholarly content even when a one-to-one correspondence of every article cannot be proved. When this appears to be the case, we suggest that UC catalogers be guided by the principle of considering the print and electronic versions equivalent enough to use a single record if the electronic publication would serve as a reasonable substitute for most users. If a cataloger determines that the scholarly content is significantly different, separate records should be used.
 
Some local situations or special projects may call for separate records for other reasons. When this is the case, we urge UC libraries to analyze the need for a separate record carefully and limit this practice to cataloging where a defined goal can only be met by separate cataloging.

Recommendation IV.A.3:

Use the print record to note a serial title's continuation in electronic form after the print version ceases unless important access points change. Make a new record for the electronic publication if and when access points change. Close the holdings for the print version in the holdings record and update the 530 note to make the unique contents of the electronic version clear.
 

LCRI 21.3B requires that a new record be made when a serial title changes physical format because of, according to the CONSER Cataloging Manual, "differences in fixed fields and description (particularly the physical description) as well as possible differences in call numbers and locations" (CCM 16.6). These elements do not pertain to remote electronic resources because of their non-physical nature; therefore there is little necessity for a new record to describe the continuing electronic publication. Standard practice is to close the "dead" title by adding an ending date to the record when a new record is made for the new format. The serial title is thus represented as "dead" and the user is led to a different record through related title linking fields. When a serial continues on in an electronic form with no change in title, the title is not really dead. Users need to be informed how to access future issues but this can be done by adding notes on the existing record.
 
Another compelling reason to use the print record for electronic continuations is that creating a new record for the electronic form would hinder access to many serial titles in MELVYL as long as books and serials are in separate databases. Current cataloging rules require that electronic publications which are continuously updated online or are not organized into discrete numbered issues be cataloged as monographs. This is the case for most publications on the Web, including electronic versions of many journals. This trend is even more pronounced when a journal migrates to electronic form only. Because all records with Bib Level "m" are loaded into the CAT database, making a new record for the electronic continuation would frequently result in the holdings for a journal being split between the two databases. This clearly would have a very negative effect on user access to these resources.

Solutions for this problem are being developed in two separate arenas, although the timeline for its resolution is unknown at this time. Participants at the recent International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR in Toronto voted to expand AACR's definition of a serial to include a wider range of continuing publications so that electronic "serials" can be given the same bibliographical treatment as their print counterparts. Implementing this change is now on the agenda of the Joint Steering Committee. The National Library of Medicine has already announced its intention to begin cataloging continuously updated electronic publications as serials in advance of formal changes to AACR. In addition, the CAT/PE Regeneration Task Force has outlined specifications for merging the books and serials databases in MELVYL.
 
In making this recommendation we affirm that our guiding principles of simplicity for the user, adapting national standards to best serve the UC user community and minimizing cost are best served by keeping access to both forms of a serial title's issues combined in one record, at least on a temporary basis while we wait for these larger changes to be implemented.

Recommendation IV.A.4:

Provide access to an electronic resource through the print record even when the title is not owned in print.

The principal reason for this recommendation is to maintain the integrity of the MELVYL database by facilitating the collocating and merging of records from different campuses.  If some libraries submit records describing the electronic resource while others note the existence of the electronic version on the record for the print resource, the electronic holdings will bifurcate into separate clusters.  The situation is further aggravated by the fact that a significant number of records for electronic versions of print serials would be cataloged as monographs, as noted above. This leads to the  problems of access due to the separation of monographs and serials in MELVYL.
 
Not only will a user's ability to predict which database to use to locate holdings of a given title be frustrated by the separation but there would be many cases in which the same physical version of a title would be represented in both places because different libraries have acquired a title in a different array of physical forms. This introduces an element of inconsistency which would be impossible to explain to users in a meaningful way and, worse, would have the appearance of being random.
 
We are influenced in making this recommendation by our increased awareness that user needs are best served by bringing together different versions of a title's physical manifestations for a clear representation of holdings, locations, and access options in the call number area. This is an opinion which has been increasingly voiced in the professional literature on handling electronic resources by both catalogers and authors representing a public services viewpoint and is acknowledged by LC and CONSER's sanction of the use of a single record.

In our judgement, it is most important that remote access to library electronic resources be presented in the catalog where the users are most likely to expect to find them -- in conjunction with the print source -- and where they can be located without doing a separate search. The value of this approach outweighs the value gained by following AACR2 to the letter, especially when these standards are in a state of flux and are evolving towards using a single record to present more than one physical version. The effort spent on adding electronic resources to the catalog is only worthwhile if, by doing so, we improve user access to them in a predictable, intelligible and integrated manner. As with other recommendations in this report, we would expect to reevaluate this approach as cataloging standards evolve in the future.

Recommendation IV.A.5:

Catalog direct access electronic resources (e.g., CD-ROMS, floppy disks) on separate records.

LC, CONSER and GPO are united in their approach to cataloging direct access computer files using a separate bibliographic record and we recommend that these guidelines be followed as specified. Direct access electronic resources are cataloged separately because their physical characteristics require a more complete description than can be accommodated by a single record which represents more than one format. The degree to which a particular computer file resource will be useful to a user depends greatly on its physical characteristics, file characteristics, system requirements, etc. As with materials in print or other tangible formats, their housing location and mode of access must be specifically indicated in the catalog record. Unlike remote resources which the user can evaluate directly by connecting to it or through embedded metadata descriptors, the catalog record still serves as a descriptive surrogate for direct access computer files.

There are many examples of titles which are available in print, on CD-ROM and also on the Internet. Under these recommendations, the print and Internet versions will be presented in one record but the CD-ROM version will be presented separately (as is the case now). We recognize this is less than ideal from the user's perspective but feel the necessity to conform with the standard followed by our national cataloging agencies for now. Hopefully, a better method of integrating direct access computer files with their counterparts in other formats will emerge with time.

When a remote-access version of a direct-access computer file exists, the URL for the remote-access version should be added to the record.  If print, direct-access, and remote-access versions exist, the cataloger may add the URL for the remote-access version on both the records for print and direct-access, if appropriate, or on the record for the version it most closely resembles.

Recommendation IV.B.1:

Move 856 fields to the holdings area of the MELVYL display, where they should be displayed in unsegmented format. [See Tech Info V.C.1 ; for a definition and explanation of the unsegmented format, see Tech Info V.C.3]

The present scheme, in which all Internet addresses are presented in the bibliographic record (in abbreviated form on the short display and fully labeled on the long display) results in a confusing and cluttered display. (See Appendix B, Figure 1). In the case where the electronic address is for a related resource such as a table of contents, the current display seems to direct the user to the related Internet resource rather than the full-text. Moving the Internet access information to the holdings area will present a cleaner summary display. The electronic address contained in the 856 field (usually a uniform resource locator (URL)) is essentially location information. Placing it in conjunction with location/shelving information for a title's other formats would more clearly inform users of all their options for accessing the material. (See Figure 2 for the proposed new display).
 
This positioning will also facilitate access to Internet resources for users of the A&I databases. For those articles for which CDL is creating article-level links, the link at the journal title level given in the holdings area will assist users wishing to view the full extent of electronic coverage available for the journal. (See Figure 3). For electronic journals cited in the A&I databases for which no article-level links are supplied, the provision of journal title level links is critical for access. (See Figure 4).

Recommendation IV.B.2:

Create an INTERNET location segment "automatically" for each 856 field as part of CDL record processing. [See Tech Info V.C.2]

The MELVYL Users Services Group recommended offering the capability to limit searches to Internet resources to aid users who wish to access electronic resources from their offices, dormitories, etc. Establishing an INTERNET location segment for 856s would support an AT INTERNET limit feature and would highlight the availability of online resources. The programmatic creation of INTERNET locations would minimize the complex reporting requirements for contributing libraries and would ensure a more uniform display. (See Figure 5 for a search limited to the INTERNET location).
 
Recommendation IV.B.3:

Associate URLs with the campus that contributed them. Display each campus's 856 Internet holdings data integrated with its hard-copy holdings. [See Tech Info. V.C.4]

Although some Internet resources are universally available, many are paid subscriptions with access restrictions. Associating the URL with the campus will aid users in selecting the one which is most likely to work for them. This format is more readable than a single block of URLs (as MELVYL currently presents). The Task Force explored ways to display freely-accessible URLs separately from the submitting campus to highlight their non-restrictive availability but rejected this for now due to the technical difficulties identified.  (see Rejected Scenario V.D.4). Campus affiliation also will facilitate reporting of invalid URLs to the appropriate database maintenance units. By including the INTERNET holdings along with the other campus holdings, users will retrieve both hard-copy and Internet holdings when they limit to their campus holdings. (See Figure 6).

Recommendation IV.B.4:

Include coverage span of electronic journals, when known, in the 856 $3 (preferred) or 856 $z so that the Internet "holdings" data will display. (See IV.D.5 below for examples of 856 fields).
 
The MELVYL Users Group stated that an indication of the volumes and/or years of coverage of electronic journals is of paramount importance to users. Presenting the electronic and print holdings together will be especially beneficial as electronic subscriptions supersede print holdings because users will see at a glance in which format the specific piece sought is available.
 
Recommendation IV.B.5:

Present the Internet location information following the hard-copy holdings for the contributing campus. [See Tech Info. V.C.4]

It is advisable to show the Internet holdings following the hard-copy holdings due to the large number of hypertext links to tables of contents, abstracts, and other related resources which do not substitute for the full text. By positioning the Internet information following the other holdings, users are less likely to overlook the availability of full text in conventional formats. (See Figure 7)

Recommendation IV.B.6:

Suppress local holdings segments for Internet locations, relying instead on the automatically-generated INTERNET location segment. [See Tech Info. V.C.5; V.C.18]

Relying on automatically-generated Internet holding segments achieves conformity in display among all contributing libraries. The differences in local systems and the receipt of records from the Library of Congress, the California State University union list, and the California Union List of Periodicals precludes conformity in locally-supplied Internet holdings segments. The recommendation offers libraries maximum flexibility to submit records without local Internet location codes but allows them to include them if they are needed in their local systems. Campuses will need to notify CDL of the local Internet location codes to be suppressed.

Recommendation IV.B.7:

Create an INTERNET location for URLs supplied on MARC tapes. [See Tech Info. V.C.6]

The Library of Congress and its affiliates (CONSER and PCC) often add URLs to existing catalog records, particularly for related resources such as a digitized table of contents or abstracts. (See Figure 8). These updated MARC records are routinely added to MELVYL when they match existing records and they become the base records for public display. It is highly desirable to integrate URLs from LC records into the catalog in the same way as URLs from other sources because they add additional avenues of accessing electronic resources for our users and enable the entire MELVYL community to benefit from the "library without walls" paradigm offered by MELVYL WEB. True integration would be best achieved by displaying URLs from LC in the holdings area along with those that are campus-supplied. This can be accomplished by automatically creating an LC INTERNET location when the LC record is loaded. URLs moved to the LC INTERNET location would be retrieved through the global AT INTERNET limit. (See Figure 5)

The Library of Congress is presently digitizing the tables of contents of monographic publications and including hypertext links to this information in their catalog records.  In a recent communication from David Williamson at the Library of Congress, the Task Force learned that LC will be including these hypertext links in lieu of supplying contents notes in some records.  Since the contents will no longer appear in the base record in MELVYL, links to the digitized information are essential to provide patrons with this information.  The creation of an LC INTERNET location would guarantee continued access to table of contents information formerly available in the base bibliographic record.
 

Recommendation IV.B.8:

Do not create an "at LC" limit.

An LC INTERNET location could also support an AT LC limit, as is the case for campus locations. We recommend against creating an AT LC limit because of its potential to mislead users into thinking that MELVYL includes all LC records rather than only those LC records which match a campus record and contain an 856. Since only electronic resources have LC in the holdings area, there should be no confusion for Interlibrary Loan. An "explain screen" can describe the "LC" designation as the source of Internet addresses for selected electronic resources.

Recommendation IV.B.9:

Make a MARC record display available in MELVYL WEB. [See Tech Info V.C.15]

The need for a MARC display in MELVYL WEB that shows holdings data is needed by technical staff for resolving "rejects" and other problems associated with the display of 856s. In addition, the only way to view some nonpublic notes such as $m Contact for assistance and $x Nonpublic note is through the MARC format, so public services staff may also need to access this information when helping patrons.

Recommendation IV.C.1:

Implement the same display and cataloging conventions for both monographs and serials.

As more libraries add electronic government documents, scanned versions of monographs, and hotlinks to tables of contents and finding aids to the catalog, the need for consistent, cost-effective access to electronic monographs will equal that of serials. The scenario presented will enable users to find electronic monographs using the same strategies they use for serials. (See Figure 9). Likewise, a similar strategy could be used for the related Encoded Archival Descriptions [EAD] cited in records for archival collections (See Figure 10).

Recommendation IV.C.2:

Implement the new holdings display in PE as soon as possible. [See Tech Info. V.C.14]

The consortial purchase agreements for electronic journals make improvement of the PE display especially compelling, as many UC libraries are adding hotlinks to electronic journals in their catalog records. The PE displays are hard to decipher and the variations in campus participation make it difficult for patrons to determine whether the electronic versions are available on their particular campuses.

CDL staff is best positioned to determine whether it is most efficient to implement the changes sequentially (first in PE, then in CAT) or simultaneously.
 
Recommendation IV.C.3:

Records for electronic serials cataloged as computer files should be included in the PE database. [See Tech Info. V.C.17]

With format integration in 1995, cataloging standards were changed so that separately-cataloged electronic serials are coded as Type: m and input on the computer files workform. In February 1998, this practice was reversed so that newly-cataloged textual computer files are cataloged on the books/serials workforms.

Upon request, CDL can map the serial records on computer file workforms into the PE database. Such programming has already been completed for several campuses. The Task Force recommends that other campuses request this mapping to avoid a lacunae of records cataloged in 1995-1997 (and additional copy cataloging performed until OCLC/CONSER convert existing records).

Include an 007 field (coded physical description) in the catalog records for electronic resources. Code at least the first two bytes. The first byte identifies the material as a computer file and the second specifies whether the computer file is direct access or remote-access.
 
The MELVYL Users Group requested that limits be enabled to distinguish records for remote-access (Internet) resources from direct-access (CD-Rom) electronic resources. The 007 field could be used in MELVYL or successor systems to support a form limit for electronic resources.

This field is now mandatory at the national level for records describing electronic resources. While it is optional for records created under the "single-record" convention (which delineate or note electronic versions), the Task Force recommends that UC libraries include this field to facilitate limiting. The Library of Congress has announced that it will implement the 007 on records describing or delineating electronic versions.

The field remains optional for accompanying materials and should not be used for hotlinks to related resources. Although MELVYL does not presently have a limiting function based on the 007, coding the field now will minimize the amount of retrospective maintenance required to enable such a limit function in the future.
 
Recommendation IV.D.2:

Internet addresses should be given in 856 $u.

This is the standard subfield for an electronic address. If the URL contains an underscore or tilde, MELVYL will accept either the underscore/tilde or their hexadecimal equivalents: %5F for underscore and %7E for tilde. Some local systems substitute other codes when importing records containing underscore/tilde; catalogers should be careful to correct these characters to either underscore/tilde or their hexadecimal equivalents.

Recommendation IV.D.3:

Serial holdings/materials included should be given in 856 $3 (preferred) or 856 $z.

If the electronic resource includes only tables of contents, partial runs of serials, or other subsets of the material described in the bibliographic record, identify the content in 856.
N.B.: Innovative Interfaces WebPACs do not support $3, so Innovative libraries may use $z instead. (See IV.D.5 below for examples of 856 fields).
 
Recommendation IV.D.4:

Give special software requirements, access restrictions, and other public notes in 856 $z.

Notes about software requirements and access restrictions are not mandatory, but when they are given, they should appear in the 856 $z.  Bibliographic record notes, such as 530 or 538 notes, may not appear in the base record and therefore may not be visible in the public display.  Public notes in the 856 field will display regardless of whose record forms the base record.

Examples:

$z SGML reader required
$z Access restricted to UCSD IP addresses
$z PDF file

Recommendation IV.D.5:

MELVYL WEB must display 856 subfields in a consistent order. The Task Force recommends that the order be: $3, $z, $u, and the rest in alphabetical order. The fields may be input in any order, but the system will rearrange them in the order specified in the public display.   Multiple occurences of a single field will display together.  Catalogers are advised to formulate 856 fields so that they will make sense when displayed in that order.   In addition to the subfields already designated as suppressed from public view, we recommend that $2 also be suppressed. We recommend that no label be used before $z (Public note).  We recommend that only the $u information be highlighted as a hypertext link.
[See Tech Info V.C.11-12 for a description of the current displays and a complete list of labels].
 
Although the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data does not prescribe a display order, the CDL programmers informed the Task Force that a consistent order of display of 856 subfields must be used in MELVYL WEB. Examining a sample of 856 fields received from many sources, the Task Force determined that the order that gives the best results is: $3, $z, $u, followed by the other subfields in alphabetical order. We recommend that all subfields display to the public except for $2, $m, $n, $o, $x, $w, (i.e., the current display should be changed so $2 is suppressed and $3 is always displayed). Labels should precede all subfields except $z.  The current label "Access note" should be eliminated from the $z display.

In contrast to the other access prefixes, we recommend that the new second indicator 4 (http) not be programmed to display.  Since the $u invariably begins with "http://" for these resources, we see no need to clutter the display with an HTTP: prefix. Likewise, we recommend that the newly-implemented second indicators should not be used to generate display labels.  We concluded that additional verbiage would clutter rather than clarify the display.  The CDL programmers have assured us that it would be easy to add these prefixes at a later time if the need arises.

Examples of 856 fields and their corresponding public displays:
(N.B.: These examples show the order and labels recommended, not the current displays.  While the 856 data exist in MELVYL, the hotlinks may be obsolete or the sites may have access restrictions.  The newly-defined 856 indicators are not present in these examples).
 
Example 1:

856 7 $3Vols. 48 (Oct. 1995)+ available online at: $u http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world%5politics $2 http
856 7 $3 Vols. 1 (1948)-45 (1992) available online at: $u http://www.jstor.org/journals/00438871.html $2 http

Public display:

Materials included: Vols. 48 (Oct. 1995)+ available online at:. Location:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world%5Fpolitics
Materials included:Vols. 1 (1948)-45 (1992) available online at:. Location:
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ 00438871.html

Example 2:

856 7 $3In English:$uhttp://www.cgiar.org/ipgri/publicat/pgrn%5Fe.htm$2http
856 7 $3In French:$uhttp://www.cgiar.org/ipgri/publicat/pgrn%5Ff.htm$2http
856 7 $3In Spanish:$uhttp://www.cgiar.org/ipgri/publicat/pgrn%5Fs.htm$2http
 
Public display:

Materials included: In English:. Location: http://www.cgiar.org/ipgri/publicat/pgrn%5Fe.htm
Materials included: In French:. Location: http://www.cgiar.org/ipgri /publicat/pgrn%5Ff.htm
Materials included: In Spanish:. Location: http://www.cgiar.org/ipgr i/publicat/pgrn%5Fs.htm
 
Example 3:

856 7 $z Electronic version access restricted to UCD IP addresses $u http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics $2 http

Public display:

Electronic version access restricted to UCD IP addresses. Location:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics

Example 4:

856 7 $z Connect to v. 48- (1997- ) of the electronic version of the journal (Access restricted to UCSD IP addresses) $u http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics $2 http

Public display:

Connect to v. 48- (1997- ) of the electronic version of the journal (Access restricted to UCSD IP addresses). Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics

Example 5.

856 7 $z Online version: $u http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world%5Fpolitics $2 http

Public display:

Online version:. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world%5Fpolitics
 
Example 6.

856 7 $u http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/jair/home.html $2 http
 
Public display:

Location: http://www.cs.washi ngton.edu/research/jair/home.html
 
Example 7.

856 7 $u http://www.census.gov/prod/2/bus $2 http $z Click on "cbp-[year]" from directory listing to view individual files (requires Adobe Acrobat software which is available for download)
 
Public display:

Click on "cbp-[year]" from directory listing to view individual files (requires Adobe Acrobat software which is available for download). Location: http://www.census.gov/prod/2/bus

Example 8.

856 7 $u  gopher://gopher.cic.net:2000/11/e-serials/managed/alpha/J/jair $2 gopher
 
Public display:

Location: gopher://gopher.cic.net:2000/11/e-serials/managed/alpha/J/jair

Example 9.

856 7 $3 announcements $u news:comp.ai.jair.papers $2 news
 
Public display:

Materials included: announcements. Location: news:comp.ai.jair.announce.

Example 10.

856 2 fedbbs.access.gpo.gov $p3001 $m help@eids05.eids.gpo.gov $n Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services, Mail Stop SDE, U.S. G.P.O., Washington, D.C. 20401

Public display:

Telnet: Host: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. Port: 3001.

Example 11.

856 1 p.gp.cs.cmu.edu $d /usr/jair/pub $k [your full email address] $l anonymous $n Carnegie Mellon University
 
Public display:

FTP: Host: p.gp.cs.cmu.edu. Path: /usr/jair/pub. Password: [your full email address]. Login: anonymous.

Example 12.

856 1 $u ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt

Public display:

FTP: Location: ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt

Example 13.

856 1 $u ftp://ftp.samhsa.gov/pub/nhsda/popest.evy $z To download, select by clicking under Population Estimates (requires ENVOY 7 software to view). ENVOY 7 is available for download (requires additional 1.5 MB free space on storage device)
 
Public display:

FTP: To download, select by clicking under Population Estimates (requires ENVOY 7 software to view). ENVOY 7 is available for download (requires additional 1.5 MB free space on storage device). Location: ftp://ftp.samhsa.gov/pub/nhsda/popest.evy

Example 14.

856 1 zeus.kent.edu $k ARCHIVES $l ARCHITECTURE

Public display:

FTP: Host: zeus.kent.edu. Password: ARCHIVES. Login: ARCHITECTURE.

Example 15.

856 1 ftp.mrg.dist.unige.it $d /pub/jair/pub $k [your full email address] $l anonymous $n University of Genoa
 
Public display:

FTP: Host: ftp.mrg.dist.unige.it. Path: /pub/jair/pub. Password: [your full email address]. Login: anonymous.

Example 16.

856 0 UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU $h LISTSERV $i SUBSCRIBE OMRI-L $z For online subscription, send to LISTSERV@UBVMM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU with the command: SUBSCRIBE OMRI-L
 
Public display:

Mail to:  For online subscription, send to LISTSERV@UBVMM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU with the command: SUBSCRIBE OMRI-L.  Host: UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU. ID at host: LISTSERV. Instruction to send: SUBSCRIBE OMRI-L
 
Example 17.

856 0 kentvm.kent.edu $f ARCITRON $h listserv $isubscribe $z Email subscription
 
Public display:

Mail to: Email subscription. Host: kentvm.kent.edu. File or list name: ARCITRON. ID at host: listserv. Instruction to send: subscribe.
 
See Appendix C, Technical Summary, Recommendation V.C.12, for a complete list of all 856 subfields and their corresponding labels.
 
Recommendation IV.D.6:

Catalogers should familiarize themselves with the display conventions of their local systems and MELVYL.  They should attempt to construct 856 fields that will display effectively in all systems.

Catalogers must adhere to national standards for content designation, but some flexibility is required due to the capabilities of various systems.  For example, as of this writing, LC does not use the newly-approved indicators in the 856 field due to its internal system limitations.  Libraries are free to use LC records without upgrading the indicators. As mentioned above, Innovative Interfaces OPACs do not display $3 data, so libraries using that system need to use $z for "materials included."

The MELVYL system supplies display constants for all subfields except $z, and ending punctuation for all subfields except $u.  Catalogers are cautioned that redundant display prefixes and double punctuation may display in MELVYL if such data is input for the benefit of local systems.  Example 1 above illustrates the problem of double punctuation due to a campus-supplied colon followed by the MELVYL-supplied period.

Recommendation IV.D.7:

Libraries should input the ISSN of electronic serials in the 022 or 776 $x when known.
 
The ISSN is a critical hook to holdings in the A&I databases. When an electronic journal is described in a bibliographic record, the ISSN should be included in the 022 field. When an electronic version is noted in the record for a print (or other) version and the ISSN of the electronic version is known, give the ISSN of the electronic version in the 776 $x of the print version, along with its title.
 
The inclusion of the 776 $x for the electronic version has recently been specified in the CONSER Guidelines for libraries using the single-record approach. CDL has agreed to implement the necessary programming to activate the hook to holdings using ISSNs in this position.
 
The 776 $x should be used when the electronic version is a suitable substitute for the print version. If the scholarly content of the electronic version is known to differ from that of the print version, and is therefore cataloged separately, the ISSN should not be included for the electronic version in the record for the print to avoid mislinks.
 

Retain responsibility for URL verification and maintenance at the campus level.

Centralized URL verification and correction, like centralized authority control, is not possible in CDL's current environment.  Each campus must be responsible for the currency and accuracy of the URLs it submits.

Recommendation IV.E.2:

Share information about URL-checkers and verification schemes among campuses.
 
Campuses should experiment with URL verification systems and share this information with HOTS and electronic resource catalogers. Every effort should be made to encourage development in the area of persistent URLs, digital object identifiers, and related schemes.
 
Recommendation IV.E.3:

Revise the UC Standard for Cataloging Electronic Government Publications to bring it in line with recent coding changes. Issue the document electronically as a MELVYL Technical Standard.
 
The UC Standard for Cataloging Electronic Government Documents continues to be a useful document for assisting libraries with cataloging electronic U.S. federal documents, so that copy from GPO can be accepted with minimal editing. Recent changes to tagging conventions, most notably the use of Type code: m, should be reflected in the document. Once it has been updated, the document should be designated as an official MELVYL standard and made available on the MELVYL Web site.

Recommendation IV.E.4:

Once the Task Force recommendations are finalized, issue a brief set of guidelines for cataloging and content designation for electronic resources.

The recommendations for use of a single record and content designation, along with relevant technical information, should be extracted from the report and issued to all UC catalogers.  In the past catalogers were often unaware that MELVYL standards existed.  We should take advantage of electronic distribution to assure that all catalogers have copies of the guidelines to streamline their work and to improve MELVYL displays.  Electronic "cheatsheets" could be issued upon final agreement on the recommendations, before the programming changes have been completed.

APPENDIX A.
CHARGE TO THE HOTS TASK FORCE ON ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
 
Members: Crystal Graham (UCSD), Chair, Genevieve Engel (CDL), Pat French (UCD), Esther Fulsaas (UCB), Gabriella Gray (UCLA)
 
The University of California libraries have been collecting and cataloging locally held digital resources such as CD-ROMs according to national bibliographic standards for several years.  New questions and problems concerning bibliographic standards and local practices for controlling electronic resources have recently arisen with the advent of remote access to digital resources through the Internet.

The HOTS Task Force on Electronic Resources is charged with making recommendations to HOTS on the following issues regarding bibliographic control of electronic resources available through the Internet in both local catalogs and MELVYL:

1. Cataloging works in electronic and other formats with separate records versus the simple "multiple versions" approach with a single record for each work which has been recommended by HOTS;
2. Defining a new 9XX field in MELVYL that would include 856 information and other local holdings information for electronic serials;
3. Cataloging electronic versions of monographs, especially government documents;
4. Adding 856 information to monograph and serial records referring to "related" electronic resources (e.g., tables of contents, informational web sites, finding aids, etc.) rather than to the electronic version of the item itself;
5. Surveying and evaluating the use of the 856 subfields, particularly $z (public note) and $3 (materials specified), and other local data fields to see if UC standards are desirable.

• Maintaining bibliographic and holdings information for electronic resources;
• Sharing the cataloging of electronic resources with no access restrictions that may be of interest to several campuses;
• Adding URLs to serial records at the journal title level for electronic resources (e.g., Project MUSE, Springer Verlag, etc.) for which the Division of Library Automation is also creating article level URLs;
• Formulating standards and requirements for acquiring cataloging from vendors for electronic resources;
• Evaluating the recent project to catalog the MELVYL full text titles and recommending procedures (e.g., updating the lists of titles, etc.) for completing that project as well as guidelines for future cooperative projects;
• Evaluating standards proposed by other groups for cataloging electronic materials (e.g., government documents and EAD) to insure consistency.

Brian Schottlaender will bring the UC archival cataloging community's perspective to the HOTS' review of your recommendations.

Lee Leighton
Chair, University of California Heads of Technical Services
250 Moffitt Library
University of California
Berkeley, Calif. 94720
Email: lleighto@library.berkeley
HOTS reflector: uclib-hots@dla.ucop.edu

Following the first example showing the current display, this section contains examples of how records will look in MELVYL WEB when the recommendations are adopted.
N.B.: The highlighting shows hypertext links where they will appear in the displays.  Not all of them are live links in this document.

FIGURE 1.
CURRENT SHORT DISPLAY
(Example current as of 3/15/98; subject to change)
N.B.: Some CSU holdings omitted for brevity.

World politics. [Baltimore, etc., Johns Hopkins University Press under the editorial sponsorship of the Center
of International Studies, Princeton University, etc.] v. ill. 24 cm. Quarterly v. 1- Oct. 1948-
Language: English
Electronic Location: Method: http. Location: http://www.jstor.org/journals/00438871.html
Electronic Location: Method: http Location: http://www.jstor.org/journals/ 00438871.html Access
note: Online version:.
Electronic Location: Method: http. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world%5Fpolitics/
Electronic Location: Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/worldöpolitics$2http
Electronic Location: Method: http. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/ Access note:
Electronic version access restricted to UCD IP addresses.
Electronic Location: Method: http. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/worldöpolitics/
Electronic Location: Method: http. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world%5Fpolitics/ Access
 note: Online version:.
Electronic Location: Method: http. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/ Access
note: View the electronic version of the journal (Access restricted to UCSD IP addresses only).
[Long Display]
 

Library		Call Number	Periodical  Holdings	Other Information
MELVYL	MAGS	D839.W57	Apr. 1993-	Electronic resource
UCB	GovSocSci	D839.W57	BOUND 1(1948/49)-15 (July 1963), 18(1965/66)-49(July 1997); later issues unbound	Journals Section
UCB	IISL	D.839.W57	1,1948-
UCB	Law Lib	KJ5.W927WP	vol. 1(oct. 1948-july 1949-v.4(oct 1951-july 1952); v.6 (oct. 1953-july 1954)-v. 27(oct. 1974-july 1975); v. 29(oct. 1976-july 1977)-
UCB	Main	D839.W57	BOUND v.1(Oct 1948)-7(1954/55), 11(Oct 1958)-12(July 1960), 16(Oct 1964)-18(July 1966), 20(Oct 1967)-24:1(Oct 1971), v.25(Oct 1972)-26(July 1974), v.28(Oct 1975)-45:1(Oct 1992)
UCB	Moffitt	Periodical	Current 15 years only	Alphabetically by title on the fifth floor, unbound issues at the Closed Reserve Desk
UCD		Electronic access  Internet	v. 48, Oct. 1995-	(URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/) Currently received. Active
UCD	Shields	D839.W6  Stacks	v. 1, 1948-	Recent issues in SHIELDS Current Periodicals; older issues bound in book stacks. Currently received. Active
UCI	Main Lib	D 839 W57 Latest in Curr Per Rm	B 1-17 (1948-64/5), B19-48 (1966/67-95/6)	B1-17(1948-64/5). B19-48(1966/7-95/6) Currently received.
UCLA	College	D 410 W894	UCLA	Internet
UCLA	Law Lib	D 839 W57	B31(1978/9). B36-48(1983/4-95/6) U49N1-4(1996/7) U50N1(1997/8)	Stacks
UCLA	MicroServ	D 410 W894	B1-49 (1948-96/7)	Microfilm
UCLA	URL	D 410 W894	B1-16(1948/9-63/4) B17N1(1964). B17N3(1965). B19-30(1966/7-77/8) :AFTER VOL.30, UNBOUND ISSUES RETAINED ONLY UNTIL REPLACED BY FILM:U50N1(1997/8)	Unbound issues in Periodicals Stacks// Online version available via World Wide Web (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics). Hotlink on Melvyl
UCR	Rivera	D839 W67 Unbd: Cur Per.	V. 1 (1948)-48 (1996).	Currently received
UCSB	Main Lib	JA1.W6	V. 1 (1948)-v. 48 (1995/96)	Currently received
UCSC	internet	D839.W57	48 (1995)+ via Internet.
UCSC	McHenry	D839.W57	1-7 (1948-1955), 11 (1958)+	Currently received
UCSC	McHenry	D839.W57  Microforms	8-12 (Oct. 1955-July 1960)
UCSD		No call number  INTERNET	48:1- (1995-)	Electronic journal
UCSD	IR/PS	D 839 W57 Current Shelves-Bound in Stacks	31-38, 40, 41:1-3, 42- (1980-)	Currently received
UCSD	SSH	D 839 W57 Current Shelves-Bound in Stacks	1-9, 10:4, 11- (1948-)	Currently received
UCSD	Undergrad	No call number Micro	30-49 (1977-1997)	Not currently received
CSL	State Lib	No call number General Coll	V. 1, no. 1 (1948)-
CSU	Fresno	D839.W57	(1-7,9-32) 1948-1980	[Microfilm=33- 1980- ] Paper issues retained 2 years
CSU	Pomona	D839.W57	(1-) 1948-
CSU	San Jose	D839.W57	(1-) 1948-	Vols.20-21,36 incomplete
STAN	Green	D839.W57 Stacks	1, 1948/49-	Latest in current periodicals
STAN	Jackson	Shelved under title. Periodicals Collection	v. 44, no. 2 (Jan. 1992)- (PERIODICAL STACKS)
STAN	Meyer	D839 .W57	Holdings not reported.

Barr, RJ. Deep penetrating nevus.
Dermatology Online Journal, 1997 Mar, 3(1):7. (UI: 97292913)
Language: English
[Long Display]
 

Library	Call Number	Periodical Holdings	Other Information
UCSD Internet	Connect to 1:1 (1995-) of the journal. Location: http://matrix.ucdavis.edu/DOJ.html
UCD

 

Bergelson, V; McCutcheon, R; Zhang, Q. A Roth theorem for amenable groups. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS, DEC, 1997, V119(N6):1173-1211.
Language: English
Article Text: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of_mathematics/v119/119.6bergelson .pdf (Project Muse)
[Long Display]
 

Library	Call Number	Periodical Holdings	Other Information
UCSD S&E	QA1 A516	American journal of mathematics 1- (1878-)	Currently received
UCSD Scripps	SIO 1 AM384 Floor 2	American journal of mathematics U12:1, U12:3-4, U19:1, U19:3-4,  U20:1-3, 29, U42, U43:1, U43:3, U44:1, U44:3, U45:1, U45:3-4,  U46:1, U46:4, U47:1-2, U48:1-2, 86-89, U90:2-4, 91-97 (1890-DEC1975)	Not currently received
UCSD Internet	Connect to 117:4- (1995- ) of the journal. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of_mathematics/
MELVYL, Internet, LLNL , All , All UC , UCB , UCD , UCI , UCLA , UCR , UCSB , UCSC, NRLF , Non-UC, CSL , CSU , STAN , USC

World politics. [Baltimore, etc., Johns Hopkins University Press under the editorial sponsorship of the Center
of International Studies, Princeton University, etc.] v. ill. 24 cm. Quarterly v. 1- Oct. 1948-
Language: English
[Long display]
 

Library		Call Number	Periodical  Holdings	Other Information
UCB	Internet	Materials covered: Vols. 48 (Oct. 1995)+ available online at:. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ world%5Fpolitics
UCB	Internet	Materials covered: Vols. 1 (1948)-45 (1992) available online at:. Location: http://www.jstor.org/journals/ 00438871.html
UCD	Internet	Electronic version access restricted to UCD IP addresses. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/
UCLA	Internet	Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics
UCSC	Internet	Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wo rld_politics
UCSD	Internet	View the electronic version of the journal (Access restricted to UCSD IP addresses only). Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wo rld_politics
CSU	Internet	Online version:. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals /world%5Fpolitics/
LC	Internet	Online version:. Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals /world%5Fpolitics
MELVYL, All, All UC, UCB, UCD, UCI, UCLA, UCR, UCSB, UCSC, UCSD, Non-UC, CSL, CSU, LC, STAN

 

Brockway, George P.. The end of economic man : principles of any future economics /, George P.
Brockway. 3rd ed. New York : Norton, c1995. 333 p. ; 21 cm.
Language: English
[Long Display]
 

Library		Call Number	Other Information
UCB	Bus&Econ	HB171 .B76 1995
UCB	Moffitt	HB171 .B76 1995
UCR	Rivera	HB171 .B76 1995
UCR	Rivera	HB171 .B76 1995
UCSB	Main Lib	HB171.B6499 1995
UCSD	SSH	HB171 .B76 1995	(circ status)
LC	Internet	Materials included: Table of contents. Location: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/ toc/97-104064.html

 

[Patrologiae cursus completus.]. Patrologiae cursus completus, sive biblioteca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium SS. Patrum, doctorum scriptorumque eccelesiasticorum qui ab aevo apostolico ad usque Innocentii III tempora floruerunt ... [Series Latina, in qua prodeunt Patres, doctores scriptoresque Ecclesiae Latinae, a Tertulliano ad Innocentium III], Accurante J.-P. Migne. Parisiis, 1844-64. 221 v. 28 cm.
Language: Latin
[Long Display]
 

Library		Call Number	Other Information
UCB	Main	BR60.M52	t. 1-91; 91, copy 2; 92-221 (1844-1902) Accompanying supplements have call number: BR60.M52 suppl. MAIN // Includes later editions of some volumes.
UCB	Internet	Location: http://pld.chadwyck.co.uk/
All , All UC , UCD+circ status , UCD , UCI+circ status , UCI

 

Alaska Commercial Company. Records, 1895-1897. 2 lin. Ft. (1 archives box).
Related titles: Alaska Commercial Company records.
Language: English
[Long Display]
 

Library		Call Number	Other Information
UCSD	SpecColl	F909.A53 MSS 234	Manuscripts (circ status)
UCSD	Internet	View the SGML-coded finding aid (SGML browser required). Location: http://orpheu s.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/sgml/mss0234.sgml
UCSD	Internet	View the HTML-coded finding aid. Location: http://orpheus .ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/sgml/mss0234.html
UCSD	Internet	View the homepage of the UCSD Libraries finding aid database. Location: http://orpheus. ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/sgml/mscl-fa1.html

 

Recommendation V.C.1:

Include 856 data in the local data area of MELVYL records (IV.B.1) Create Internet location segments from all 856s (IV.B.2).

CDL could create a location segment for each occurrence of an 856 field in a record. The location segment would have the CDL-assigned location code 'melnet', and would include a 956 field into which the 856 data would be copied.

Recommendation V.C.2:
 
Associate URLs with specific campuses in display (IV.B.3).

The processing described in Recommendation V.C.1 would permit each automatically-generated 'melnet' location segment to be identified as belonging to a specific campus.
 
In MELVYL displays, CAMPUS would display as the campus that sent the record and PRIMARY (aka branch) would display as 'Internet' for all 'melnet' location segments.

 Recommendation V.C.3:

Display 'melnet' location data in unsegmented format (IV.B.1).

In MELVYL WEB, local data is presented in segmented boxes labeled as 'Call Number', 'Holdings/Periodical Title' (PE), and 'Other'. In MELVYL line, these items are separated by spaces. Display of 'melnet' location segments in both line and Web modes could consist of just the 956 data in an unsegmented format.

The line mode would show as:

 UCSD Internet  Location:  http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook

The WEB mode would show as:
 

UCSD

Internet

Location: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook

Recommendation V.C.4: 

Display 'melnet' location segments following the hard-copy location segments for the contributing campus (IV.B.5).
 
Location segments currently display within a CAMPUS grouping alphabetically by PRIMARY display value. Programming could be done to force CAMPUS=Internet (location=melnet) location segments to display at the end of all other print holdings within campus groupings.
 

Campus	Primary	Other
UCB	GovSocSci	Call number	Holdings
UCB	PubHealth	Call number	Holdings
UCB	Internet	<956 data>
UCLA	Law Lib	Call number	Holdings
UCLA	Internet	<956 data>

 
Recommendation V.C.5:

Suppress local Internet holdings segments (IV.B.6).
 
Suppression of location segments based on location codes could be achieved by use of special codes within the location table, and by special programming for MELVYL display. Once the display programming is modified, establishment and reversal of suppression for specific codes would be fairly easy. This method requires that campuses report suppression location codes to CDL.

Caution: If a source sends only 'to be suppressed' location codes in a record that did not include an 856, no holdings would display for that source.
 
Recommendation V.C.6:

Create 'melnet' location segments for 856s supplied on MARC tapes (IV.B.7).
 
There is no CDL programming in place to output or display local data for LC. Preliminary analysis and testing indicates that this could be done.
 
Recommendation V.C.7:

Provide an 'AT INTERNET' search limit. (IV.B.7)

This could be done via the standard table and programming changes required for implementing 'AT' limits based on location codes/cataloging units.

Recommendation V.C.8:

Provide an 'INTERNET' display limit in MELVYL WEB.
 
Display limits are currently based on CAMPUS and not on PRIMARY display values. Special programming could be done to provide the desired display option.

Recommendation V.C.9:

Use 'LC' as campus value in 'melnet' location segments generated from 856s in MARC records.
 
Although CDL expressed some concerns about using 'LC' as the CAMPUS value for the 'melnet' location segments generated from MARC records, neither CDL nor the Task Force came up with any preferable suggestions. 'LC', therefore will probably be used. CDL could provide a link to an LC explanation page in MELVYL WEB and a F LOC LC page in line mode. There are no plans, however, to provide an 'AT LC' search limit.
 
Recommendation V.C.10:

Display LC location segments with other NON-UC location segments.
 
LC location segments will sort in alphabetical order by CAMPUS value within other non-UC location segments. CAMPUS=LC is the value currently proposed.

Recommendation V.C.11:
 
Display 956 subfields in campus-supplied order. [IV.D.5]
 
A strong preference was expressed by Task Force members to have 956 subfields display in the same order as sent by the campus. Although 856 fields will be moved into the DLA-defined 956 fields unchanged, subfield order can be maintained by MELVYL line display only. The OPAC record syntax used in the Z39.50 interface between the CDL server and MELVYL WEB causes severe constraints in the manipulation of local data. The order of 956 subfield display in MELVYL WEB must therefore be prescribed. The Task Force has thus made recommendations about 956 subfield display order.  (See recommendations in IV.D.5).
 
Current practice (as of 3/15/98; subject to change):
 

MELVYL line:
	856 subfield display for both CAT & PE:
		Short	u,3,z (3 & z display only if u is present)
		Long & Fields	All but m,n,o,w,x
		Tags short	u
		Tags long & fields	All but m,n,o,w,x
	Display order: Subfields are displayed in order received, except in displays Short and Tags Short where order is as shown above.
MELVYL WEB:
		Short	All but m,n,o,w,x,3
		Long & Fields	All but m,n,o,w,x,3
		Tags short	All but m,n,o,w,x,3
		Tags long & fields	All but m,n,o,w,x,3
	Order of display in Long, Fields, Tags Long: 2,a,p,b,c,d,f,g,h,i,j,l,k,q,r,s,t,v,v,z
	This order is driven by the table used to supply subfield labels and will likely change.

Recommendation V.C.12:

Provide 956 subfield labels.
 
CDL currently provides labels to 856 subfields in MELVYL line display and MELVYL WEB display. Labels can also be provided for 956 subfields. CDL has requested that the Task Force recommend any changes/additions to current 856 labels. Labels are currently provided as follows:

A period is inserted at the end of each subfield, EXCEPT for the $u. (Otherwise it looks like it's part of the URL.)

The following labels are placed in front of fields, depending on the value of the 1st indicator:

0 = Mail to:
1 = FTP:
2 = Telnet:
3 = Dialup:

The following labels are placed in front of subfields:

SUBFIELD 2 , LABEL = Method:
SUBFIELD a, LABEL = Alternate host:
(Exception: The 1st $a gets Host: instead of Alternate host:)
SUBFIELD b, LABEL = Number:
SUBFIELD c, LABEL = Compression:
SUBFIELD d, LABEL = Path:
SUBFIELD f, LABEL = File or list name:
SUBFIELD g, LABEL = through
SUBFIELD h, LABEL = ID at host:
SUBFIELD i, LABEL = Instruction to send:
SUBFIELD j, LABEL = Speed:
SUBFIELD k, LABEL = Password:
SUBFIELD l, LABEL = Login:
SUBFIELD m (Contact for access assistance): Does not display
SUBFIELD n (Name of location of host in subfield $a): Does not display
SUBFIELD o (Operating system): Does not display
SUBFIELD p, LABEL = Port:
SUBFIELD q, LABEL = File transfer mode:
SUBFIELD r, LABEL = Settings:
SUBFIELD s, LABEL = Size in bytes:
SUBFIELD t, LABEL = Terminal type:
SUBFIELD u, LABEL = Location:
SUBFIELD v, LABEL = Hours:
SUBFIELD w (Record control number): Does not display
SUBFIELD x (Nonpublic note): Does not display
SUBFIELD z, LABEL=Access Note:
SUBFIELD 3, LABEL = Materials included: (At present, does not display in MELVYL WEB).
 
For recommended changes to the labels and order of display, see IV.D.5.

Recommendation V.C.13:

Omit text '(circ status') in 'melnet' location segment displays.
 
When clicking on a campus for which circulation information can be supplied, the text '(circ status)' currently appears in the 'Other Information' box as a hot link in the CAT database. Since this would not be appropriate in 'melnet' location segment displays, it would be desirable to have it omitted. MELVYL WEB display programmers could do this.
 
Recommendation V.C.14:

Implement the new holdings display in PE as soon as possible. (IV.C.2)
 
CDL can implement CAT and PE together or separately. It will take longer to do them both at once, but probably not 'twice as long'. Display changes for CAT should not take as long as those for PE.

Recommendation V.C.15:

Make a MARC record display available in MELVYL WEB. (IV.B.9):
 
There is widespread interest in having a MARC record display available in MELVYL WEB, and in keeping MELVYL line  until it is available. CDL currently plans to provide a display of the bibliographic portion of the MARC record, but has not yet discussed providing access to campus local data. Due to other priorities, work on the MARC display is not expected to start until after June 30, 1998. MELVYL line is expected to remain available until the relevant issues are resolved.
 
Recommendation V.C.16:

Reprocess current database records with 856 fields.
 
Many records with 856 fields will have been loaded into the CAT and PE databases before new electronic resources programming, etc., can be completed. Those records will have to be processed through the new code to make them conform to the new format. Because some sources would not or could not resend records with 856s, it would be best if CDL could reprocess all database records with 856 fields. CDL thinks this could be done. It would require development to the pulloff program, and both CDL and Production Control staff time to do the reruns.
 
Recommendation V.C.17:

Include electronic serials in the PE database. (IV.C.3)

CDL is already mapping these items to the PE database for some sources, and will do it for others upon request. Effort of programming level varies with input source.

Recommendation V.C.18:

Permit processing of records lacking location data, provided that the records contain 856 fields. (IV.B.6)

Given that local Internet location segments will be suppressed from display, libraries should not be required to supply a local Internet location segment solely for the purpose of MELVYL processing. The capability to submit records without Internet location codes would particularly benefit UC Davis, since the campus does not have a local OPAC utilizing the codes.  The flexibility to submit records without Internet location codes might also aid future cooperative or contract cataloging arrangements, or facilitate the development of local systems that rely on hypertext links instead of location codes.

In the course of our deliberations, the Task Force considered several scenarios besides the one we recommended. Below is a summary of other schemes considered and the reasons they were rejected.

V.D.1. Displaying the 856 information in the appropriate boxes of the MELVYL WEB display. The Task Force considered mapping the $u to the call number box, the $3 to the Periodical holdings box, the $z to the "Other information" box, etc.
 
Problems:

V.D.1.A. Box size. There was considerable concern that the call number boxes are not large enough to accommodate lengthy URLs. (In MELVYL WEB, the length limit is about 100 characters). This problem is especially acute with government documents, where the URLs may be four or five lines long.  The Task Force discussed the possibility of not displaying the URL. However, this was rejected by those who thought patrons might want to print out records or copy down URLs either from line-mode MELVYL or MELVYL WEB.

V.D.1.B. The $z (public note) is used for a variety of purposes. In some cases it contains a prefatory phrase that is intended to precede the URL, e.g.,: 856 7 $z Online version: $u http://..., a format often found on LC and CONSER records. These phrases seem nonsensical in the "other information" box.

V.D.1.C. Innovative Interfaces libraries cannot use the $3 for "materials included" because the Innovative OPAC does not display $3 at this time. Therefore the holdings input by some libraries would be mapped to "periodical holdings" while holdings input by other libraries would be mapped to "other information."

V.D.1.D. There are more than a dozen other 856 subfields which are primarily used for mailto, ftp, telnet, and email electronic access. Mapping them appropriately would be difficult. (See Appendix C, V.C.12 for the complete list).
 
V.D.1.E. Related resources in 856 fields may not be serials, so the $3 (materials included) information would be nonsensical in the "Periodicals holdings" box.
 
V.D.2. Moving the 856 information to the corresponding local holdings segment for the submitting library, e.g., a locally-supplied INTERNET location.

Problems:

V.D.2.A. Multiple URLs. More than one 856 field may appear in a single record. CDL would need to match the corresponding INTERNET location code with the correct URL, yet not all URLs would have a corresponding INTERNET location segment. For those that do, MELVYL does not allow more than one set of holdings data to be associated with identical location codes (as the computer interprets this as a correction rather than an additional holdings string). When multiple location codes and 856s exist in the same record there is no data upon which a matching process can be based. While the Task Force acknowledged that it would be possible to assign several different Internet location codes (e.g., UCSD Internet, UCSD Internet2), we doubted that all inputting libraries (especially non-UC libraries like CSL and CSU campuses) would adhere to such a standard.
 
V.D.2.B. Related electronic resources. Some URLs are included in bibliographic records that do not have a corresponding campus Internet holdings string. These may be related Web sites for which a locally-supplied location code is not appropriate or an 856 submitted by a library which has elected not to supply a location code for some other reason. (For an example, see DLA ID 1665547 for the serial Convergence (London, England), which has a related Web site with abstracts and other information). The related resource might not be a serial, making it impossible to submit a corresponding serial holdings statement. It is also possible to have a combination of URLs for full-text and related electronic resource(s) in the same record.

V.D.2.C. Non-UC campuses. The Task Force is concerned about incorporating URLs from non-UC libraries. If  locally-supplied Internet location codes were required, what would happen to the URLs for libraries that do not abide by UC standards? The URLs supplied by such contributors as the California State Library, the Center for Research Libraries, and the Library of Congress are valuable links for our primary clientele. Such institutions cannot be expected to abide by complex UC protocols for location codes and holdings.

V.D.3. Displaying URLs for related electronic resources separately from URLs for fulltext. For example, this category might display as a list unaffiliated with any campus, possibly at the top of the holdings display.

Problems:

V.D.3.A. How would the system differentiate a "related" site from other types of electronic resources? The Task Force discussed using the 2nd indicators of the 856, which can be used to generate display labels for electronic resources, electronic versions, and related electronic resources. These indicators are newly defined and therefore are generally not present in existing records.   Even if UC campuses agreed to recode and resend their records, designing a display convention that required the use of these indicators would be problematic for display of non-UC URLs, such as those contributed by the Library of Congress, the State Library, etc.

V.D.3.B. Related sites should be affiliated with the contributing library. Some related Web sites are local in nature, such as ones giving password/logon scripts.

V.D.3.C. Highlighting related resources might divert users' attention from the full-text holdings, especially if they were given at the top of the display.

V.D.3.D. Our CDL liaison reported that specialized mapping outside of the holdings area would be expensive to program. This is probably not the best use of programming expertise.

V.D.3.E.  An additional display constant in the unsegmented display results in a cluttered appearance, as shown below:

856 43  $3 Table of contents $u http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/toc97-104064.html

Public display:

Related electronic resource: Materials included: Table of contents. Location: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/to c97-104064.html

V.D.4.  Identifying electronic resources with no access restrictions in a separate display or with a note.

Problems:

V.D.4.A.  Access restriction information is not easy to identify or maintain.  Frequently catalogers are asked to catalog electronic resources without information about whether the site is available for free, through a campus license, or through a CDL license.  Titles available on a free basis may change to a subscription basis and the catalogers may not be informed that the status has changed.

V.D.4.B.  Adding notes stating that a resource is freely available, particularly for government documents, would be a significant workload.  It is highly desirable to be able to accept bibliographic records with a minimal amount of editing.

V.D.4.C.  There is no defined place in the bibliographic or holdings records to code for access availability, so we would have to make up a new, homegrown scheme to accomodate both recording and sorting based on access information.  Mapping free resources to a different location code (e.g., a CDL location) would require complex coding, such as different location codes for free and licensed resources.  Errors in coding would give erroneous access information, which is more harmful than giving users the opportunity to try to connect to the resource.  Additional programming would also be required, which is not the best use of CDL's resources.

V.D.4.D.  Contributing libraries outside of the UC System, such as the Library of Congress, California State Library and the CSU campuses, would not include this information in their records.  If users expect to see notations on freely-available resources, they may fail to try the links on records without the notes.

V.D.4.E.  Noting that a resource is available through a CDL license is complex because not all campuses participate in the consortial purchase of every CDL title.  A note saying that access is available to UC campuses may not be correct if one or more of the campuses has elected not to participate in the licensing agreement.

V.D.4.F.  Many campuses want to include bibliographic records for Internet titles in their local systems, particularly for those titles acquired through CDL.  With the current uncertainty about the future development of MELVYL, campuses are reluctant to rely on each other's records for sole access to CDL titles.  For the time being, the Task Force felt that access restriction information should be left to the discretion of the individual campuses, allowing them to make policies that best meet the needs of their patrons and utilize their resources most effectively.
 

Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines / Richard Greene. Available online: http://www.oclc.org/oclc/bit/212/feb98.htm#Cataloging_Electronic_Resources

Cataloging Internet Resources: a Manual and Practical Guide / edited by Nancy B. Olson. 2nd ed. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 1997.  Available on the Web at: http://www.purl.org/oclc/cataloging-Internet

CONSER Cataloging Manual. Module 31, Remote Accss Computer File Serials / prepared by Melissa Beck with the assistance of Bill Anderson, Les Hawkins, and Regina Reynolds. Rev. 10/31/97. Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service, 1997. Available on the Web at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/module31.html

CONSER Cataloging Manual. Module 33.18, Electronic Newspapers / by Margaret Mering, Corinne Jacox, Beth Jedlicka with contributions and editing by Bill Anderson. Rev. 11/97. Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service, 1997. Also available on the Web at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/enewsppr.html

GPO Cataloging Guidelines. Computer Files, No. 1A (Remotely Accessible Files). Available on the Web at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/cgcomp01.html

Guidelines for the Use of Field 856 / prepared by the Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office. Rev. Aug. 1997. Available on the Web at:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/856guide.html

ISBD (ER) : International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources. (Projected for Fall 1997 publication by G.K. Saur).

Library of Congress Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources. Jan. 1998. Available on the Web at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/elec_res.html

"Library of Congress Table of Contents Projects" / David Williamson.  Available on the Web at: http://tpot.ucsd.edu/Cataloging/Formats/lctoc2.html

MARC Advisory Committee. Proposal no. 97-3R. Redefinition of code"m" (Computer file) in Leader/06 in the USMARC Bibliographic Format. Available on the Web at:
gopher://marvel.l oc.gov:70/00/.listarch/usmarc/97-3r.doc 

Standard for University of California Electronic Government Documents / prepared by Becky Ringler. Revised March 27, 1997. Available on the Web at: http://tpot.ucsd.edu/Cataloging/Branches/ucgpo.html