On November 5th, 1998, the UC Systemwide Operations and Planning Advisory
Committee (SOPAG) appointed the SOPAG Electronic Resources Cataloging Task
Force with the multi-part charge to:
1) Write guidelines for the cataloging of Internet resources to be
used by
all UC libraries and non-UC contributors to the MELVYL catalog;
2) Take local system functionality into account;
3) Investigate and develop mechanisms for the sharing of bibliographic
records produced by a central cataloging site;
4) Develop costs associated with cataloging and record sharing and
compensation models for sharing bibliographic data.
(full text of the charge)
|
This report addresses that charge. Major components of the charge reflected
in this report are: recommendation of cataloging guidelines building upon
the original report of the Task Force on Electronic Resources (TFER)dated
March 25, 1998; the establishment of a Centralized Cataloging Agency (CCA);
a mechanism for record production and distribution; and necessary
recommendations for MELVYL system functionality. A full list of
Task Force recommendations is presented in the Executive Summary of Recommendations
in association with the statements in the charge they address.
The Task Force's charge specifically excluded MELVYL display recommendations
due to a parallel effort underway by CDL staff to identify enhanced display
options. While the Task Force has not directly addressed recommendations
for future display, we are aware of the integral association of coded bibliographic
data with its presentation to users by means of system display. In the
course of our work, the display of URLs in the Melvyl Catalog and the California
Periodicals Database was raised as a critical issue many times, both among
Task Force members and in comments from our campus colleagues. We
are keenly aware that a clear URL display is essential to the success and
value of the cataloging effort. Consequently, our determination of
the specific content of the URL field(s) necessarily entailed a related
focus on how this critical content could be accommodated by the existing
MELVYL system without considerable programming effort required on the CDL's
part. Given practical constraints, we have made our best effort to
suggest content and content designation that can be displayed intelligibly
to users.
Cataloging Guidelines
The goal of the Task Force's work on cataloging guidelines has been
to craft guidelines that will enhance user access to California Digital
Library (CDL) resources through the MELVYL union catalog, the CDL Directory
and by means of each library's public access catalog. Guidelines address
bibliographic description and controlled access points. As agreed to by
SOPAG, the guidelines recommended by the Task Force focus on journals and
databases licensed at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 collection levels that presently
compose the predominant majority of CDL content. 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. |
The Task Force's intention is that cataloging guidelines for Tier 1 and
Tier 2 materials be available at the earliest possible date to provide
enhanced access to the resources. The CDL Cataloging Guidelines we have developed are
available. The guidelines are thought to be a work in progress, with
additional field by field explication for additional types of materials to
be added as planning is extended beyond the Tier 1 and Tier 2 titles.
Several of those types are noted below.
The Task Force has attempted to construct guidelines that will serve
the present version of the MELVYL system and the present state of digital
resources while fashioning an approach that will continue to serve the
rapidly changing digital context and environment. The group unanimously
endorses the concept of integrated access to comparable materials in different
formats. We found ourselves in the position of establishing a fixed
standard for cataloging and holdings in the midst of changing content,
changing systems architectures and impending changes to national standards.
We have nonetheless attempted to structure an approach that will serve
in the future with specific modifications made as required. This was no
easy task.
Throughout our work, we have been helped by taking as our starting point
and continuing point of reference the excellent working principles defined
by the TFER 1:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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. |
|