FROM:           SOPAG Electronic Resources Cataloging Task Force 

TO:             UC Heads of Cataloging 

RE:             Distribution of CDL catalog records 

The SOPAG Electronic Resources Cataloging Task Force (TFER2) requests your  
assistance in planning for the future distribution of catalog records  
generated by a UC centralized cataloging agency (CCA) for electronic  
resources licensed by the California Digital Library (CDL).    The goal is  
to ensure representation of all CDL-licensed resources in MELVYL in a  
timely fashion and to make these records available to UC campuses for  
loading into their local online catalogs.  Cost models will be  
developed once a distribution model has been recommended.  

The CDL Cataloging Guidelines (Draft) have been completed and are now available for review and comment. We urge you and your staff to review the guidelines as soon as possible. The majority of the records for CDL-licensed resources will be created using the "single-record approach" recommended in the initial HOTS TFER report However, when no print record exists or when the nature or content of the print and electronic version differ substantially, separate records will be created. The Task Force has also suggested that complementary separate records for electronic resources be made available in the event a campus either prefers separate records for the print and electronic and/or cannot include single records representing multiple versions in their local catalog.

The Task Force is currently addressing record distribution options and  
workflows.  At the present time the CCA (yet to be determined) will be  
generating catalog records for CDL-licensed resources in the CCA's local  
online catalog.  Records will be exported from OCLC as necessary but if  
a catalog record for the print already exists in the CCA's local online  
catalog, that record will be used to include access information for the  
electronic version.   The Task Force agreed that it would be more  
efficient to catalog the CDL titles in a local catalog rather than on OCLC  
due to the ongoing maintenance associated with these titles.  

The catalog records will be forwarded from the CCA to the CDL for loading  
into MELVYL.   These records will also be available to campuses.  

METHOD OF RECORD DISTRIBUTION  

The Task Force recommends FTP as the preferred method of record  
distribution.   We assume that all campuses can retrieve files of records  
via FTP for potential loading into local online catalogs.  

1.  Would you please confirm that FTP is the preferred method for  
    retrieving files of records at your campus?   If not, what would be  
    the preferred method of receipt?  

    UCB:  Retrieval of files via FTP would be fine.  
    UCD:  FTP is the preferred method.  UCD has experience "getting" files  
          from remote FTP sites and successfully loading into local DRA  
          and Innopac systems.  
    UCI:  Yes  
    UCLA: UCLA retrieves its OCLC files using FTP; we assume that this  
          would also be our preferred method for CDL files.  
    UCR:  Yes, FTP will be fine for UCR  
    UCSD: UCSD can send and receive FTP files.  
    UCSF: FTP is preferred  
    UCSB: It is.  
    UCSC: Yes, that is the preferred method  

The Task Force recommends that each campus have a separate file from which  
to retrieve records from an FTP site (site yet to be determined).  
For example, UCD would retrieve a UCD file of CCA-generated records from  
the FTP site.  

2.  Would a separate campus specific file be preferable to retrieving a  
    complete file of CCA-generated CDL records and separating the records  
    at the campus level?  

    UCB:  UCB would prefer a campus specific file.  
    UCD:  Yes [prefer a separate campus specific file]  
    UCI:  Yes [prefer a separate campus specific file, subdivided by package]  
    UCLA: Yes [prefer a separate campus specific file]  
    UCR:  We're not clear on the benefit of having a separate  
          campus-specific file.  
    UCSD: A campus-specific file would certainly make our local processing work  
          easier, but we also could deal with a complete file if necessary.  
    UCSF: Yes. We are reading this to mean that the same file is used in  
          either case.  
    UCSB: Yes [prefer a separate campus specific file]  
    UCSC: Yes [prefer a separate campus specific file]  

3.  Would your campus prefer having the files divided by package, e.g.  
    JSTOR, rather than by campus?  

    UCB:  Either would be fine, although files divided by package could  
          prove useful.  
    UCD:  No, prefer file of UCD licensed titles  
    UCI:  Yes.  Couldn't we have both? Campus files subdivided by package?  
    UCLA: No  
    UCR:  Initially, I had responded that we'd prefer having files divided  
          by package, but we've talked a bit more here about it, and we  
          need to change our vote!  If the CCA is dealing with a package  
          to which all the UC libraries have access, like JSTOR or MUSE,  
          it seems reasonable to mount it as a single package for all  
          campuses to retrieve.  However, in the case of situations where  
          only some of the campuses are to have access, it  would be  
          much more convenient to have campus-specific files to pull, so  
          we don't have to sort out what we are allowed to access at our  
          end.  Given that we'd want campus-specific files at least some  
          of the time, it might be easier all round to do that as the  
          routine method of creating files for our retrieval.  
    UCSD: UCSD would prefer not to do this.  While the desire to have the initial  
          loads divided by package is understandable, in the long run for ongoing  
          maintenance it would mean more work.  Campuses would be retrieving  
          separate file containing only one or two corrected records, which would  
          not be very efficient to process.  
    UCSF: Package (We would prefer by package, or by package and campus.  
          Our least desirable choice would be campus only)  
    UCSB: Both, if possible.  Our Serials Dept. would find it very useful  
          to have the files divided by package.  
    UCSC: No, but we might like package AND campus  

Each campus will be responsible for picking up files from the FTP site  
in a timely manner.  

4.  Would weekly or monthly distribution of CCA-generated records be  
    acceptable to your campus?  

    UCB:  Weekly  
    UCD:  Would prefer weekly distribution but monthly acceptable  
    UCI:  We prefer weekly distribution.  We assume there would be a regular  
          schedule for making the FTP files available or that there would be a  
          notification system.  
    UCLA: Yes (might prefer weekly over monthly depending on the number of  
          records involved  
    UCR:  Monthly would be preferable for UCR.  
    UCSD: We would prefer weekly updates to improve the precision and accuracy of  
          our local catalog.  
    UCSF: Yes, but weekly preferred  
    UCSB: Monthly  
    UCSC: Yes, either one  

5.  There is a cost associated with retention of files of records on a  
    server.    How long would your campus need to have the records  
    retained on the FTP site before being deleted?   Would three  
    months or less be acceptable?  

    UCB:  No less than 2-3 months  
    UCD:  Yes, would not expect that to be a problem  
    UCI:  We prefer 2-3 months  
    UCLA: Three months would be acceptable; under normal circumstances  
          (i.e., when we are not in the midst of new system  
          implementation) a shorter period (one month?) would also be  
          acceptable.  
    UCR:  We would not need more than three months but two or three months  
          would be desirable  
    UCSD: Three months or less would be just fine.  
    UCSF: Yes, but less than one month not acceptable  
    UCSB: Two-three months is fine  
    UCSC: Yes  

RECORD FORMAT  

The records will be made available in standard USMARC format.  There  
may be extraneous CCA-specific data appearing in MARC 9xx fields that may  
need to be stripped off when loading into other campus catalogs.  

6.  Would your campus be able to process records that include extraneous  
    data appearing in MARC 9xx fields?  

    UCB:  Yes  
    UCD:  Yes  
    UCI:  We can remove these fields before adding them to our OPAC  
    UCLA: Yes, we anticipate being able to delete fields based on either  
          tag or content  
    UCR:  Yes  
    UCSD: Yes.  We expect to be able to suppress or delete fields as long as the  
          tag is unique.  
    UCSF: Yes and it may require paying for a table from ILS vendor  
          (Innovative Interfaces)  
    UCSB: Yes  
    UCSC: Probably.  Some 9xx fields cause other records to generate in  
          Innopac, but you probably know what those are  

RECORD CUSTOMIZATION  

A goal of the Task Force is to design an efficient and cost-effective  
mechanism for distribution of the CCA-generated catalog records.    To  
achieve this goal, the Task Force recommends that the record content for  
CCA-generated catalog records be the same for all campuses.  
Customization of output for campuses would increase the cost of  
CCA-generated records due the need for separate programming and processing  
routines.  

The CDL Cataloging Guidelines (which address the CDL TIER 1 and 2 titles)  
elaborate on the "Interim Guidelines for Online Versions of Serials"  
presented in the CONSER Cataloging Manual.     There are differences in  
the suggested wording of notes and CDL-specific fields.       The  
CDL-specific fields relate to the desire for enhanced subject access to  
electronic resources and links to the CDL Directory.    All CCA-generated  
CDL catalog records for biomedical electronic titles will include MESH and  
LCSH headings.    All CCA-generated CDL catalog records will include a  
locally devised genre heading (655 7  Online resources $2 local) to  
enhance retrieval on "online resources" in MELVYL.    Local subject  
headings derived from the CDL Directory vocabulary  
(http://www.cdlib.org/directory/ and select "all)  
will be present in the CDL catalog records (MARC field yet to be  
determined).   The Task Force expects at least some campuses will want to  
include the enhanced subject access in their local catalogs and will  
therefore not want these headings removed.  

7.  Would having the CDL-specific subject headings in your local catalog  
    be problematic? If so, why?  

    UCB:  No, we'd just ignore them  
    UCD:  No, if we can identify as such  
    UCI:  No, we don't think so at this time.  Would have to try it and see  
    UCLA: Yes, they would be problematic if we had to use them, but we  
          anticipate being able to delete them from records if we wish to  
          do so.  
    UCR:  This should not be too problematic, as we do anticipate review  
          of each title for addition of some local notes and can delete  
          whatever else we want to at that time  
    UCSD: We do not use the CDL Directory subject headings in our catalog and  
          would want to delete them upon load or suppress them.  This should not  
          be a problem if they are identified with unique tags.  
    UCSF: This new set of subject headings may confuse users.  They would  
          also cause redundant search retrieval.  We are presuming there  
          would be authority control by a CCA  
    UCSB: No. We would like them retained in separately defined fields for  
          keyword access  
    UCSC: No  

When copy cataloging, the CCA will leave existing call numbers in records  
but will not be required to add them if not present.  The CCA-generated  
call numbers in the CDL catalog records will not display in MELVYL.  The  
call numbers are being retained for possible future use in the  
organization of the CDL Directory.   Campuses may choose to include or  
delete call numbers.  

8.  Does your campus consider it critical to include the LC call number in  
    CCA-generated catalog records?  

    UCB:  We do not use LC call numbers for electronic resources  
    UCD:  Local procedures do call for adding for collection development  
          purposes.  But would not consider crucial  
    UCI:  No.  If we own the print, we'll need to protect the call no. field and  
          other selected fields from overlay.  
    UCLA: Yes, also NLM and in fact ALL existing call numbers that are in  
          the record  
    UCR:  No  
    UCSD: No.  UCSD does not classify its electronic resources.  The CCA may  
          include an LC call number in the bibliographic records, but we will not  
          use it locally.  
    UCSF: Yes, for monographs  
    UCSB: No, but we do not wish them removed if they are there  
    UCSC: No  

LOADING CCA GENERATED RECORDS INTO LOCAL CATALOGS  

The Task Force now asks you to address how your campus would use the  
CCA-generated records in your local catalog.    The primary advantage of a  
centralized source of cataloging data is that the intellectual activity  
associated with cataloging the CDL-licensed resources has been assigned to  
a single UC cataloging site rather than distributed to all campuses.  
How campuses make use of the CCA-generated records will be a campus  
decision based on local system load programs, cataloging practices, user  
needs, etc.  However, at the very least, the file of CCA-generated records  
should serve as a resource file from which records or data elements can be  
used to enhance access to the CDL-licensed resources in local campus  
catalogs.  

The Task Force recognizes that not all campuses may be able to  
successfully load and overlay existing catalog records with the  
CCA-generated catalog records that most often use the "single-record  
approach".     We ask that you give careful consideration as to how you  
will be able to use these records and incorporate them into your workflow.  

9.  Incoming records will include the OCLC control number as the most  
    reliable matching point.  If many of your records do not have OCLC  
    control numbers this may cause matching problems with machine matches.  
    Other matching points, e.g. ISSN, may be less reliable and therefore  
    problematic.  Comments?  

    UCB:  There must be no automatic loading of records for UCB.  Serials  
          Cataloging staff will need to receive and review records.  With  
          this in mind, this set of questions [9-13] would not pertain to  
          us since we do not wish to have any existing record  
          automatically changed.  There would need to be a manual review.  
    UCD:  Many UCD serial records do not have an OCLC control number.  We  
          do not plant to simply load and overlay them but do expect the  
          need for some manual intervention  
    UCI:  Irvine has many brief serial records (print) in its OPAC that are  
          without OCLC [numbers].  Currently, when we encounter a brief record for  
          print as we catalog the web version, we will catalog on OCLC.  This  
          allows us to upgrade the print record and attach print holdings, too.  
    UCLA: Most of our records include the OCLC control number.  We should  
          not have a matching problem is the OCLC control number is  
          included.  
    UCR:  Not anticipated as a problem for us, as we plan to use as a  
          resource file rather than directly overlaying, and with full  
          records in both our catalog and the incoming file, we should be  
          able to find appropriate matches  
    UCSD: All of our records for these types of materials include the OCLC  
          control  number.  
    UCSF: Isn't that the way it is now in Melvyl?  
    UCSB: See C. Nelson's comments.  We could not define a reliable match  
          point.  OCLC number does not work because we were an RLIN  
          library for many years.  We do not think ISSN is a good match  
          point.  See Berkeley's comments - we cannot overlay records and  
          some of these questions are N/A  
    UCSC: The OCLC number is still the most reliable matching point; so we  
          would just have to deal with non-matches in an ad-hoc fashion.  

10.  If records are loaded and overlay existing bibliographic records,  is  
     there local data, e.g. local notes, call numbers, etc., that will  
     need to be preserved and can that data be protected?  

    UCB:  See comment above  
    UCD:  Yes  
    UCI:  Yes, we will need to purchase a new load program from III to protect  
          selected fields such as call nos.  
    UCLA: Yes, and we believe that we can protect our local data with our  
          import program that is currently being tested  
    UCR:  There is such information and it cannot adequately protected, so  
          we are planning a manual review  
    UCSD: We would want to have a manual process for comparison and not allow a  
          machine to simply overlay the record with the same OCLC number.  There  
          well may be local editing we may want to preserve from the existing  
          (old) OCLC record.  
    UCSF: There is local data that needs to be protected and it cannot be  
          protected specifically.  We did a major overlay project recently  
          with DLA/CONSER records.  Innopac will only protect all subjects  
          or all notes.  Thus you either lose all local subjects/all local  
          notes or add subjects/notes from overlaying records thereby  
          duplicating LCSH and MESH.  This required considerable clean-up.  
    UCSB: N/A  
    UCSC: We will have to buy yet another loader for these records and  
          will be able to specify the fields we want to protect.  The call  
          number will be the most important one  

11.  Most of the CCA-generated records will be for print titles that may  
     have been cataloged or converted under earlier cataloging rules and  
     therefore the choice and form of entry will vary in your local  
     catalog.  Comments?  

    UCB:  See above  
    UCD:  Again, we will need to review and do expect some amount of  
          recataloging of the catalog records for the print due to title  
          changes and other variations in cataloging  
    UCI:  It could be a problem.  Since we have so many brief serial records,  
          there are likely to be many records that are added to the system as  
          duplicates.  We would have to compare each CCA record that loads  
          against our database.  
    UCLA: For records that will overlay existing bibliographic records, we  
          anticipate preserving the choice and form of entry found in our  
          records rather than using the CDL form.  For records that do not  
          overlay existing records, we hope that diagnostics produced in  
          the course of loading the records into our catalog would  
          identify conflicts in form of entry, enabling us to correct them  
    UCR:  We'll modify as we need to  
    UCSD: We expect that the records would for the most part match.  We use CONSER  
          records and would be surprised if the CCA chose other records for the  
          electronic versions.  
    UCSF: This would require some conversion and cleanup in the local  
          catalog as well as some remarking of materials on the shelf.  
    UCSB: N/A  
    UCSC: The choice of entry really doesn't make a lot of difference.  If  
          the form used matches a cross reference or is new to our  
          catalog, it will appear on a report and we'll deal with it.  

12.  The CCA-generated records will not include local bibliographic and/or  
     holdings information that will need to be added at the campus level.  

    UCB:  See above  
    UCD:  UCD will add following recommended guidelines  
    UCI:  Yes, we understand this and are prepared to do the work ourselves.  
    UCLA: Acknowledged  
    UCR:  Right. We have been putting info in $z about moving walls, for  
          instance: Connect to v.20(1945)-[Latest 5 years not available  
          online].  It would be helpful to have such information available  
          (as is common in JSTOR titles) so we don't have to check the  
          JSTOR file for it.  
    UCSD: We expect to use macros to add or move holdings information.  
    UCSF: This would require additional work.  
    UCSB: We would very much like holdings data retained in 9xx fields if  
          possible.  
    UCSC: That's all right.  

13.  Other considerations?  

    UCB:  See above  
    UCD:  No comment  
    UCI:  As our response to no. 9 implies, although we can receive files via FTP,  
          we are also motivated to upgrade brief records.  If we can catalog on  
          OCLC, it solves for us the issue of attaching our holdings to the print  
          record.  We will have to assess the workload to determine whether it is  
          better for us to accept CCA records or continue to use OCLC.  
    UCLA: Will there be a method for notification of records that should  
          be deleted from our local catalog (for example, CDL ceases to  
          hold a license to an electronic title) in addition to records  
          that should be added or modified?  Given what we have observed  
          in the licensing of electronic resources, we feel it is  
          important to have this notification.  
    UCR:  No comment  
    UCSD: No comment  
    UCSF: Not at this time  
    UCSB: No comment  
    UCSC: No comment  

The Task Force recommends the use of the "single-record approach" as  
detailed in the CDL Cataloging Guidelines.    However, the Task Force  
recognizes that some campuses may prefer separate catalog records for  
electronic resources to load into their local catalog.  

14.  Would your campus require separate catalog records?  

    UCB:  No  
    UCD:  Expect to follow TFER recommendation for single record  
    UCI:  No  
    UCLA: Not always, but we would like the option of using separate  
          catalog records (i.e., records that describe the electronic  
          version only) for materials where we do not have a print  
          subscription on campus.  
    UCR:  No, we like the single record approach  
    UCSD: No.  The UCSD public services staff has sent us a clear and strong  
          message in support of single records.  
    UCSF: Not unless the electronic resource is the only format and we do  
          not own or [is] significantly different from the paper  
    UCSB: Yes.  If they are not generated, we will produce them.  We  
          prefer them for users and generating them is more cost effective  
          than matching and editing print records in our local catalog.  
    UCSC: No. We have a strong preference for single records.  

15.  If so, would your campus want the separate records to complement the  
     CCA-generated records or would you prefer only files of separate  
     records?  

    UCB:  N/A  
    UCD:  N/A  
    UCI:  N/A  
    UCLA: See answer 14; we would want separate records in addition to the  
          "single-record-approach" records  
    UCR:  We would prefer the files of separate records be kept separate,  
          so we could retrieve the "single-record-approach" merged records  
          without including the "separate" records  
    UCSD: We believe that such local practices will greatly complicate maintenance  
          over time.  
    UCSF: We would prefer files of separate records to complement the  
          CCA-generated records.  
    UCSB: As a complement  
    UCSC: N/A  

Your input is essential to the successful development of an efficient and  
cost-effective method of distribution of catalog records for this new and  
important category of resources.  The Task Force asks that you forward  
your responses to Pat French <psfrench@UCDAVIS.EDU> by no later than  
MARCH 19.  

The Task Force looks forward to hearing from you soon.