Previous minutes available at: tscomm.htm

Table of Contents

1. Brief Announcements (all)
2. Cataloging Electronic Resources
3. Tables of Contents (Helmick, Diedrichs)
4. CORC Project (Diedrichs, Connell)
5. Cataloging Serial Titles in Aggregators (Davis)
6. URL Checker/Displays in the 856 (Helmick, Van Pulis)
7. Pinyin Conversion (El-Sherbini)
8. III Millennium Modules (Hamilton, Davis)
9. New MARC Fields (Van Pulis, El-Sherbini)
10. Analytics Working Group (Scott)
11. Next meeting

1. Identifying electronic resources (new location codes, scoping, possible subject headings)
2. Online entries for e-journals (JSTOR example) (Scott, Davis, Murphy)
3. CD-ROM Processing (El-Sherbini)
4. Indexing of data in 028 field (Green)
5. Duplicate Serial holdings where only one copy is analyzed (Scott)
6. Cat as Monos (El-Sherbini)
7. ICODE1 for Non-networked Reference Databases (Davis)
8. E-Resources Working Group (Davis, Scott)

1. Brief Announcements (all)

   
   

2. Cataloging Electronic Resources -- Single Versus Multiple Record Approach

   Summary: OhioLINK DMSC is considering the request from the OhioLINK Users Committee to move to a single record approach for cataloging electronic resources. OSU collection managers have also expressed interest in doing this locally.

   C. Diedrichs, T. Davis, M. El-Sherbini, and T. Connell prepared a draft document on the issues as seen by OSU (from the technical services perspective) and submitted that document to the OhioLINK Task Force on Enriched Records and the DMSC since the task force was considering the DMSC recommendation at its meeting on 5/22. The informal (and not yet released) minutes of that 5/22 meeting will be available at our 6/8 meeting.

   A summary of issues and recommendation that a pilot be done was made so that a better understanding of the issues could be reached before a final decision was made. We recognize that OSUL public services librarians have interest in a single record format and we do not wish to ignore that interest but simply explore the issues completely before a decision is reached.

   Expected outcome: Hear status report from N. Van Pulis on status of discussion at OhioLNK DMSC. Hear report from C. Diedrichs on discussion at Enriched Records Task force. Hear reports on public services forums. Determine next steps for addressing the issues locally.

   
   

3. Tables of Contents (Helmick, Diedrichs)

   Summary: The TOC project is now moving along -- after years of waiting, all of a sudden we have to make some decisions now that they are moving ahead! OSU will be the first local site to receive the TOCs from OhioLINK central so III and OhioLINK are working out the procedure for how to make this happen. III is going to do some testing on OSCAR. Here is one item that requires a decision and a couple other pieces of information. The indexing issue may be something for OSCAR Users and TSC. Sally Rogers does not know how soon III will need this information.
   
   

   1. INDEXING, AUTHORITY CONTROL:

      We are going to have to be able to tell III how to index the TOC fields. Do we want the author portion to be included in the author index (as it is in OhioLINK) or only in keyword (i.e. AVS) ? The reason why we might not want it to be in the author index is the lack of authority control capability on the TOCs -- no way to link to authority records and automatically update the way we can headings in bib records. In OhioLINK, there is no authority control anyway so it is of less concern there perhaps. Sally assumes the title portion will be in both the title index and AVS.

   2. FIELD GROUP:

      Jean at III asked Sally what INNOPAC field group tag to associate with the 970 fields. She suggested K (our NO OVERLAY field group) or v (LOCAL NOTE). Sally told her to use the latter. The only impact this will have is to allow the TOCs to be included in the public display on OSCAR she thinks. Her understanding from Jean is that regardless of the field group, TOCs will be protected from overlay. Sally thought it was better to use a field that has no special function for us since it did not seem to matter to Jean. (She said they do not want to use field group y -- the MARC group -- for some reason.)

   3. LOADING, UPDATING TOCs:

      This is under discussion but Sally expects OhioLINK is going to want to control the loads of TOCs to local sites rather than authorize someone at each of the sites to access the staff menu at OhioLINK in order to pull the TOCs down to the local system. Jean thought OSU would be getting about 120,000 TOCs -- 970 fields will be inserted into our existing bib records. Sally thinks we will need to have this done in batches because the process will involve a lot of indexing, which takes a lot of system resources. Jean thought it might be better to wait until AVS has been implemented before we load. She will be testing with the current situation where we have both the original keyword and the AVS indexes on the system so she will have a chance to see the impact of this.

   Expected outcome: Review issues and determine any decisions needed.

   
   

4. CORC Project (Diedrichs, Connell)

   Summary: The end of the test project using OCLC's CORC system will occur in June.

   Expected outcome: Hear report on current status and project report.

   
   

5. Cataloging Serial Titles in Aggregators (Davis)

   Summary: Collection managers have expressed considerable interest in providing access to the serial titles which appear in full text within services (such as aggregators). At present, these titles are not represented in OSCAR and thus, it is not readily apparent that we have all or parrts of these titles in full text. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging's Serial Aggregator Task Force has issued its final report which is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/aggfinal.html.

   OhioLINK has recently purchased and is making available a set of brief records for the Lexis- Nexis Academic Universe. These will also be updated quarterly.

   Expected outcome: Consider what we know about this process and the records available from OhioLINK. Determine whether these should be added to the OSU catalog.

   
   

6. URL Checker/Displays in the 856 (Helmick)

   Summary: Two questions were raised at the 8/20 meeting. A third question was raised about maintenance of broken URLs.
   
   

   1. Are there any plans for using a URL checker for links on the Library's home page? Carol Diedrichs will forward that question to the IT Committee.

   2. Should we issue an enhancement request to II for display of subfield 3 in the 856 display? Sally will first review release 12 before deciding whether the enhancement is addressed by that release.
   Release 2000 included an optional URL checker. However, III has bundled the URL checker into a product that we do not need; that product is priced at $10,000. S. Rogers has sent a message to III about whether the URL checker can be acquired independently for a lower cost; III is considering the issue.

   Nancy Helmick advised the group that many III users are unhappy with III's decision to bundle the URL checker with a product that is not in heavy demand. We will continue to advocate for the availability of the option separate from the current product.

   1. Steve Westman is working on a way to do URL checking of titles in OSCAR with an 856 field. Once Steve identifies a process, he will work with technical services to determine how the review and correction of these broken links might be handled.

   2. A status report from Sally was received 5/8/00. T. Davis was asked to evaluate that response for the 6/8 meeting.
   
   New issue: N. Van Pulis forwarded the following message about an enhancement to the display of URLs for the central catalog (INN-REACH systems):

   Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:51:02 -0700
   Reply-To: libodms@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
   Sender: owner-libodms@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
   X-PH: V4.4@orb3
   From: Noelle Van Pulis
   To: libodms@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
   Subject: 856 item record [Enhancement list ready for review]
   X-Sender: nvanpuli@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Unverified)
   X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)

   TO: TSC

   The link below (from within the message below) connects to the enhancement list that includes the 856 in item records, including results of discussion on May 1 at IUG. It is in the section on "Online Catalog and Cataloging" that follows the section on "Patron Online Borrowing":

   http://libweb.uoregon.edu/orbis/staffhome/enhance_req,2000may.htm

   I could not get the link to open the document by clicking on it, I had to cut'n'paste it.

   What is DONE is that the 856 can be included in an item record (although exactly HOW is not explained here). The display of the data is still IN DEVELOPMENT.

   Within the web page, near the beginning, is a link to a "Final List" of enhancement requests. Here is that link:

   http://libweb.uoregon.edu/orbis/staffhome/enhance_req,2000-final.htm

   For your convenience, here is the text from the first web page, which is labeled CAT3a and CAT3b:

   
   

   Institutional-level URL links (856)

   Allow URL hotlinks to be handled at the "item level" so that different URLs may be displayed from the master record in PAC.

   Make URL's (856 fields) a valid field in item, check-in (and order?) records as well as bibliographic records -- to clarify for patrons that access to electronic resources may vary at the institutional level.

   We urge III to work with the INN-Reach group on options and features as this is being developed.

   III response for 3a and 3b: III has started a 3-step development plan to store 856 fields in bib., item, and serial issue records. (1) Allow 856 fields in item records DONE. (2) Display 856 fields from institution records (INN-Reach systems) In development. (3) How to upload from local sites.

   If any of you have additional comments, please send them by Tuesday morning, and I'll prepare a combined response later that afternoon.

   --Noelle

   ---

   
   

   Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
   From: Nancy Nathanson
   Subject: Enhancement list ready for review
   To: "Email list for III inn-reach customers"
   Cc: NNATHANS@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU

   ** INN-Reach enhancement requests **

   I have two documents for your review:
   
   

   1. The enhancement list that we used for discussion at the IUG meeting May 1, annotated and amended.

   2. A final list of enhancement requests to submit to III. This list omits everything that we crossed off because the idea is already in development, being forwarded or should be forwarded for inclusion in "regular" process for INNOPAC enhancements, or no longer being requested.

   Please let me know what you think. After I hear from you, I'll make any additional changes, remove the "DRAFT" bar, and send a new message to the list -- then we can consider it ready to share broadly with all interested parties and send to III. Okay?

   Nancy N., Orbis

   -------------------------------------------------------------
   Nancy Nathanson, Orbis Coordinator
   nnathans@oregon.uoregon.edu phone: (541)346-1860
   --------------------------------------------------------------

   Expected outcome: hear status report and review new issue.

   
   

7. Pinyin Conversion (El-Sherbini)

   Summary: The Pinyin Conversion Project is an effort to convert romanized Chinese data from the Wade-Giles to Pinyin romanization schemes. Pinyin is a system for writing the Chinese language in the Latin alphabet. It is used throughout the world, including by the United States government and by the news media. Most users of American libraries today are familiar with the pinyin romanization of Chinese names and places, and providing access to the Chinese language with that system will make it easier for them to locate material. The use of pinyin romanization by libraries should also facilitate the exchange of data with libraries internationally. In order to change to pinyin, the Library of Congress (and other libraries such as OSU) will have to convert existing files so that the Librarys database will reflect the new standard.

   The Research Libraries Group (RLG) will convert all Library of Congress Chinese language bibliographic records that reside in the RLIN database. RLG has supplied LC with lists of book and non-book material appearing on RLIN. LC will then compare these results with lists of Chinese records in its own database, identify records that are not on RLIN, and move them there. OCLC will also convert its database and files. RLG plans to convert Chinese records in its database beginning in spring 2000.

   A current timeline for the project for LC is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin/timeline.html.

   The III record was updated in April to provide space in the record for the "marker" that will identify records which have been converted.

   C. Diedrichs has charged a small OSUL Pinyin Working Group to evaluate the status of the national Pinyin conversion process (conversion from one transliteration scheme to another) and recommend a course of action for the OSU Libraries. The group will review options and consider local issues in recommending a timeline for the start of cataloging in Pinyin at the OSU Libraries (Day 2) which the CEAL Pinyin Liaison Group recommends be no later than April 1, 2001. In addition, they will Identify and provide a cost estimate for contract services which must be pursued for the conversion of local records. The members of the working group are Magda El-Sherbini, Guoqing Li, Sally Rogers, and Hee-sook Shin. Magda will convene the group. An interim report should be provided to Gay Dannelly and Carol Diedrichs by August 31, 2000, followed by a final report no later than October 31, 2000.

   Expected outcome: Hear report from Cataloging.

   
   

8. III Millennium Modules (Hamilton, Davis)

   Summary: The Libraries has purchased the III Millenium modules including Acquisitions, Serials and Circulation. We have targeted summer 2000 as a possible date for implementation but no specific plans have been made. This issue has been turned over to Marsha Hamilton and Trisha Davis for investigation since the modules to be implemented will have the most impact on their areas. After additional information is determined, that should be shared with the TSC in particular the Health Sciences, Law and Regional Campus Libraries.

   Lynne Branche Brown (III) gave demos of the Millennium Acquisitions and Serials Modules on Friday, May 12 in the morning. Millennium Circulation was demonstrated that afternoon.

   Expected outcome: Hear report from Marsha and Trisha.

   
   

9. New MARC Fields (El-Sherbini, Van Pulis)

   Summary: Innovative has begun to receive inquiries about how the INNOPAC software will handle a series of new MARC fields in Library of Congress and National Library of Medicine (MeSH) subject authority records: form/genre subject 155), subject subdivision (18X), and heading linking entry (7XX). Tech Bulletin 227 from OCLC includes some minor changes in the MARC fields. H. Thomas will review those and send a message to the committee. We may also need to determine if these create any problems in Felix if they are used. the committee received a report from H. Thomas on this via e-mail. Some changes need to be made before ongoing authority control begins. Most of these will be referred to N. Van Pulis. There are a few issues which will affect the public display. H. Thomas will indicate what these are for the User Committee to consider. With H. Thomas' resignation, N. Van Pulis and M. El-Sherbini will assume responsibility for this issue.

   Expected Outcome: Refer issue to Users Committee when N. Van Pulis and M. El-Sherbini provide information.

   
   

10. Analytics Working Group (Scott)

    Summary: A working group on analytics was appointed to investigate issues related to analytics including should all cataloging locations be expected to treat a given title in the same fashion. Mary discussed with public services the issue of whether all cataloging locations should be expected to treat a given title in the same fashion. Public Services recommends that if one location wants the title analyzed, then everyone's copy should be analyzed. There are still lingering issues where a location has individual volumes cataloged as monographs with unique call numbers rather than serial call numbers. The working group (Britton, Van Pulis, and Scott) will develop examples and experiment with displays so that a draft recommendation can be sent to Users.

    Expected Outcome: Hear report for working group.

    
    

11. Next meeting

    
    

1. Identifying electronic resources (new location codes, scoping, possible subject headings) (Rogers, Scott)

   Summary: The issue of using a scope to identify electronic journals is now in process. We need to discuss this aspect of the issue so this project can proceed. M. Scott has also raised the question of whether we should consider adding a local subject heading which would allow electronic journals to be located within broad subject areas.

   IT has determined that this approach a separate location code for various servers is not needed. However, TSC did agree to a new location code for electronic full text journals WWJ

   Sally will flip the electronic full text journals to WWJ (location code). Any titles which are not full text will be reviewed by her to determine whether they fit the definition. If problems arise, she will refer those to TSC for discussion.

   Expected outcome: The issues have been referred to the Electronic Resources Subgroup.

   
   

2. Online entries for e-journals (JSTOR example) (Scott, Davis, Murphy)

   Summary: We have a situation where the uniform title for an electronic journal is misleading to the public (or at least difficult to understand). Is there anything that can be done to improve this display?

   Expected outcome: The issues have been referred to the Electronic Resources Subgroup.

   
   

3. CD-ROM Processing (El-Sherbini)

   Summary: Mary Scott has raised questions about the use of the volume identifier for CD-ROMs. National cataloging policy does govern this issue and our implementation of it.

   After extended discussion, there seem to be three options:

   1. Use a location code for CD-ROMs for locations which house these in a physically separate place.
   2. Add a volume identifier for all CD-ROM even where that varies from national standards
   3. Add a 500 note which indicates that the piece is a CD-ROM. Add the note so that whenever possible this note appears on the first page of the system display.
   The committee decided to put forward options 1 and 3 above for discussion at Users Committee. Option no. 2 violates national standards and thus is less desirable if an acceptable alternative can be found.

   Expected Outcome: Review discussion from Users and determine next steps.

   
   

4. Indexing of data in 028 field (Green)

   Summary: The Music/Dance Library is interested in finding some way to close our card shelflist of record/CD manufacturer numbers and use 028 "music number" data to control our inventories of sound recordings. Currently we need to search our publisher/number card index when we are ordering new CDs or processing gifts to avoid adding duplicates to the collection. The full 028 "publisher/music number" is the functional equivalent of an ISBN for sound recordings, and is a necessary element in sound recording purchase orders. Unfortunately when OSCAR was first set up, a decision was made to retain only |a of 028 (the number value) and not to retain |b (publisher name) when records are imported into OSCAR/FELIX. Therefore when we search the "OTHER NUMBER" index, we cannot browse the numbers with their associated "publisher" (name of record label). Reindexing the "OTHER NUMBER" index is not an option since 028 |b data was not retained. However, 028 |b is essentially identical to 260 |b. This means we have two possible options to explore:

   1. Add an initial search option on PUBLISHER (260 |b), with alternate display option for "music number [028 |a] and title."

   2. Add a new alternate display option on the "OTHER NUMBER" index for publisher name. The current alternate display options are:
      • D> Display title and author
      • C> Display title and call #
   We suggest adding a third alternate display option for the OTHER NUMBER index:
   • B> Display publisher
   If III software limits us to two alternate displays per index, perhaps option C> could be eliminated as an option for OTHER NUMBER index searches and replaced by the "Display publisher" option.

   Browsing 028 publisher numbers with their matching publisher name is necessary for two reasons:

   1. Many publishers use similar numbering systems, e.g., "028|a CD 572"

   2. OSCAR does not ignore spacing, and treats punctuation as spaces. Therefore, several variations of searches are usually necessary since the entry of the 028 |a spacing and punctuation.
   I am certain that music librarians around the state would be in favor of developing a better system of publisher/number 028 searching. When we have identified a possible solution to this problem, we are willing to post the refined proposal for comments on the statewide listserve for OhioLINK Music Librarians.

   At the April 9 meeting, the committee favored the approach of the option for searching by publisher. Some of the other options were not feasible with the limitations of III. Alan Green was to revise the proposal and distribute to TSC. Carol Diedrichs will then forward the proposal to Users Committee for consideration.

   Expected Outcome: Carol Diedrichs will check with Users and Alan Green about the status of proposal and discussion with Users Committee.

   
   

5. Duplicate Serial holdings where only one copy is analyzed (Scott)

   Summary: There are a number of duplicate serial holdings in the system where only one copy is analyzed. The title that came up is:

   
   B12429132                 BIBLIOGRAPHIC Information
   LANG: eng          LOCATION: multi    BIB LVL: s         BCODE3: z
   SKIP: 0            CAT DATE: 03-16-94 MAT TYPE: s        COUNTRY: nyu
   CALL #       QP601 .C47
   TITLE        Methods in enzymology
   IMPRINT      New York, Academic Press
   DESCRIPT'N   v. ill. 24 cm
   
   MARC         LABELING:VOL(+PT IF NEEDED)---ANYL[VC890713]$$ &vc840501
   
                         Summary of Attached Records
   CHECKIN 0001 > LOC: hea; COPY=c.3; ID=v246-; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is
   current,
   CHECKIN 0002 > LOC: hea; COPY=c.11; ID=LibHas
   CHECKIN 0003 > LOC: hea; COPY=c.11; ID=LibHas
   CHECKIN 0004 > LOC: sel; COPY=C.1; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49
   boxes,
   CHECKIN 0005 > LOC: agi; COPY=C.2; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49
   boxes,
   CHECKIN 0006 > LOC: bpl; COPY=C.4; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49
   boxes,
   CHECKIN 0007 > LOC: vet; COPY=C.6; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49
   boxes,
   

   Only the Copy in BPL is being analyzed, but there are 5 currently received copies in the system. The question came up because it is confusing to patrons in VET and SEL when they find the BPL copy and request it, not realizing that the VET or the SEL copy is on the shelf and all they have to do it pick it.

   Apparently the current policy is to do analytics only for the location that makes the original request. I personally think the policy should be to provide linking for all copies no matter where they are located if a title is identified as important enough to be analyzed. We have enough problem with patrons requesting OhioLINK copies of unanalyzed serials we own without continuing the same problem on campus. A small working group composed of Mary Scott, Noelle Van Pulis, Barbara Van Brimmer, and Connie Britton has been appointed.

   Expected outcome: Hear report from working group.

   
   

6. Cat as Monos (El-Sherbini)

   Proposal for the cat-as-mono series records.

   Problem: The CAT-AS-MONO (CAM) series records often are brief bibs. Usually, only order and check-in records are attached. The CAM brief bib records contain very little information and it is necessary to go to the order or check-in records to clearly identify the series and the treatment. The CAM bib is a shared record, used by acquisitions and cataloging for the same, related or different purposes during processing or problem-solving. Also, to identify which titles are treated as CAM, it is necessary to do a boolean to collect records based on a note in the attached order record, which uses significant system resources.

   Expected Outcome: Review recommendation and determine next steps.

   Recommendation:

   • Part 1:
     • Add "CAT-AS-MONO" as the call number in the series bib, in field 099. This is searchable in Search mode or Update mode. The result is an alphabetic list of titles. Further, in Search mode the search can be Limited by location, which could be useful to collection managers or others who would need to scan a list of titles which have this treatment for a particular location. A boolean is not necessary to collect all or some titles. (However, a boolean would be needed if sorting or other work was needed on the resulting file.)

     • Possibly discontinue use of "CAT-AS-MONO" note in the order record. Main Library and HEA use different notes (CAT-AS-MONO and CAM).

     • Retain other characteristics of the series bib: e.g. CAT DATE is blank, usually no item record attached.

   • Part 2:
     • When a full bib is available from OCLC, overlay the short series bib. This fuller record provides additional identifying information, perhaps including series/serial title changes.

   Advantages:
   • The treatment of the series is immediately visible in the 099 as call number. The series with this treatment can be easily collected by any OSCAR staff user in search or update mode (including ability to limit by location in Search mode). A boolean is simplified because only one element is required (not bib plus order records) and the call number is standardized.

   • The fuller bib provides additional identifying information, and can carry title changes, etc.

   • The update of the records can be done only as the records are otherwise worked on or can be a special student project to be done as time permits (low priority).

   Disadvantage:

   • Time to update bibs with 099 call number, import full bib if available
7. ICODE1 for Non-networked Reference Databases (Davis)

   Summary: P. Pearson has developed a list of reference/citation databases which are available to patrons but are not accessible on the network. These databases will be made available in a boolean file to the public. What needs to be done to make this information useful?

   The list from P. Pearson needs to be reviewed and cleaned-up. We need to notify collection managers about how future purchases or gifts in these categories need to be submitted to technical services so that they will be processed and appear in this boolean file. We also need a definition about what type of material is to be included in the file. The decision was also made to add an item record for these products (which are physical pieces usually) and code them with ICODE1 = 6 (non-networked databases). What this boolean is for and how it should be defined has been referred by the Steering Committee to the Users Committee. Once that is determined, technical services can proceed to catalog and clean up these records and establish a process for new titles to be coded for inclusion in the boolean. T. Davis will investigate the questions above and draft a document for review by the committee (after Users Committee has defined). Users has completed its survey and P. Pearson is developing some sample records for further review.

   C. Diedrichs received the following message from Penny Pearson on 7/20/99:

   "If we use the ICODE1 value 6 to identify titles to identify titles to be handled in this way I assume one of the next steps is for Tech Services to issue a policy memo. Some of the issues I've identified which should be included are:

   1. Update item records for non-networked electronic resources to ICODE1 value 6 so they can be identified via an OSCAR boolean.
   2. A policy that at least one item record needs to be created for non-networked electronic resources and who is responsible for creating that item record. Most of these non-networked electronic resources are CD-ROMs and an item record is created automatically. But BUS has several Internet resources that are available only from BUS, so we are defining them as non-networked since they can't be accessed from any other location. For those titles no item records were created and now one item record for each title is needed in order to collect these titles in the boolean I'll be doing on ICODE1 = 6. Teri Hagerman asked me about several titles for which Chuck Popovich requested that item records be created; she wanted to know why an item record was needed and why a summary statement wasn't an acceptable alternative. I explained this project to her. Other than those few BUS titles I don't know of any other existing titles that fit this mold, but the fact that an item record must be created should probably be included in any policy statement.

      I can write up a description of this non-networked electronic resources project if you want to include such a description in a policy statement. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist or any other information you need from me."

   
   It is still not clear to us what the definition of "non-networked" is. The Electronic Resources Working Group will define the term as they are aware of it and propose that to the Users Committee. SER will also develop a procedure for applying the appropriate codes to make this project work.

   Penny Pearson provided an update on this topic via e-mail subsequent to the meeting (10/15/99). That text is as follows:

   "This project is now in my hands and is temporarily delayed because we haven't determined yet how to provide this information on the OSUL web site.

   1. Items to be coded with ICODE1=6 — The public services librarians agreed that this ICODE1 value would be used for non-networked materials such as periodical indexes/abstracting services and full-text reference resources, but not things such as CDs that come with a book. However since the item records will be updated by location staff there's no way to prevent them from using ICODE1=6 for items such as CDs that come with books. I think if we find that a location is using the ICODE1= 6 value in a way we hadn't intended we'll have to remind them.

   2. How to provide a list for non-networked databasesfor the public — I proposed to the public service librarians that I run a boolean to collect bib records that have item records with ICODE1=6 and this list be linked to from the By Subject and By Title lists of databases on our web site. The public services librarians didn't like this approach because the patron doesn't care whether a database is networked or non-networked and wouldn't think to look at a separate list -- and I have to agree with them.

      The public services librarians would prefer to have these titles listed in the By Subject and By Title html pages. Gay doesn't want to do this because of the maintenance of those pages. We postponed the whole project until Stephen Westman started. One option is for him to create a database that creates the html pages for our web site on-the-fly. This is an idea Karen had but never had the time to do. Stephen could include the non-networked databases in this database he creates. I discussed this project briefly with Stephen so he's aware of it. He said it would be possible to write a script that compares the results of my boolean with his database so new additions and deletions could be identified easily. I think this project is a lower priority. Let me know if you need more information/details."

   Outcome: This will be moved to the pending list until its priority is changed.

   
   8. E-Resources Working Group (Davis, Scott)

   Summary: A working group on e-resources was appointed to investigate a series of issues related to the cataloging and public display of electronic resources. The working group presented two proposals at the 6/3 meeting: Cataloging Web Sites on OSCAR and Providing OSCAR Records for Titles Contained in a Aggregated Database (such as Periodicals Abstracts). There was considerable discussion of both of these issues. Although the proposals were approved with revisions at the meeting for further discussion with public services, subsequent discussion occurred after the meeting. As a result, Carol Diedrichs referred both of these proposals back to the working group for further discussion.

   Expected Outcome: Hear report from working group.

   
   
   

   

   
   

   Document last revised: 6/22/06
   Return to TSC Menu of Agendas and Minutes
   
   BACK TO TOP