We would like to respond to the OhioLINK DMSC Report/Recommendations issued 5/5/00. We support the committee's work in identifying the advantages and disadvantages of the two cataloging options. We would like to see the final recommendations include additional information regarding impact on staffing and work flow, relation to national standards, ease of use, completeness and accuracy of descriptive information, complexity of screen displays, system support for extensive bib records and lengthy holdings displays, impact on interlibrary loan operations, and the use of this information for statistical purposes.
Below, are the advantages and disadvantages presented in the DMSC committee report on the use of the single record display and the multiple record display. As the single record approach is the recommendation of the DMSC committee, the advantages/disadvantages of both the single and the multiple record approaches have been consolidated into a discussion of the single approach. (Italicized print indicates material quoted from the report. OSUL concerns follow the points presented by the DMSC.
DMSC Recommendation for the Single record approach and discussion:
1. Advantage: Clear to user that the library owns/has access to both print and electronic versions of a title.
Disadvantage: Unable to provide more detailed information about each format owned, especially important if electronic version differs in some respects from the print.
This advantage is not explained and there are several interpretations. The most obvious interpretation is that the "Connect to web site" click-on box would immediately appear on the print bib. Actually, this advantage can just as easily exist in the separate bibs approach. There is no reason the 856 cannot be included also in the print bib. Each library can make this choice on their own without requiring that all OhioLINK libraries must use the single record approach.
The advantage listed also seems to indicate that bibliographic displays will be simpler and therefore, easier for the user to interpret. Our concern is that single displays will be more difficult for users to understand:
- Summary screen displays are more complex because the attached records for both media are combined into a single, more lengthy display. For many OhioLINK libraries this will not be a serious problem, but for the 9 separate libraries at OSU, this can cause much confusion. Example, A: single, print bib w/online
- In describing an electronic resource, a separate descriptive record for an electronic resource includes considerably more information than the few fields added to a print bib. For some types of users, the loss of information may be critical. Example, A: sep online bib(notice, in particular, the note about restrictions)
- Compressing the print and electronic version makes the single record very long and the finding of needed information very difficult. On OSCAR none of the added information displays until the user selects the MARC view. At the national level, several cataloging listservs have carried discussions detailing the potential confusion for users and catalogers of consulting lengthy single records where data in specific fields cannot readily be identified with a specific format. In some cases, notes referring to different formats may appear to have conflicting information. Example, A: single print bib, MARC (note, in particular, the two 362 fields. 362 0 required by CONSER standards; 362 1 required for online versions when both print and online versions "owned."
2. Advantage: Able to reflect all holdings for a title on a single bib record, regardless of format. Particularly valuable where a single run is held in multiple formats. Disadvantage: Requires addition of summary holdings statements for all versions (of serial titles) to reflect complete holdings, a significant expense for many libraries.
The holdings displays and/or the presentation of a library's holdings are not simpler:
- The same number of holdings entries exist; they simply point to a single record. Unless libraries build and maintain extensive lib has notes, the holdings of multiple formats can not be combined.
- Is the committee recommending that when a single run is held in multiple formats *all* formats be combined? While that advantage is stated, there is no recommendation to actually combine more than print and electronic. Would the committee also require microformat , aggregator versions, and print or electronic reproductions be consolidated onto a single record? That issue is not addressed.
- Maintaining print records for serials that have either ceased in print, or that the library no longer receives in print, is likely to confuse the user in regard to holdings. Again, extremely complex lib has notes would be required to alert the user that the electronic version continues e.g. LibHas: V.10 (1978)-14(1982); In main stacks; V.12- on WWW
3. Advantage: Benefits P-Circ operations if users don't request print versions of items that are held electronically
This advantage was not clear to us; we assume it means that more users would note the presence of the electronic version due to the click-on box on the print bib, thus reducing the volume of requests for the print copy. Again, for those libraries choosing to follow CONSER standards1, this note could be added to the print bib without preventing the inclusion of a separate bib for the e-version. In both cases, the initial browse screen will indicate: title(online) if the proper access points are included. The end result is transparent to the user.
Also:
- The library's symbol on a print bib for which we have ONLY electronic access will mislead others into thinking we have the print resource. And, alternatively, because we do not have a separate bib for the electronic version, no holdings will display on OCLC.
With this discussion of an advantage for P-Circ, is presented a much more serious concern for interlibrary lending in the single record environment:
- Because of multiple records on OCLC, the summary records are displayed for format and through the GMD, a patron can tell which format is represented. In the single record format, one will not be able to identify which format is represented without going into the record itself. This will have an enormous impact on ILL operations as users will not connect to the library's local catalog to investigate such details. More incorrect loan requests will be issued and more time will be spent researching and denying those requests. Over time this will negatively influence the reputation of the library as a resource sharing institution.
|
4. Advantage: Helps to eliminate problem of multiple hits (long browse screens) in catalogs.
But:
- Long records will be created instead
- Only those electronic serials that match the print formats exactly will meet the criteria for using a single bib.1 Many other electronic serials will have separate bibs because their version is less than/more than/different than the print. This will cause some level of confusion to users.
- Unless OhioLINK adopts a single record for all formats, records for other formats such as CD-ROMs and microforms will co-exist; this will cause some level of confusion to users. Example, A: single, s#1-2 (Note that "Journal of consumer marketing: c1983" represents both print and online formats)
|
5. Advantage: May help to eliminate need for original cataloging of electronic versions of materials.
Disadvantages: (1) Requires labor-intensive editing of print records to reflect electronic version, (2) Unable to bring in batches of records for new collections (such as netLibrary or ITKnowledge) because of need to ascertain existing print holdings, (3) In conflict with existing cataloging standards, which only allow for the use of a print record to represent electronic resources in limited circumstances when the print item is also owned.1
In terms of cataloging, we believe that the cost in terms of time spent will greatly increase by adopting the single record approach.
- It takes no less, perhaps more, time to edit the print bib than to download and copy-catalog an electronic bib from OCLC. In fact, in terms of original cataloging, it is simple to create a new record for the electronic resource based on the existing print version.
- For OSU to eliminate the 3,800 electronic bibs and move those holdings and notes to print bibs would be an enormous task and a great loss of information. Not including the need to download bibs for the print version, processing of each title would require at least 15 minutes per title if done by a well trained student. That is close to 1,000 hrs work or more than $5,000.00 in actual salary costs, plus system costs and OCLC costs.
- Consortial and national level databases (e.g. OCLC) will require more time to use due to the interpretation required of the varying and multiple forms of resource description contributed by member libraries. In effect copy-cataloging will become so complex that we will spend just as much time and use the same level cataloging expertise as original cataloging takes.
- It is simpler to catalog the electronic version as material directly accessed by the cataloger than one in print that may not be available to the cataloger
- It is simpler to maintain the records independently in the event the content of the digital version changes, veers from the print, or if the print version ceases
- Related to the point above, currently, many electronic serials are very similar as print versions. However, differences are appearing more frequently. As publishers begin to take advantage of hypertext languages and the multimedia opportunities of the Internet, print and electronic resources will diverge. At that point, for each title we must undo the Single bib and then create the Separate bib. Is this not redundant work?
- Deciding the point that the differences matter between electronic and print versions is not a trivial task. In module 31 of the CONSER Manual it is noted that the difference may or may not be readily evident to the cataloger. Our traditional policies that a different physical format signifies a different edition (i.e. which calls for a different record in the catalog) is an easily explainable difference for users. We can provide links between the records for different physical formats to show relationships.
Other issues and a look toward the future:
- An OCLC cataloging issues arises in updating and exporting OCLC copy to the local system. The problem is how to have the update remain in the OCLC record. The update will show only in the local system but no one outside the system will be able to know that someone has the e-version. To address this problem will require an OCLC enhance capability to be able to update other members' records and at the same time have your holding symbol display. Has this issue being discussed with OCLC?
- The DMSC recommendations suggest that the record for the print version be used for both the print and the electronic versions. Should the E-version become the primary version, as many expect, why are we retaining the print description as our primary description?
- We agree with the following statement: "The employment of separate records is consistent with the future of systems and of bibliographic control toward object- oriented design and is an approach that does not risk becoming obsolete in the future, requiring the wholesale revision of cataloging records" (taken from the University of California SOPAG Electronic Resources Cataloging Task Force Separate Records: the Minority View, prepared by Lynne Hayman)
- Some libraries and project collections (e.g. UCSB's Alexandria Project, whose collections reflect a great many "family" relationships) are using the 7xx Linking Entry Fields to provide alternative formats and versions. "One should expect the future of digital resources to represent many more such complex bibliographic relationships. Parent/child relations, etc., can be clearly delineated and accounted for in linking entry fields, while such relations and complexity make a confusing presentation in a single record." (UC SOPAG ... Minority report)
Summary
We would like to end with the following quotations which summarize, well, many of the concerns we've raised:
|
"A point to be made here is that in creating single records one is transferring complexity from many records to one record. Many works would require encyclopedia size bibliographic records if one includes all versions and formats in one single record. For example, a single bibliographic record for any play by Shakespeare, any familiar opera, etc., would require a lifetime of work in terms of cataloger hours. These bibliographic records could be incredibly complex, and difficult to edit or access. There would probably be little saved in terms of time or money in creating these single records since most bibliographic systems allow the instant creation of new versions which can be edited quickly to make new bibliographic records. These new records can be sorted quickly and accurately by format, date, publisher, etc., depending on the quality of the online system.
There is a trade off in terms of user convenience. For complex single records, one might lose detailed access such as the different translators of a translated work, different illustrators, different dates of publication, etc. I've been in situations in which librarians insisted different items be treated as the same, then later complaining because it was impossible to retrieve a specific item. And the technique of using one record to describe different versions was a dubious practice of card catalog days (to save on typing more catalog cards!), a practice probably dating back to early cataloging rules.
If vendors try to find solutions to these problems/trade-offs, it might involve creating more complex holdings records (which could show item level variations), or more complex search options. This could make local systems more difficult/complex to use, and hinder access rather than help." (E-mail message by Jin Ross to INTERCAT@oclc.org. Re: Single bib records for Internet Resources. Sun, 29 Mar 1998.)
"I believe that separate records are especially important in cooperative databases, as well as being easier to interpret. I think that if the library community could challenge systems vendors to work on this problem that we could enjoy the best of both the single record and multiple record approach." (Email message by Regina Reynolds to INTERCAT@oclc.org. Re: Single bib records for Internet Resources. Thursday, March 19, 1998)
1 In preparing this response, we encountered numerous interpretations of CONSER and LC policy regarding the issue of single/multiple bibs. On May 18, 2000 Trisha Davis and Tschera Connell spoke with Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program (NSDP) to get a clarification on CONSER and LC policy:
CONSER
- "For aggregations, CONSER allows (permits) using a single record for description for the print and electronic versions of the serial if the serials versions are the same (e.g. the publisher must be the same). In these cases a note (530) on the existence of the electronic version may be noted on the print version if the library has access to both the print and the electronic version."
- "The allowance of separate records is simply that. Libraries are encouraged to provide full description of these resources on separate records. Separate records are preferred by CONSER. The CONSER database is based on separate records." Reginia further expressed a certain amount of amazement that the popular perception of this policy is that CONSER has adopted the single record approach.
Library of Congress
- "LC is not doing much at all in terms of acquiring or cataloging electronic serials.
- However, they have acquired access to JSTOR and Project Muse titles
- They consider JSTOR titles to be reproductions (secondary publications, created after the original, from the original — scanned images). They have processed these titles as reproductions using a single record for the original and the reproduction.
- They consider Project Muse to be an example of simultaneous publishing. They have processed these titles using separate bibliographic records.
NSDP
- NSCP is assigning separate ISSNs to print and electronic versions of serials
Selected sources:
Calhoun, Karen and Bill Kara. "From Catalog to Gateway: Briefings from the CFFC: Aggregation or Aggravation? Optimizing Access to Full-Text Journal," ALCTS Online Newsletter, 11(Spring 2000). Available: http://www.ala.org/alcts/alcts_new/gateway_pap15.html [Accessed 5/18/2000]
CONSER Cataloging Manual: Module 31, Remote Access Computer File Serials . Rev. 09/10/99. Available from: http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/module31.html [Accessed 3/30/2000]
CONSER Draft Report on single vs. separate records: http://wwwtest.Library.ucla.edu/libraries/cataloging/sercat/conserwg
Reynolds, Regina. Email message to INTERCAT@oclc.org. Re: Single bib records for Internet Resources. Thursday, March 19, 1998
Reynolds, Regina. Phone conversation to Trisha Davis and Tschera Connell on CONSER and LC policies for cataloging print and electronic versions of serials (May 18, 2000).
Ross, Jim. E-mail message to INTERCAT@oclc.org. Re: Single bib records for Internet Resources. Sun, 29 Mar 1998
University of California. SOPAG Electronic Resources Cataloging Task Force. "Separate Records: the Minority View," prepared by Lynne Hayman. Available from: http://tpot/ucsd.edu/Cataloging/HotsElectronic/SOPAG/minority.htm [Accessed 5/18/2000]
|
|
