The Ohio State University

To evaluate the Single v. Separate options available to us and to recommend an OhioLINK policy, we recommend the following project:

1. The OhioLINK DMSC select a set of sample titles to be examined. This selection should represent real holdings in OhioLINK libraries and cover as many possible types and formats as possible.

Potential sample records:

• E-version SAME as print version; library holds both currently.
• E-version SAME as print version; library holds only E-version.
• E-version DIFFERENT/MORE THAN print version; library hold both currently.
• E-version DIFFERENT/MORE THAN print version; library holds E-version only.
• E-version LESS THAN print version; library holds both.
• E-version LESS THAN print version; library holds E-version only.

And any combination of above, such as:

• Library holds print & equivalent E-version & LESS THAN E-version.
• Library holds print & equivalent E-version & CD-ROM version backfiles.
• Library holds variant E-versions (current online access & Project Muse backfiles).
• Library holds backfiles of print, not current subscription & E-version.

And traditional title problems, such as:

• Single word titles
• Generic word titles
• Multiple title changes
• Merged titles
• Related titles

2. The Ohio State University Libraries will create separate bib records for each title selected in accordance with current Library of Congress and CONSER guidelines. Each decision outside the national standards will be documented; explanatory notes will be added as needed.

3. Another OhioLINK university library with significant electronic resources will create a single bib record for each title selected. As far as they exist, LC and CONSER guidelines will be followed. Each decision outside or beyond the national standards will be documented; explanatory notes will be added as needed.

4. For searching and evaluation purposes, DMSC announce the titles and their locations and ask users statewide to review them in terms of user needs. Users will be able to search and view these records *live* in all types of functions and displays. Potential questions for evaluation process:

• What was your initial reaction to each catalog?
• Did you have a strong preference for either practice? (Single v. Separate bibs?)
• On which database was browsing and searching easier?
• Which index displays were simpler to understand?
• Which record displays were clearer?
• Did you understand the holdings information?
• Could you readily identify the different versions of the title you searched for?
• What else interested/puzzled/annoyed you during your evaluation?

5. For holdings evaluation purposes, ask library staff statewide to review them in terms of holdings displays. It would appear that new forms of LibHas statements and holdings guidelines might be necessary to meet users needs.

6. For resource sharing purposes, we recommend that staff from interlibrary loan evaluate these titles and determine the impact on their services. When a single bib record represents both a tangible item and a remotely accessed one (which the library cannot deliver via ILL), it is more likely to cause confusion with respect to what is actually held and whether it is likely to be available for loan.

7. For consideration of the impact on cataloging and maintenance, we ask the two universities to project the number and type of staff hours needed to prepare these bibs. Each library could then extrapolate for their particular institution.

8. For consideration of impact on national standards and CONSER participation, ask the two libraries to outline situations in which their methodology diverges or conflicts.
We are both very interested in participating in such a test. Actual user responses would provide answers to many of the questions we have that were not answered by the Recommendations. With cooperation from a second institution, a statewide evaluation could be handled within a very short time frame. For example:

     Week 1     Design the questionnaire; select and build examples
     Week 2     Announce test sites and records; begin evaluation
     Week 3     Continue to collection data and comments; draft recommendations
     Week 4     Present initial draft for review and consideration

The key advantage of this approach allows a statewide consolidation of user opinions and tech services realities. This analysis will provide feedback on both approaches (Single and Separate) that can be used in the future for decision making by any OhioLINK library regarding the handling of monographic E-resources, web sites, etc. Hopefully this will result in unified policies across and state and simplify access to all materials.