Serials Cataloging Fun Group meeting minutes
January 18, 2008
10:00-11:00 am
Library Training Room
Recorder: Kate Garvey-Clasby
Present: Chin, Renee; Christean, Margaret; Cocks, M. Hanley; Culbertson, Becky; Deng, Shi; Garvey-Clasby, Kate (recorder); Ma, Bie-Hwa; O'Sullivan, Donal; Pulido-Casa, Virginia; Tarango, Adolfo (chair)
Announcements:
• Welcome to Bie-Hwa; this is her first SCFG meeting.
Discussion:
1. 793s
a. For international docs (Hanley)-- For international documents (documents from foreign countries or documents international in scope, e.g., from the World Bank). Do we want to add a subfield "p" to the 793 open access title hook that is already there?
Example: 793 0_ Open access resource; selected by the UC Libraries. $p International online journals.
These titles already have 690s "Electronic journals|xGovernment resources|xInternational." From an ACQ and CAT perspective, adding the |p is not considered necessary at this time as we already have 690s to collocate these items. Hanley will follow up with Sam Dunlap to see if it would be useful for subject bibliographers. If so, at that point we would decide on wording for the |p.
b. For journal analytics (Adolfo)-- We are increasingly being asked to catalog online monographs that are part of analyzed serial sets. It may be helpful to add a subfield "p" to the 793 in each mono record.
Example: 793 0_ JSTOR online journals. $p Journal of chemistry online monographs.
Though this wouldn't be especially helpful for patrons, since $p does not index in a title search, it would still work in a keyword search and would be helpful to us catalogers for maintenance and statistical purposes. We agreed to follow this policy if we have a serial record for the analytic and have decided to analyze the online monographs. The e-resources tracking page will be updated under package name to reflect the new 793 statements.
2. Using vendor info to update OCLC record (Renee)
Question: Do we need to have the print in hand to update the master print record in OCLC? If we do not own the print, would it be acceptable to use announcements from online aggregators (such as the one below) to update the master print record in OCLC?
Furthermore, do the CSR guidelines allow more wiggle-room for using surrogates and other sources for bibliographic description that previously required justification (e.g., use of unformatted >362s, recording former frequencies not required, title added entries, etc.)?
Discussion: Per Virginia, vendor information is often unreliable, and unless confirmation is forthcoming from the publisher regarding publication status, cataloging is not notified to formally close out a title. If we actually own an item in print and we see information online regarding publication status, we can notify Virginia and she will investigate further. If we do not own the print item, catalogers may use their best judgment as to information accuracy, and feel free to use question marks in updating CONSER record marc fields (e.g., 362, 310, 500, etc.) in the master print record, even when information cannot be verified by print copy.
3. Adding links for databases to serial records, should link be added to print and/or IR record? (Renee)
Sometimes, there are links for databases on composite serial records. For example, Commerce business daily (OCLC# 4506910) is a federal document and there is a link on the serial record for the online version which happens to be in database format: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS2835
Questions:
a. When the online version of a print serial is a database, should we catalog the online version on the print record? If no, are federal documents the exception to the rule? i.e., it is okay to add database links on serial composite records for federal documents as they often arrive this way from Marcive.
b. Our current SCP cataloging guidelines state that if we are adding a licensed electronic access (say, LexisNexis) to an existing record in Millennium and there exists an open access version, we should include it in the SCP record. If there is a database link for an open access resource (such as the fed doc above), do we want to include it with the SCP record? If no, should we recatalog it as an IR and distribute that record, even though the IR record will not have a link for the licensed access?
Discussion: If a licensed resource, and we have access to it online, we want to catalog the online version as a database and link print to online with a 776 field. We would not add 856 to print record as a rule, only per bibliographer request (and it should be an 856 42). Federal documents, however would be coded as 856 41.
If an open access resource, but selected by UCSD or SCP (this includes federal documents), we would want to catalog the integrating resource as a database also. We will check links in U.S. documents as they come to our attention, but will not check every link exhaustively. Becky will catalog databases for Cal Docs and Margaret for U.S. docs. Margaret will be able to use the GPO PURL already provided for by Marcive; if there isn't one we will request and use the native URL in the UCSD record and will wait to distribute SCP record until a GPO PURL is available. Becky will use PIDs in her records.
4. Links for open access content for licensed resources, when do we add, do we use BibPURLs? (Renee)
If you discover an open access point for a resource, while cataloging licensed access for that resource, what criteria do you use to decide whether to add the additional open access point? Related to this, when would you create a BibPURL for an open access resource? The CONSER PURL documentation only gives a general guideline: "... freely-available resources, excluding federal documents ..." so it's always been a little bit unclear where partial open access resources fall into this. For example, Investor's business daily (http://www.investors.com/), it appears that only current selected full text is freely available. Archives do not seem to be available.
Questions:
1. Is "current selected article text" enough to warrant adding such an access point as an open access resource to our local record and/or SCP record?
2. If yes, is this also enough to warrant creating a BibPURL to add to the master OCLC record?
3. Is there a hard-and-fast rule about how to quantify and qualify open access content? That is, how much full text needs to be freely available in order to make it worth our while to evaluate and catalog? (e.g., current articles, current issue, several vols., several years, etc.)
It varies by cataloger how we treat other URLs we find on OCLC records. Margaret reported that SCU adds only if full issues are freely available, even if only the latest issue is available. We agreed to leave it up to cataloger's judgment as to whether to go so far as to regularly evaluate other URLs on the record. We unanimously agreed to use a BibPURL if we do decide to add additional freely available resources to our catalog. Hanley sent us a link to a proxy anonymizer site, which may be able to help us determine if a resource is freely available to all, not just to UCSD. http://www.proxify.com
5. Update: MARC fields in check-in records
In order to test our serial records for the OCLC World Cat Local pilot project, we must have all holdings information in MARC format in order for Z39.50 conversion to work. This includes information in check-in records, which historically has not been entered in MARC. Stacy and Virginia are part of a group that will see to the conversion of our check-in data into MARC fields, as well as train staff here and at the branches for ongoing maintenance and new titles. This is not a proposal to convert our holdings to the NISO Z39.71 format. We'll continue to record our holdings as usual, except that we'll use MARC tag 866 _0 instead of the non-MARC "LIB HAS" tag.
6. Format change review-- Deferred
7. ALA report (Becky, Shi, Adolfo)
Becky will forward a report to us regarding progress toward an aggregator-neutral record for e-monographs. Adolfo reported that a monitoring group will be formed to evaluate the CONSER Standard Record. An interesting presentation he attended was "Alternative to RDA"; we will be forwarded some of the information from this session. More complete ALA reporting-out will be forthcoming at the ALA roundup.
8. CSR Q&A --None
9. Other
Robert Bremer from OCLC is working on a cleanup macro for new inputs. It will fix punctuations, misspellings, etc.
Next meeting:
February 15, 2008
10:00-11:00 am
Library Training Room
Recorder: Stacy Nelson