LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  December 1998

PCCLIST December 1998

Subject:

Access to Serials within Aggregator Databases

From:

John Riemer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:36:55 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines)

This message is being cross-posted to AUTOCAT, CONSRLST, LIBREF-L, PCCLIST &
SERIALST. Apologies for the duplication.

SURVEY ON PROVIDING ACCESS TO SERIAL TITLES WITHIN AGGREGATOR DATABASES


I. Purpose. To determine the need for access to journal titles in full text
aggregator databases, the most desired form of access, and the level of
willingness to cooperate on providing such access.

II. Background. A growing number of libraries are subscribing to various
aggregator databases, such as ABI/Inform, Lexis/Nexis, and UMI Proquest,
which contain the full text of thousands of electronic journals. In most (all?)
 cases, these journals have print equivalents. The databases vary in coverage
and in the format in which journals are presented within them. In many cases,
access is only provided at the article level, making it impossible to
describe the journal title according to traditional AACR2 methods.

In one sense, these databases are similar to microform sets, for which
librarians have collaborated in creating sets of records. However, in another
sense they are very different. While microform sets are stable, aggregator
databases are very dynamic. Titles are added and dropped with little
notification to the subscriber. It is even more challenging to pin down &
stay up with range of volumes available for a given title.

The CONSER Program first encountered the problem in the late 1980's with what
we called "mega" CD-ROMs discs that could contain up to 2000 titles. We
discussed ways in which to provide access but the fact that the title coverage
was so unstable kept us from taking any action. Now we are faced with the
online equivalent and we can no longer ignore the issue. The subject was
discussed at ALA in June 1998 and a small working group was formed to explore
the options and make recommendations to the Program for Cooperative
Cataloging's Policy Committee. The group is chaired by Ruth Haas (Harvard);
other members are John Riemer (Georgia), Jeanne Baker (Maryland), Karen
Calhoun (Cornell) and Jean Hirons (LC, ex officio). This group is seeking
advice from the library community on desired forms of access and ways in which
we can contribute to the effort to provide such access.

Results of this survey and possible action for CONSER will be addressed by
John Riemer, Karen Calhoun, and others at ALA's Cataloging Management
Discussion Group meeting in Philadelphia.

III. Methods of access.

III.1. Lists of titles on institutional web sites.

This is the method that many libraries have been using. While some seem to be
satisfied with this approach, others are finding the growing number of titles
unwieldy and are looking for more traditional access through the library's
OPAC.

III.2. CONSER single record approach.

This involves using the print (or CD-ROM) record to note the availability of
the online version. This method has been very widely used for a number of
electronic journals, particularly those that are print equivalents. The
drawbacks to this approach for aggregator databases are that the print may or
may not be held by the library and it would not be easy to use such records
for distributed record sets. The primary advantage is that it reduces the
number of records in the OPAC for any given journal title.

III.3. Separate records for titles in one or more databases

Having a separate record for the journal as contained in the database (or
multiple databases perhaps) is appealing in that the records could be
bought as sets. Whether or not such records could include more than one
database (using field 773 Host Item entry) is a matter for discussion. For
example, having a single "aggregator database" record on OCLC that
contained all databases would be desirable if OCLC could customize the
records for sale to individual libraries.

There are issues related to how to create such records since one cannot really
view the journal as an entity. However, since most titles exist in print, a
brief record could be created using the print record data and containing the
authoritative title, ISSN, coverage, and database in which it is contained.
If this approach is deemed most useful, CONSER could work on a standard set of
data elements to be used in these records.

OCLC currently has a couple of projects, WorldSets and CORC that result in the
creation of separate records. The latter can be based on the Dublin core but
does not involve the creation of metadata within the resource itself.

Publisher-supplied metadata within the resource that could be mined to create
a record is another source of separate records and worth exploring. Libraries
could collaborate with publishers in this effort.

III.4. 510-field approach.

This involves viewing the aggregator as an indexing and abstracting tool.
It would be more convenient to add fields to an existing record than to create
additional records. Coverage dates could be closed out as warranted.
As with the single-record technique, use of the 510 field(s) would presume
ownership of the print or other tangible equivalent; additional limitations are
the current 50-field limit and overall record length and complexity once that
barrier is removed. (The challenge of maintaining the existing 510 fields has
not yet been met either.)

III.5. Holdings records attached to print record.

For some institutions, the most desired approach may be to create a separate
holdings record attached to the print record indicating the availability and
coverage of the title in the database. This presumes that the print is held
and will be retained. It also seems to be a purely local option at the
moment.

IV. SURVEY (Deadline January 8, 1998)

***To respond to the survey interactively (the preferred method), please go to
http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/consersurvey.html
to complete and submit the form available there. Alternatively, you may fax
your responses to the questions below to John Riemer at (706)542-0591.
Please consult with your public/technical services colleagues in formulating a
response, and send just one survey from your institution. Thank you for your help.

IV. 1. Does your institution currently license full-text e-serials
via aggregators such as Lexis-Nexis, ABI/Inform, etc.?
      A. Yes
      B. No

IV.2. Which access method are you using now? (Check all appropriate)
     A. Lists of titles on web sites.
     B. Single record approach
     C. Separate records
     D. 510 field added to print record
     E. Holdings attached to print record
     F. None of the above
     G. Comments

IV.3. Which access method would you most like to employ in your
institution? (Check one item)
     A. Lists of titles on web sites.
     B. Single record approach
     C. Separate records
     D. 510 field added to print record
     E. Holdings attached to print record
     F. None of the above
     G. Comments

IV.4. My institution would be willing to: (Check all appropriate)
     A. Work with CONSER libraries to create and maintain sets of records
          using either the single or separate record approaches .
     B. Explore the possibility of working with publishers to create metadata
     C. Purchase sets of records
     D. Comments:

IV.5. Further comments or suggestions


John J. Riemer
Assistant Head of Cataloging
University of Georgia Libraries
Athens, GA 30602
(706)542-0591 voice
(706)542-4144 fax
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager