OCLC Internet Cataloging Project Colloquium
Field Report
By Jackie Shieh
University of
Virginia Library
At the University of Virginia, the Library has made several decisions regarding Internet cataloging which may or may not be unique. The Computer Files Cataloging Committee hopes to share its decision making process in: (1) choosing SERIALS format instead of COMPUTER FILES format for cataloging Internet serial titles, (2) the entering sequence for 5XX note fields, and (3) the specifics of entering information for the electronic location and access on field 856.
The University of Virginia Library is a participant in OCLC's Internet Cataloging Project. The Library began cataloging electronic texts in 1992 and electronic journals in 1994, before standards for cataloging electronic materials were readily available. In April 1995, one of the catalogers attended a serials conference at which she was introduced to the evolving standards for serials cataloging. In addition to electronic texts and serials, the Library also catalogs monographs linked to the Library and university home pages and selected Web sites. The Library only catalogs Internet materials selected by the Library's collection development personnel.
In the process of this report, the Committee will share what it learned. Catalogers have been thrown at and forced to make compromises within the perimeters of its library's online system. To best serve the university patrons, catalogers are challenged to have open minds and flexible attitudes in applying national standards, surely not to cave in, jeopardizing their health in the process.
For the most part, the Committee kept at least three
criteria in mind when reviewing and resolving a problem:
users' needs, the perimeters of the library's online
system, and the applications of the national standards.
Three Topics
The following questions were raised: How often do patrons notice the different format used for presenting a bibliographic record? Which elements of a serial do they look for when the record is on the screen? In other words, what is the most important information they want from a search result?
The SERIALS format instead of COMPUTER FILES format was chosen to catalog Internet serials because the Library was already using this format for CD-ROM serials. In addition, the Library's online system for COMPUTER FILES at that time did not provide adequate record keeping to meet serials acquisitions' and patrons' needs on the serials control check-in records. By the Library's employing the SERIALS format for bibliographic records, Library patrons obtain a better understanding of what holdings are readily available. (Example I.)
***************************************************************************
Example I.
SERIALS FORMAT:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE Dissertation abstracts on disc [computer file]
PUBLISHED Ann Arbor, MI : University Microfilms International, 1986-
ISSUED Quarterly, cumulates.
-------------------------------- Location 1 -----------------------------
LOCATION Library CD-ROM Server
CALL NUMBER CF00 0011
OTHER INFO Ask library staff about access
CURRENT ISSUES 1993/1995::Sept.(V.53:7-56:3) <======[IN RED]
LIBRARY HAS 1861/1981
1982/1987
1988/1992
COMPUTER FILES FORMAT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE Dissertation abstracts on disc [computer file]
PUBLISHED Ann Arbor, MI : University Microfilms International, 1986-
---------------------------------- Location 1 ----------------------------
LOCATION Library CD-ROM Server
CALL NUMBER CF00 0011
OTHER INFO Ask library staff about access
LIBRARY HAS 1861/1981
1982/1987
1988/1992
************************************************************************
The decision on choosing SERIALS format over COMPUTER FILES format for cataloging Internet serials was not unique. In fact, CONSER has made the same decision. Even though, the University of Virginia Library is not a CONSER participating library, the Committee was comforted to know that a national consortium is available for advice and assistance.
It is important to enter note fields following the AACR2 Revised (AACR2R) standards into national databases, such as the OCLC Online Union Catalog. Nevertheless, how much time and attention ought to be taken to achieve the standards?
As the process proceeded, the Committee realized that the need of addressing the AACR2R standards was amiss by the technology industry. The Library's online system simply does not follow AACR2R standards. It has the mind of its own. (Example II.)
******************************************************************* Example II. OCLC: > 4 100 1 Austen, Jane, $d 1775-1817. < > 5 245 10 Persuasion $h [computer file] / $c Jane Austen. < > 6 256 Computer data (1 file : ca. 500 kilobytes). < > 7 260 Charlottesville, Va. : $b University of Virginia Library, $c 1994. < > 8 516 Text < <==========[IN RED] > 9 538 Mode of access: Internet. Host: etext.lib.virginia.edu < > 10 500 Prepared for the University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center. < > 11 500 Title from TEI header. < > 12 516 Conversion to TEI-conformant markup. < > 13 516 Tagging checked and parsed against uva.dtd. < > 14 516 All quotation marks retained as data. < VIRGO: 100:1 : |a Austen, Jane, d 1775-1817. 245:10: |a Persuasion |h [computer file] / |c Jane Austen. 256: : |a Computer data (1 file : ca. 500 kilobytes). 260: : |a Charlottesville, Va. : |b University of Virginia Library, |c 1994. 534/1: : |p Transcribed from: |a Austen, Jane. |t Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion / Jane Austen. 2nd ed. |c Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1926. |e xii, 310 p. : ill ; 21 cm. |f (The Novels of Jane Austen ; v. 5) <===[IN RED] 516/2: : |a Text 538/3: : |a Mode of access: Internet. Host: etext.lib.virginia.edu 500/4: : |a Prepared for the University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center. 500/5: : |a Title from TEI header. 500/6: : |a Available from: Oxford Text Archive. **************************************************************************
In example II, the very first 5XX note fields in OCLC's and the Library's online catalog, VIRGO, are indeed different. This bibliographic record was created on OCLC's system and downloaded to the local system.
So far, many libraries have already had horrendous experiences in migrating to a second generation online catalog. This summer, the University of Virginia Library is expecting to follow suit. The Library's new system, SIRSI's UNICORN treats 5XX note fields differently from the Library's current NOTIS system. New adventures and challenges await library staff!
From the example above, notice the bibliographic information in both MARC records. The information remains intact, no matter how the online system rearranges them. The fields are just not where they were originally input.
The questions then are: Can library patrons find what they need? A resounding, yes! They can! Were the catalogers successful in serving and meeting library patrons' requests? But, of course.
The University of Virginia is a tape loading library for OCLC. The online catalog then, version 5.1, did not provide alternatives for the addition or editing of field 856. Cataloging procedures had to be modified to fit what the local system mandated.
The Committee had had an overall understanding that the university community had already been connected and active in surfing the Internet. Faculty and students fervently embraced this new technology and became regular surfers on the Net. Netscape has been the standard Web browser for the university community since it was first introduced. The Library also offers classes regularly on teaching and researching on the Internet. As mentioned earlier, the Library is preparing its migration to a second generation online system this summer. All of these were factors which made bibliographic access to selected Internet materials important. The university's online catalog will provide full Internet access from the bibliographic records to the sites or texts directly.
It then became clear to the Computer File Cataloging Committee that the university research community would not benefit from the breakdown of the subfields for field 856. The breakdown of subfields on 856 neither clarifies nor facilitates access to them in getting the information they want. (Example III.)
******************************************************************* Example III. TITLE: CURRENT CITES 1) MARC: 538: : $a Mode of access: Internet via gopher. 516: : $a Electronic journal in ASCII text. 856:7 : $u gopher://gopher.cni.org:70/11/cniftp/pub/cc $2 gopher <== [IN RED] OPAC: Mode of access: Internet via gopher. URL: gopher://gopher.cni.org:70/11/cniftp/pub/cc <==== [IN RED] TYPE OF FILE: Electronic journal in ASCII text. 2) MARC: 538: : $a Mode of access: Internet via gopher. 516: : $a Electronic journal in ASCII text. 856:7 : $a gopher.cni.org $n Coalition for Networked Information, Washington, DC $p 70 $d /11/cniftp/pub/cc $u gopher://gopher.cni.org:70/11/cniftp/pub/cc $2 gopher <== [IN RED] OPAC: Mode of access: Internet via gopher. TYPE OF FILE: Electronic journal in ASCII text. ELECTRONIC ACCESS: DOMAIN NAME: gopher.cni.org NAME: Coalition for Networked Information Washington, DC PORT: 70 PATH: /11/cniftp/pub/cc URL: gopher://gopher.cni.org:70/11/cniftp/pub/cc ***********************************************************************
Applying only subfield 'u' for URL addresses, and limiting the usage of the remaining subfields, to 'm' for providing contacts information, and 'z' for very specific public notes regarding the site requirements, would best serve the University of Virginia community. Library patrons would simply highlight the labeled URL address, perform a 'copy and paste' function between various applications, and retrieve the desired information with little interruption, assuming the connectivity is valid.
In conclusion, reviewing and examining the options and standards given catalogers by the online system and the evolving national standards, the catalogers learned to be pro-active, innovative and creative. Catalogers do not expect to work with their hands tied, voices voided, and talents tarnished and unrecognized. A precious lesson for the cataloging community is: be flexible, open minded and above all, the unlikely attributes for catalogers: be aggressive but cautious, be involved, initiate changes, make things happen not only within the library community but also in the computer technology industry.
