| USMAI Consortium of Libraries |
| University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions |
The Challenge
The USMAI implementation of Aleph and the introduction of SFX/Metalib functionality have presented the USMAI consortium and its member institutions with important opportunities to examine the place of electronic resources in the catalog. Local practices for providing access to records and information about a variety of electronic resources indicate differing approaches and philosophies for treating information in electronic formats. These resources include online databases, cover-to-cover full-text journals, e-books and e-book aggregators, patents, government documents, and digitized collections.
Fundamental questions about the role of the catalog as portal, the role of the USMAI’s Research Port as portal, and fit between specific resources and the tools used to identify and access them resulted in establishment of the ERIC Task Force to review all aspects of this complex issue, and to make recommendations. Some of the questions and issues that the Task Force has examined include:
- What electronic resources do users expect or want to see represented in the catalog or in Research Port?
- In what ways can the symbiotic relationship between Research Port and the catalog be enhanced in order to guarantee that users exploit available licensed resources to their full potential?
- What role will Research Port play as a portal for electronic resources?
- What role will the catalog play as a portal, and how can the catalog provide access to information about electronic resources so that the integrity and maintenance of the catalog can be maintained given current staffing and resources?
- Which tools provide the best opportunities for resource discovery by maintaining both precision in locating known resources and recall of information relevant to the user’s search (serendipitous discovery).
- What technical mechanisms are needed to provide appropriate authorization, updating, URL checking, etc., in Research Port or the catalog?
Within the limits of our charge, the Task Force has examined some of these issues through the use of campus surveys, outside readings, an open forum, and discussion. Our initial plan focused on presenting a number of options, outlining recommendations for the short-term, and articulating long-term goals that focus on the bigger picture of access to the range of print, nonprint and electronic resources available to USMAI patrons.
Task Force Work Overview
The Task Force began work in February 2004. An initial campus survey on current practices regarding representation of electronic resources in the catalog was sent soon thereafter. Results from this first survey led to the articulation of three possible options for dealing with e-resources in the catalog (see explication below).
Furthermore, one issue that has surfaced repeatedly throughout the work of the Task Force is the challenge of displaying multiple formats for the same title in the catalog. In accordance with current national standards, some campuses have separate records for print and electronic versions of the same title, while others have a single record for multiple versions. The Cataloging Policy Committee of DLM prepared two documents that outline possible solutions to this problem, and the Task Force focused on the proposed option to include some of our electronic resources in the catalog. A maintenance subcommittee produced a report, and the ERIC web site was created in order to provide library staff with background materials.
The ERIC Task Force considered the following options for electronic resources in the catalog: no electronic resources in the catalog, all electronic resources in the catalog, and some electronic resources in the catalog, with the following results.
Option 1: no electronic resources in the catalog
The Task Force considered this option but decided it is not in the best interest of users for the following reasons:
- Users expect the catalog to identify resources the library holds. Without any e-resources in the catalog, users would be misinformed about the range of available materials.
- Research Port and SFX are evolving tools; therefore not all e-resources currently in the catalog are available through them.
- Removing all e-resources from the catalog would be very labor intensive. In addition to an initial purge, all loaders would have to be adjusted to remove e-resources on an ongoing basis.
- Stripping URLs from records would remove valuable enhancements for our users.
- In addition stripping URLs from Library of Congress records would undermine current cataloging practice to accept LC records "as is."
Option 2: all electronic resources in the catalog
Loading and maintaining all e-resources in the catalog would keep all resources together. One search would reveal different types of material that might be relevant. However, the Task Force concluded that this option is virtually impossible at this time for the following reasons:
- Although Research Port and SFX offer good control and access for many e-resources, these tools do not offer a means to load and maintain all e-resources.
- Although there may be other means of automated upkeep of the remaining resources, these methods have not yet been fully explored.
- Without mechanisms for automatic loading or handling of records, many e-resources would have to be processed individually by staff. This would likely result in untenable additions to workload for most campuses.
- Some e-resources are not appropriate for inclusion in the catalog.
Option 3: some electronic resources in the catalog
This option reflects the current state of things: i.e., some e-resources are loaded and maintained in the catalog according to local practices. Based on the campus surveys, the ERIC Forum, and discussion the Task Force recommends a modifed version of Option 3 as the most practical and viable solution for both users and libraries for the following reasons:
- Each USMAI institution has already selected some of its e-resources to be included in the catalog. This has created expectations for our users.
- Having these e-resources in the catalog will provide the best opportunity for resource discovery across all formats.
- The existence and regular maintenance of the SFX Knowledge Base provides the source of information about many e-resources that can be used in automated updates of the catalog.
- This option allows flexibility in local practices and a measure of standardization across USMAI.
In our current environment, neither Research Port nor the catalog is comprehensive, and Option 3 does not resolve this issue; therefore, we cannot expect that one will inevitably replace the other. In addition, not all campuses have completely activated their e-resource holdings in SFX. As a result, and because there are likely to continue to be variations in local practice, patrons and librarians will need to learn to use both tools.
Consequences of the current catalog environment:
USMAI efforts to grow and maintain catalog access to electronic resources are stymied by reliance on manual description and maintenance of records, as well as lack of agreement on how many records are required in the catalog to offer access to holdings of titles irrespective of format. Unless additional technological solutions are employed:
- the current catalog environment will grow increasingly more confusing for patrons and staff
- current impediments to loading and maintaining e-resources will remain; for example, there is no netLibrary loader because there is no means for automated maintenance of records
- e-resources processing in the catalog will continue to be paralyzed
- the complimentary relationship between ReseachPort and catalogusmai will be undermined, to the detriment of users
As a consortium, USMAI has a responsibility both to proactively manage resources for its users, and to provide its members with clear guidelines on use and input in a shared environment.
Conclusions
Feedback from two surveys, the public forum, and ongoing Task Force meetings have provided information needed to formulate the following conclusions and recommendations. With reference to issues outlined in the initial challenge statement:
- Option 3, properly and consistently maintained, serves the user best.
- Users expect to find complete and accurate information about library holdings regardless of format.
- Research Port and the catalog can be more closely tied through the use of SFX.
- Research Port can be the primary focus for developing access to licensed SFX-enabled electronic resources.
- SFX links, consortial decisions about record display, and regular maintenance protocols can result in a catalog with more accurate information and links to much licensed and free electronic information.
- Both Research Port and the catalog can remain complementary tools for research in all its forms, from searching for specific titles to browsing for information.
- There is clear consensus for the single display option (note that it may be possible to achieve a single display that is backed up by either a single or multiple records). It is also clear that the single display will not solve all problems, e.g., title changes.
- There is interest in including a variety of electronic resources in the catalog, such as e-books, proceedings, local digital collections and indexing and abstracting databases.
- A second survey showed that all institutions support virtual merge of holdings. Some of the campuses are unwilling to consider the actual merge of records to accomplish a single display of holdings. Note 1.
Task Force Recommendations
CLD should consider how to address the larger and more complex question of how Research Port, the catalog and other tools work together. This Task Force felt these issues were important, but outside the purview of our charge.
The ERIC Task Force recommends that the consortium focus on providing optimum access to selected e-resources in the catalog, and that this goal be approached in the following phases:
Phase IPhase II
- CLD should form a working group with cross-functional representation from user interface, serials, database management and ITD.
- This Task Group should have continuity with the current Task Force.
- The Task Group should be charged with the following tasks:
- Implement SFX in the catalog.
- Re-evaluate catalog screens to improve displays for e-resources.
- Work on a solution to the duplicate record/holding issue. There is a clear consensus that a virtual merge of the display is highly preferable.
- Tailor the FindIt menus to relate better to resources and services available in the catalog.
- Perform usability testing on proposed changes to the catalog interface.
- Determine the best means to obtain, load, and maintain bibliographic records for all resources represented in the SFX knowledge base, beginning with e-journals and e-books. This task includes exploring tools available from Ex Libris and other vendors for accomplishing this work.
- Evaluate the state of URLs in catalog for materials not represented in the SFX knowledge base, identify and evaluate the potential of outside sources against which to verify and update URLs (possible sources are WorldCat and Ulrich's online), and propose any remedies.
- Review changes in the SFX Knowledge Base and other technological developments, such as the expanding use of the open URL, and propose any relevant implementations.
- Determine the charge and logistics for Phase II.
- CLD should reaffirm its position that all USMAI institutions work with ITD to register and maintain their e-resources in the SFX knowledge base.
- To be successful, Phase I will require significant time and resources. CLD must establish this work as a priority for ITD and the USMAI.
- Research and testing are needed in order to determine how evolving ERM (electronic resource management) products and internal staff work can contribute to maintenance of records in all formats in the SFX Knowledge Base, Research Port, and Aleph.
Under this phase the following should be done:
Phase III
- Evaluate new technology and standards
- Respond to changes in the SFX Knowledge Base, for example Ex Libris plans to add Patents and Dissertations in the near future.
- Assess the impact of Research Port as a portal.
- Investigate the ability to display all holdings and services (such as Patron-placed holds and Interlibrary Loan) in the SFX menu.
- Implement recommendations from Phase I for maintaining existing URLs in the catalog.
- Select additional e-resources to add to the catalog, based on the above investigations and further understanding of user expectations.
- Implement methods for loading and updating those resources.
- Continue to evaluate decisions about inclusions/exclusion of e-resources in the catalog.
- Reviewing current products and make recommendations for enhancements to the appropriate vendors and/or groups.
In the future, emerging technology that allows metadata harvesting, indexing, and searching, could play a role in how electronic resources are handled in the catalog. The ERIC Task Force recommends every effort to stay on top of technology trends and to continue thinking creatively about application of new technologies in supporting Aleph, Metalib and SFX.
During phase III we must also continue to review electronic resources for inclusion into the catalog, including proceedings, data sets, patents, and locally created digital objects or content.
Submitted by the members of the ERIC Task Force:
Betty Day, ITD
Mary Gilbert (TU), SERAQ/IWG
Kim Kelley (UMUC), CLD
Jean Phillips, ITD
Celia Rabinowitz (SMC), CLD
Eric Rector (UMBC), Metalib Working Group
Cindy Todd (UMCP), Metalib Working Group
Marlene Vikor (UMCP), DLM/IWG
======================================================================
Note 1:
Objections to the actual merge of records include: difficulties of implementation, effect on database maintenance and quality control, potential effect on service to ILL borrowers, concerns about lack of compliance to national standards, effects on the current XPT process, and processing workflow.
| USMAI | ITD | Metalib/sfx | Aleph 15.2 | Aleph 16.2 |