Access Task Force Group 3 Reports:

2/27/2003 Access Group # 3

We have met once since the large group meeting on Feb. 19th. We have set a schedule of meeting once a week over the next five weeks to draft our recommendations for providing access to our electronic resources.

We really have six recommendations we need to address.

1) Examine the feasibility of expanding the Library's e-resource registry to provide access to more classes of e-resources.

We are examining how other libraries are doing this. Most are providing an A to Z list of their serials with separate links to reference databases (Oxford, A&I, Grove, etc.) and non-licensed websites. E-books, for the most part, are being represented solely in the OPAC. The Library's E-registry will definitely morph into something different over the next year and will probably need to include representation of all e-resources (excluding e-book). We will continue researching what exactly should be in there over the next several weeks. Our recommendation regarding Serials Management vendor will impact this recommendation as well (more on this later in this email).

2) Determine which electronic formats should utilize MARC as a standard ...and determine appropriate standards (Dublin Core, EAD, etc.) for other digital manifestations.

As a group, we are researching the different metadata schemes out there and forming questions to ask the representatives from ExLibris and Endeavor about the capabilities of SFX and Encompass to combine searching OPAC (with MARC standards) and other databases that use a different scheme (Dublin Core and EAD). Voyager does not have the capability to import records using other metadata schemes. Any technology we use that has the capabilities of searching/utilizing other metadata schemes will have to be an "add on" to Voyager (such as SFX or Encompass) that allows simulataneous searching of both OPAC and the archives database, databases of scanned images, etc. The questions we will have ready for the demonstrations in mid-March will hopefully give us insight to which standards and metadata schemes to recommend which to use in addition to MARC. Thanks to Peggy Steele and Task Force Group 1 in helping bring these vendors to the Library.

3) Investigate the longterm feasibility of linking to electronic version of an e-book or e-journal from the 856 field in the MARC record of the print version.

We are looking seriously at the possibility of doing this. I looked at a small sample of journals already in Voyager (about 50 journals) and determined that 40 out of the 50 already have URLs in the print record of the journal. If this percentage plays out over out entire collection of serial records, a majority will already have this in place. The Cataloging Policy Committee (CPC) is visiting this topic at its next meeting. We will put forth a recommendation as well.

4) Single versus multiple record approach.

This touches on the above mentioned approach. Many libraries are already putting URLS into their print records. CONSER has stated that it is okay to follow the procedure (it is up to the individual library to make the decision) of having one bibliographic record versus multiple records (for each different format) for our serials. The single record approach has only one record for patron to select from in the OPAC when they do a search for a particular journal. It makes it a little easier for them to find. But, from a purist cataloging viewpoint, combining this information on the print record is not really describing exactly what you have (you are really showing two manifestations on one record). It is a vexing question and one we are pondering and one that may require a forum that we would lead to discuss the whole single versus multiple record concept with the Library as a whole.

5) Improve access to e-resource available in aggregator packages by investing in serials management vendor (Serials Solution, TDNet, etc.).

All three of us believe that we need to move forward with purchasing the services of one of these vendors. We are not showing full access to all our e-journals and to maximize our purchases of these aggregators, this needs to occur--both in the OPAC and in an A to Z web list. Meetings are occurring soon (over the next month) for selecting a serials management vendor to help us with this enormous task. We will put forth a recommendation to this group (Karen Schmidt, Lisa German, John Weible, Beth Sandore, Lisa Hinchliffe, Bob Burger and Michael Norman) and this Taskforce as who we believe offers the best solution to providing this needed access.

6) Improve access to individual book titles within aggregator packages (e.g. Early English Books Online)

At present, the group has not looked at this topic in detail. Many of the solutions to the previous topics may offer some possibilities (such as putting the URl in the print record of the book for electronic access). We will be looking at this topic in more detail at the next meeting.

We will keep you updated over the next five weeks as to the progress we make with these six recommendations.

Michael Norman