This is the official discussion 'board' for ERCC. Please use this page for all active discussions rather than using the individual discussion pages associated with each article (i.e., document or page). After a topic has been resolved, the inactive discussion may be archived on a discussion page related to that specific topic.
Updating cataloging documentation
Colleen has posted all of the documentation from the Cataloging Documentation website related to electronic resources cataloging on our wiki.
As we discussed in an earlier ERCC meeting, many of these procedures need to be revised and we made assignments for different people to work on different pages. The documents can be accessed from this page: Procedures.
As the procedures are revised, we can all make comments using the discussion feature. Once the procedures are final, Joyce can post them to the Cataloging Documentation website.
Speaking of the Cataloging Documentation website, one thing I would really like to have changed is the way the "Back" button functions on the website. Right now, when you are viewing a page and you click "Back," instead of being taken to the previous page, you go all the way back to the main Cataloging Documentation page. It would be nice if the "Back" button would backtrack one page at a time...
Also, do we need to talk about the subheadings under Electronic Resources? Right now they are: Cataloging Information, Policies, Background, Useful Links. Do these make sense, or should we consider modifying the categories?
Just some pre-tryptophan thoughts... ;o)
667 notes on series authority records
--nb 10:04, 18 October 2006 (EDT):
I see that we have a note in the ERCC/856_Procedure document instructing catalogers to "Follow the 667 note on the series authority record". Do we have any documentation about when, or by whom, such 667 notes are added, or what sorts of instructions they might contain?
I ask because a recent add-link request received via OPM alerted me to the existence of free e-versions of 4 University of California monographic series. (See UC site.) Scott asked me to add the URL for the geological one, which is cat. as a serial. The entomology one was formerly cat. as a serial, now cat. separately; I added a URL & e-version MFHD to the serial record for that too. The other 2, linguistics and zoology, have always been cataloged as monographic series.
It seems to me it would be good to add links to the monographs that have matching e-versions available. There aren't many at this point; these are not prolific series, and only the last year or two are on the site. Can a 667 direct catalogers in future to check the site and add URLs, even if not on the copy?
In some cases, we've cataloged the e-version of a mono. series as a serial, with a note explaining that print vols. are cat. sep. Should we do that instead? In addition?
As for SFX, 2 of the 4 series currently appear in the SFX KnowledgeBase, and I've activated them.
--JENNIFER 11:53, 19 October 2006 (EDT):
Here's some documentation:
--nb 09:38, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
I think that's basically the same document as the Wiki page I linked to above, but a more colorful version with helpful examples added.
--JENNIFER 11:46, 19 October 2006 (EDT):
All I can find is the document in the catunit4 folder called "Mono series online.doc" which indicates which series records have the 667 notes. Marie, didn't you add these notes to the series records? My memory is getting worse by the minute...
--nb 09:38, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
It looks like that document does include some titles for which we've done the e-version both as a serial & with individual links on the monograph records. A Holdings Boolean keyword search for "print version cataloged separately" or "print volumes are cataloged separately" will bring up other titles not yet on that list -- should they be? Some are dead, some are not.
--scurato 14:36, 26 September 2006 (EDT) I found this site on the web that compares some link checkers (mostly free) at a glance and individually and I thought it might be a helpful start in our never-ending search for the perfect Link Checker.
--Jill 08:34, 27 September 2006 (EDT)A few more link checker comparison URLS:
for discussion: cataloging individual titles within databases
I'm wondering whether we can come up with, and document, guidelines for when to catalog individual titles within databases. Case in point: DATA2CORP (Voyager bib. # 4499614), a fulltext archive of geoscience materials. Among other things, it includes many years worth of fulltext for 4 journals. Here's the link, if you want to take a look: data2corp.petris.com (no longer works 11/8/2007 jwl)
So far, we have:
-cataloged the database
-included 740 fields for the journal titles so that they're searchable
but we haven't:
-added the links to the individual journal bibs.
-added the titles to the ejournals page
-recorded the holdings for each title anywhere
-requested SFX additions
We've now received a request to add a link to one of the individual journal records. Seems like a good idea in this case (for all 4 journals, not just the one). I was looking to see if we had documentation covering this, so that this sort of thing could get done at point of cataloging rather than as an afterthought. Though the cataloging decisions may always require some case-by-case analysis, it would be helpful to have agreed-upon general guidelines.
Some possible criteria we might consider:
-size of database - depends on volatility, how much the selector really wants access
-stability of database (frequency of titles moving in and out)
-content of database (journals vs. monographs) - monographs through databases such as SourceOECD have been requested, but in general, monographs are not practical because of volume, etc. (STRIKE THIS ERCC 10/05/06)
-browsability (making it possible to determine exact holdings of each specific title) ERCC 10/05/06 if we can't get specific holdings, we will not add URLs -- we need to include something at the beginning of the policy about taking "these factors" into account
-availability of individual title URLs
-need for password information in URLs
-whether selector has specifically requested individual cataloging/addition to ej page
-whether we can instead get aggregator records into Voyager from SFX data
Here's a summary of a previous discussion of a similar situation; in this case, we opted not to catalog individually:
(from the Oct. 22, 2004 ERCC minutes)
3. We discussed an OPM ticket that Bobray Bordelon sent for the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles. (located at: http://www.aafla.org/search/search.htm) It’s a database which contains various journals, books and statistics. None of the content can be browsed (for example: you must know the citation for a journal article—you can’t look up a title by volume), so it was decided that the website would be cataloged as a database with 730 tags for the journals to allow access.
Thoughts, please? --nb 12:07, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
Looking again at the AAFLA site, I'm wondering if we should revisit our earlier decision on that too. The site's been changed, and now if you go to the Periodicals tab, it does list the coverage for each title. But would it make sense to treat individual titles of journals separately, but not monographs from the same site? We did request that ExLibris add this to SFX, but that was in Oct. 2004 and they haven't yet done so. --nb 13:30, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
- JENNIFER 13:34, 26 September 2006 (EDT):
True, the AAFLA site lists coverage for each journal, but as you noted, there isn't a way to link to individual titles (http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/newsearch/search.jsp#). BUT we could point to the search page for each of the titles. (ERCC 10/05/06) The same appears to be true for the monographs. For a database like this, unless the provider (AAF) can supply individual title URLs, there isn't much else we can do other than what we've done already, correct? For DATA2CORP, it seems to makes sense to provide links to the four individual titles for which there is full text access, but again, what are the individual URLs? We can add a link for AAPG bulletin (http://search.datapages.com/data/bulletns/toc.htm) but I can't find individual URLs for the other three titles...
nb 09:17, 26 September 2006 (EDT):
In some cases where journal-level links aren't available, we do add links to a higher-level page (sometimes with instructions on how to select that journal, if not obvious). What I was envisioning for Data2Corp was to add the same URL that appears on the database record to the 4 individual journal records. And add holdings records to each. And add the titles to the ejournals page, and request addition to SFX, to maximize accessiblity.
- JENNIFER 13:34, 26 September 2006 (EDT):
OK, I'm all for more access! But this brings us back to your original questions. How big is too big (for a database)? We will have to add this to our (soon-to-come) URL checking/maintenance process so that when/if titles are added or deleted to these databases, we make sure our bib records are accurate. Also, even though it's obvious what the user needs to do when s/he gets to one of the database search screens, do we reflect the fact that the user must search and cannot browse (either in the 530 or in the MFHD or somewhere)?
nb 12:23, 26 September 2006 (EDT):
For comparison, I've found two databases which we've treated at the individual journal level but which don't have individual journal URLs:
- Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/journals_service.html - 66 titles
- PEP archive
- http://pep.gvpi.net/pep/lpext.dll/?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm - 13 titles
Clearly in the "too big" category, I think, are the databases like ProQuest Research Library (2600+ titles), Factiva (1700+ titles), LexisNexis (4300+ titles).
We've treated all of these only as aggregators:
Central Eastern European Online Library; Chadwyck IIMP; Chadwyck IIPA; Columbia International Affairs Online; Factiva; LexisNexis; plus everything we get from: East View; EBSCO; GaleGroup; Newsbank; ProQuest; Wilson
Our decision not to attempt individual cataloging & ej page access for these was based on a combination of the criteria I listed above -- most had at least 2 strikes against them. All appear in SFX however, so can at least have Voyager brief records (though SFX data may, as we know, be inaccurate or incomplete).
Another question: if we catalog individual titles, do we eliminate the 730s/740s on the bib. for the database?
- JENNIFER 13:34, 26 September 2006 (EDT):
I would say "yes" eliminate the added title entries on the database records.
- --scurato 14:29, 26 September 2006 (EDT):
Adding my yes to that. No point in having those fields on the database records, if we have made individual title records
ERCC 10/05/06 - update http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/electronic/ejpage.html to reflect new database guidelines; Meridian will not be affected.
We will examine the policy with the next database received for cataloging (ERCC 10/05/06. We will apply this policy for DATA2CORP and the athletic foundation titles)
If it is decided not to add individual URLs, we will add 740s (or 730s - JB will check the indexing)
--nb 11:51, 5 October 2006 (EDT)
Note: Data2Corp has changed name to AAPG datapages, and URL to http://search.datapages.com
The AAF database now has individual title pages for each journal, available from http://www.aafla.org/5va/serials_frmst.htm
(This is the link we have on our cat. record for the database.)
moved to Meeting Minutes talk page
I just posted our current print with online procedure under 856 procedure. How can we incorporate the decision about the i-novel into it.--Wange 09:27, 15 September 2006 (EDT)
--Wange 15:49, 3 November 2006 (EST)Let's put this on the agenda for the next ERCC meeting.
journal title search
--JEB 10:59, 14 December 2006 (EST)Joyce -- We were able to turn on the transaction log only for a short time--one week. During that time, there were 13,254 journal title searches. This is 13% of all searches done during that time. (NOTE: this is a raw figure. The data has duplications from using back buttons and following links that need to be considered and probably eliminated)