IUG 2001 Conference Proceedings

Table of Contents

Session: E8

Online Collections, Local Profiles and INN-Reach Implications

Coordinator/Presenter:
Mark Kibbey, University of Washington

Presenters:
Emalee Craft, University of Washington
Andrea Peterson, Western Washington University
Sandy Westall, Innovative Interfaces


Summary:

Note: Mark Kibbey was unable to give a presentation due to a personal emergency. He is the coordinator of Cascade, an INN-Reach system that includes seven academic institutions in Washington.

Catalog Access for Online Collections (Emalee Craft for Mark Kibbey)

Online full text collections such as Lexis-Nexis, Proquest, and JSTOR are often dynamic. The holdings, contents, and allowable uses may change frequently, making traditional processing of these materials prohibitively expensive. However, catalog access to the contents of these collections is very useful. Having these materials in the catalog allows library staff to better integrate paper and online resources and track duplicate materials, with the latter becoming more important as budgets shrink and as consortia attempt to balance collection development among member institutions. Finally, if the materials are in the catalog, library staff can use the same tools the patrons use to access these materials.

The University of Washington Libraries sought a way to include these materials in the catalog that would meet several goals. The system had to be inexpensive to maintain, fitting into regular library operations and making materials in online full text collections easy to identify. They wanted to use a single record for all versions of a title—print and electronic—and have these records support automatic generation of Web pages. Finally, the solution had to be reversible. Library staff needed to be able to identify and remove any records added if the service was cancelled or better records were available from another source

Library staff identified several sources of records for materials in online full text collections. They could obtain records from other libraries, vendors (including publishers and commercial brokers such as EBSCO and Serials Solutions), and/or JAKE. They could also generate records automatically from title lists provided by the vendors of the collections, a method discussed in a session at the 2000 Innovative Users Group Meeting. Standard collections of records, such as those supplied by vendors, have a number of limitations. They lack notes about local restrictions, links to specific titles, and unique data to allow the records to be easily identified and removed. Plus, the University of Washington wanted complete checkin records for these materials. This means that even quality MARC records can require local customization.

Library staff identified several tools available for making local modifications to MARC records—MARC Maker +, MARCpm, and local load profile options. MARC Maker + was discussed at the 2000 IUG meeting, and information on it is available from the Proceedings (see http://www.innopacusers.org/iug2000/proceedings/j1.html). MARCpm is a PERL-based solution, which requires some rudimentary programming skills to implement. It allows conditional values and provides a completely automated solution, resulting in low operations cost. For more information on this solution, contact Mark Kibbey, mkibbey@u.washington.edu. Innovative local loaders allow library staff to make basic modifications to text, e.g. manipulate text, create checkin and item records, move or remove tags, and create custom fields for overlay. To do significant automated MARC maintenance you really need both load profile training and a MARC tool.

Craft concluded by pointing out that maintenance is the key to success in a project such as this. Records must be updated regularly to ensure accuracy, making operating costs the largest portion of the five-year cost of this project. Libraries should also consider the impact on other library operations when deciding how to manage online full text collections, as this type of project requires much staff time. Other considerations include saving the reader's time, considering the library's entire service package, and expecting changes, including the need to reverse anything that has been done when the data changes.

The University of Washington portion of this presentation is available via the Web at: http://faculty.washington.edu/mkibbey/IUG2001.htm

INN-Reach Storage and Display of 856 Fields (Sandy Westall)

Several issues affect the way INN-Reach stores and displays 856 fields. INN-Reach selects a master record from one holding site and attaches other holdings to it. The 856 from the master record is what displays—not the 856 fields of other holding libraries. Also, libraries contributing to an INN-Reach system may have different practices for cataloging electronic resources, e.g. single-record versus multiple-record approach, which may cause confusion for users of the INN-Reach catalog.

In the local Innopac catalog, the 856 may be included in bibliographic and/or item records. Libraries may choose to include the 856 only in the bibliographic record. Or, libraries may create item-specific 856 fields for specific volumes/years or for inclusion in a dummy item record for the electronic version of a print title. Libraries may also use a combination of these methods, including a general 856 for the entire title in the bibliographic record and 856 fields for specific volumes or years in the attached item records.

However, up till now, INN-Reach only took the 856 from the bibliographic record and only displayed the 856 from the master record. With Release 2001 INN-Reach will still be able to keep the 856 from the master record, but it will also be able to include the 856 from each holding library's bibliographic record in the local holdings statement for that library. Release 2001 will also be able to display item-level 856 fields from contributing libraries, but it will only display the first item-level 856 in each item record. INN-Reach will treat item-level 856 fields the way they are treated in the local Innopac, displaying subfield z if it is present and displaying the URL if there is no subfield z.

Westall demonstrated these new features using the Prospector site in Colorado, which is currently the only INN-Reach site running Release 2001. Westall's presentation is available from the Innovative CSDirect Web site at: http://csdirect.iii.com/ppt/856_9.zip.

Questions and Discussion—University of Washington

Q: How does the University of Washington use the single-record approach when creating records for electronic titles using the tools described? When loading vendor records with the University of Washington method—in which the system is configured to attach information about the electronic version to an existing print record—what happens with titles the library does not own in print and for which there is therefore no existing record in the catalog?
A: Craft suggested contacting Mark Kibbey for an explanation.

Someone commented that variations in coverage from one electronic version of a title to the next make the single-record approach awkward. Someone else suggested using 856 subfield z to indicate the years of coverage for each link.

Q: Does the University of Washington harvest records from JAKE?
A: Craft said she thought not and referred the questioner to Mark Kibbey. Someone commented that it is now possible to harvest LC subject headings from JAKE.

Questions and Discussion—INN-Reach

Q: Can we suppress the 856 in the master bibliographic record but display them in the item or holdings records?
A: There will be a way to remove them from the master bibliographic records, then prevent new ones from being loaded. 856 fields will then only show up in local library displays.

Q: Will Innovative implement the 956, a new OCLC-defined MARC field for online access information unique to a local library?
A: The problem with implementing the 956 is that someone in each library would have to review existing 856 fields and see if they should be recoded as 956 fields. This problem illustrates the importance of coding data such that a group of records with a particular characteristic (e.g. locally-modified 856 fields) can be easily identified and revised.

Q: What happens if a library contributes summary holdings statements but not item records to INN-Reach?
A: INN-Reach gets lists of holdings from checkin and item records.

Q: How can libraries re-send all their 856 fields to INN-Reach so that they can be processed with the new features in Release 2001?
A: Libraries can use Create Lists to create a list of all records with an 856 and use a program to send them as a batch to INN-Reach to be reloaded.

Q: If library patrons go to the local catalog first, why does it matter how INN-Reach treats the 856?
A: At some sites, patrons start searching in the INN-Reach catalog, bypassing the local Innopac entirely.

Q: Can local libraries contribute an unlimited number of 856 fields to INN-Reach under Release 2001?
A: Yes for bibliographic-level 856 fields. For item-level 856 fields, INN-Reach only takes the first one in each item record.


Reporter:
Janet Crum, Oregon Health & Science University