I would like to see this proposal seriously considered. To indicate interest, who should we contact? At 07:32 AM 2/24/2006, you wrote: >In August 2005 the following proposal was sent to several lists for >comment. If I recall, we did not receive many replies. If there is >interest in this idea, I can ask the PCC leadership to consider setting up >a group to look into endorsing/pursuing this. > >Proposal for a Provider-Neutral Record for Online Integrating Resources > >As a follow-up to a discussion at the CONSER Operations meeting in May, I >invite a wider discussion on a provider neutral approach to cataloging >integrating resources. The CONSER meeting discussion summary is available >from: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/conop2005.html#13 > >This would be similar to the aggregator neutral cataloging policy for >E-Serials. Peter Fletcher presented this topic at the Operations >meeting and drafted the proposal below. Please read through the proposal >below and respond to the list or contact Peter directly with your >comments. Please excuse the cross-postings. > >Specific proposal: establish a provider-neutral record policy, similar to >the CONSER aggregator-neutral policy, for online integrating resources, >with the description based, if possible, on an original source of content >such as the original publisher, or academic society or association. As >with the CONSER policy, the record would contain information applicable to >all provider versions, but information on the provider would only appear >in citing which version the description was based on. > >Discussion: some online integrating resources, normally indexes/databases, >have a single source, but they often have several service providers. > >Some examples: > >Medline (source: National Library of Medicine; also available via OCLC, >EBSCO, OVID, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, etc.) > >PAIS international (source Cambridge scientific abstracts; also available >also via OCLC, OVID/Silverplatter, etc.?) > >Art index/fulltext/abstracts (source Wilson; also available via OCLC >FirstSearch, others?) > >Sociological abstracts (source CSA; also available via OVID/Silverplatter, >OCLC FirsSearch, etc.?) > >CINAHL (source: CINAHL Information Systems; also available via OCLC >FirstSearch, OVID/Silverplatter) > >Education index/full-text/abstracts (source Wilson; also available via >OCLC FirstSearch) > >ERIC is also a government source, but is available via many >interfaces/providers such as EBSCO, OCLC FirstSearch, etc. > >Presently, in the utilities, there are many records representing these >kinds of titles, generally with each based on a different provider, even >though the essential content is the same. Are we and library patrons well >served by providing these separate records? If we had one record >representing these titles, it would save cataloging time when our >libraries change provider packages or acquire new ones and thus better >serve the patron with faster maintenance and acquisition of these >records. Also, if a library has more than one version of such a title, >having one OPAC record with multiple URLs might serve patrons better than >multiple records that contain subtle descriptive differences. > >Some specific differences between provider versions could be noted as >such: "Some providers have ". Also, ISSN policy works in favor of a >provider-neutral approach, since only one ISSN will be assigned to only >one record that represents a particular electronic integrating resource >title. And, as with CONSER, for record consolidation, the 936 could be >used to indicate which records will be deleted. > >Peter will be compiling responses to the proposal, please contact him >directly if you intend to reply off list. I will be out of the office >Aug. 8-19. Thanks! > >Les Hawkins >CONSER Coordinator >202 707-5185 > >Peter V. Fletcher >Serials & Electronic Resources Catalog Librarian, >Bibliographer for Germanic and Russian Studies > >Howard-Tilton Memorial Library >Tulane University >7001 Freret Street >New Orleans, LA 70118 >http://www.tulane.edu/~techserv/catdept.html (504) >862-8582 >Fax: (504) 862-8556 > >fletcher at tulane.edu > >On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Steven C Shadle wrote: > > > Nancy -- My understanding is that PCC has not endorsed > > aggregator-neutral practice for integrating resources. Because PCC > > policy is OCLC policy, I would assume at this point you would create a > > separate record (sigh). Others who are more in touch with PCC > > decision-making might have a better sense of any decision status. > > --Steve > > > > Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian ***** shadle@u.washington.edu > > University of Washington Libraries *** Phone: (206) 685-3983 > > Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * Fax: (206) 685-8743 > > > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Nancy Chaffin wrote: > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > I understand how the aggregator neutral record works for serials, but > is there > > > a similar rule/practice I am missing for integrating resources, > specifically > > > abstracting/indexing databases that are offered on different platforms? > > > > > > Example: > > > Our library subscribes to Music Index Online directly from the > publisher, > > > Harmonie Park Press. However, we are moving our subscription to the > Ebsco > > > version. There is no catalog record for the resource listing Ebsco > as the > > > publisher or with an Ebsco URL. Should I use the record for > Harmonie, or > > > create a new one for Ebsco? > > > > > > TIA, > > > > > > Nancy > > > -- > > > Nancy J. Chaffin > > > Metadata Librarian > > > Colorado State University Libraries > > > Fort Collins, CO 80523-1019 > > > > > > voice: 970.491.1847 > > > fax: 970.491.4661 > > > e-mail: Nancy.Chaffin@colostate.edu > > > > > Cheryl Cheryl L. Conway Head of Cataloging Acquisitions Dept. Room 214-C University of Arkansas Libraries 365 N. McIlroy Ave. Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-4002 phone: 479-575-4812 fax: 479-575-4817
