I don't have an answer, but I appreciate the question!

I've struggled with this too, because after doing this for a while,
while I may understand the difference between these types of
resources, I don't have anything to call them, and it has caused
confusion with other staff and made it difficult to explain to other
staff how to handle each "type" of database-- which codes to use,
what budget line to charge it to, etc. And I also agree that  "what
we call them is important both for evaluating and for
arranging/keeping access."  Not all electronic access is created equal!

Pat Thompson

At 11:00 AM 7/25/2008, you wrote:
>Hi, everybody,
>
>Here's a Friday question for the group that I'd be interested in
>seeing some discussion on: What do you call the various types of databases?
>A long time ago, I wrote an article for the Biz of Acq column in
>Against the Grain about defining more precisely how we refer to
>databases and types of access to electronic journals ("A Database By
>Any Other Name?" _Against the Grain_, v.14#2, April 2002), and I
>think it might still be a pertinent question. (Coincidentally, I
>found out after I started drafting this post that the article will
>soon be online on the Against the Grain website, because it's
>included in a reading list for an ALA course, Fundamentals of
>Electronic Resources Acquisitions. Not sure how soon.)
>
>For me, when I think of a "true" electronic journal, I think first
>of those that come from the publisher--the equivalent of the print,
>in the publisher's own interface, whether bundled or individual or
>packaged. Then I think of those that come from the publisher but
>"hosted" through a second-party interface. Thirdly, there are the
>aggregators--third party vendors that assemble electronic versions
>of licensed periodicals content into their own databases, with a
>common interface--in this case, we subscribe to the *database* as a
>whole, not the individual titles (and access to any of the
>individual titles included can change without notice to us, as so
>many have noted--they are not stable or archival, so if that's
>important for a title, think carefully about aggregator access.) The
>crucial difference, from my point of view, is *who owns the content*
>and is either publishing it or licensing a version (or "selected"
>content, as they sometimes refer to it, rather than cover-to-cover)
>or allowing indexing or abstracting (A & I) only. Another variable
>is whether the version is HTML or PDF, whether it includes images,
>etc., etc. It's all in how they're sliced and diced. So do you all
>call them something else or think of them differently? I think what
>we call them is important both for evaluating and for arranging/keeping access.
>
>Aggregator databases are great for giving us lots and lots of
>content, but some of that is "extra," in that we might not pay for,
>say, Regional Cheerleader E-Forum for the years 1992-1998 (a title I
>made up, but if you have access to an A to Z list, take a look
>sometime if you haven't, by title or by subject/category & dates of
>coverage, at what's in there. Someone said that publishers
>sell/license what they have a lot of, not necessarily what you want!
>I'm not faulting their business model of generating revenue so much
>as saying we need to be aware of what we're getting. I think it all
>comes down to licensing. I sometimes compare the complicated models
>to cable subscriptions--some titles/channels are more desirable,
>others are thrown in with the basic for good measure, to add to the
>title count. For "premium" titles, we may have to go direct.) But is
>there a better term than "aggregator" that makes sense to people?
>
>Anyway, for a package such as Project Muse, there are both their own
>publications ("primary" online journals? "publisher" online
>journals? what do you think we should call them?) and some
>"secondary interface" ones that they have licensed from other
>publishers (which is why there's a fixed wall for some, when they
>lost the licensing rights as those publishers pulled out to mount
>their own interfaces.) JSTOR, to me, is an archival, second-party
>database, (and they've had some of the same licensing issues in the
>past.) Some databases are subject-specific, too, and might be from
>one or several publishers. Some publishers also have fixed bundles
>or packages, perhaps arranged by subject *or* collection, with no
>choice of individual journals; others will let you order a la carte,
>so to speak, and price it differently. It seems to be that it would
>be useful for us to have a more standardized way of referring to
>online journals and databases, so we know we're on the same page
>when we discuss evaluating them or dealing with loss of access to
>individual titles or packages, so I'm interested in hearing other
>thoughts on this. What do you call the different types of online
>continuing resources? Could we/should we give them categories or
>would that make it worse? Sorry this is so long. Thanks for your thoughts!
>
>Sue
>
>--
>
>Sue Wiegand
>
>Periodicals Librarian
>
>123 Cushwa-Leighton Library
>
>Saint Mary's College
>
>Notre Dame, IN 46556
>
>574 284-4789
>
>swiegand@saintmarys.edu <mailto:swiegand@saintmarys.edu>