ALCTS Network News v5n12 (February 26, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/ann/ann-v5n12 ISSN: 1056-6694 ALCTS NETWORK NEWS An electronic publication of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services Volume 5, Number 12 February 26, 1993 In this issue PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE OCLC USERS COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE USE OF THE ONLINE UNION CATALOG ************************************************************************** PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE OCLC USERS COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE USE OF THE ONLINE UNION CATALOG Working under a charge from the Users Council Executive Committee, the Task Force has met several times and issued two prior reports that were circulated to the Users Council, OCLC staff, and OCLC advisory committees. Many valuable comments and reactions were received and the Task Force now issues this preliminary report for wider distribution. Assumptions The Task Force has identified five categories of use of the Online Union Catalog (OLUC): Cataloging, Reference, Interlibrary Loan, Collection Development, and Use by Library Patrons. Each of these categories makes different demands of the OLUC. The Task Force recognizes the need for standards for the entry of bibliographic records into the OLUC by member libraries. The specifics may change, but we assume that there will always be standards. No matter what the standard, there will be records that do not conform but that may be of value to the OCLC membership. Records input into the OLUC by OCLC members as part of their cataloging activities should adhere to the prevailing standard. Records that do not conform will come from other sources, including retrospective conversion projects and MARC records from other countries. While they may not meet the established standards for completeness and formatting, these non-conforming records are still of value. A brief, incomplete bibliographic description is better than no description. Background It is evident to the Task Force that the needs of the entire OCLC community are best served by records that are as complete as possible. Briefer records are of diminished value to all. However, while they are of diminished value, they may still be very useful. There are many sets of records that would be useful, but do not meet the accepted standards now required for entry into the OLUC. The impending conversion of the Harvard College Library catalog by OCLC provides a compelling example. Approximately 1.5 million records that will result from this project will not meet the established standards for completeness and formatting. These will be of great value to Reference, Interlibrary Loan, Collection Development, and, most important, to Patrons. They will also be of value in Cataloging, although they should be upgraded to the prevailing standard if they are to be used in a local catalog. Through this upgrading, the bibliographic record in OCLC is also made more complete, much to everyone's advantage. Ideally, every work would be described by a complete bibliographic record that would adhere to prevailing standards. Today, that would be a USMARC record that at least met the Minimal Level Cataloging (MLC) requirements. However, this is not realistic from an economic or a political standpoint. There are not enough resources available to catalog every book, journal, movie, video, music score, etc. ever published following these standards. Also, there are institutions, especially national libraries in other countries, that follow different standards. To summarize, bibliographic records that do not adhere to the prevailing standards for completeness and formatting are of considerable value. They support Reference, Interlibrary Loan, Collection Development, and Patron Access, although they are not as useful as complete records. They also support Cataloging and can be transformed into complete records. The essential problem is how to provide access to these records while preserving the value of the OLUC as a database of records that meet the prevailing standards for completeness and formatting. The Universal Catalog The Task Force believes that there is an acceptable resolution of this problem and it lies in embracing the evolution of the OLUC into a universal bibliography or Universal Catalog, a database that should include the best available bibliographic record for any and every work and that can be searched in such a way that the database can be tailored to suit the diverse needs of a wide range of users. Establishing a Universal Catalog would require permitting the addition of sets of records that do not meet current standards for entry into the OLUC. There are two possible ways to do this. The first is to load these records into the existing OLUC. They could be flagged as records that do not necessarily meet the prevailing standards and could be excluded or included by the searcher. Liberal use of "enhance" capabilities would allow these records to be upgraded as they are used in Cataloging. The other method is to load these sets of records as separate databases that could be searched individually, together, or along with the main, standard file. The searcher would decide which files to search by naming specific databases or by specifying the acceptable level of record. Under either method, the user could define which records to search. For example, someone doing copy cataloging could specify that only the standard file should be searched or, put another way, that only records that adhere to prevailing cataloging standards should be retrieved. Alternatively, a scholar might want to see anything that mentions a given author no matter how incomplete the record. Moreover, the same basic technique could be used to specify retrieval by language, publication date, format, or any number of other qualifiers. After careful consideration of the two approaches, the Task Force supports the use of separate databases. There are several reasons for this. First, the addition of these less-than-standard records might reduce the value of the OLUC. Second, once the records are added to the main file, it might be very difficult to remove them, while if they are loaded as separate databases they could always be merged later. In other words, the Task Force supports the method that is the less irrevocable. Third, the addition of records that do not meet the prevailing standards might encourage member libraries to enter substandard records for their current cataloging.Fourth, in the future, the Universal Catalog might actually consist of files mounted on separate computers in various countries. Designing a system that supports separate files now will allow easier integration of disparate files later. Fifth, the Task Force discussed the possibility of being able to search the reference files now being mounted as part of FirstSearch along with a search of the OLUC. In other words, a searcher could ask for books or journal articles on a given topic with a single search. The Task Force believes that the use of separate databases will promote this development. Sixth and finally, the Task Force was concerned that loading all these records into the existing file would create considerable overhead costs in searching and maintenance. The Task Force, then, proposes that sets of records that do not meet the prevailing standard for entry into the OLUC be placed into separate files but that indexing and searching be designed in such a way that the user can specify whether to search all records in all files, some records in all files, or all records in some files. In other words, a virtual Universal Catalog should be created that could appear to be one file. These separate or ancillary files would be of tremendous value for Interlibrary Loan, Reference, Collection Development, and patron access. They would also be important resources for Cataloging as the basis for more complete records. It is not within the scope or charge of the Task Force to specify how this might be accomplished. However, we are convinced that it is possible to arrange these myriad databases in such a way that they can be joined or split as the user requires. Indeed, the files might reside on different computers operating on different continents but connected by a high-speed network. The seamless joining of these disparate files might best be seen as a goal. Initially, they could be mounted as separate, distinct files and brought together later. The manner of their joining is not important here. What is important is that the user be allowed to search the whole or the set of records requested efficiently and in such a fashion that the appearance of a unified database is achieved. Financial Questions The financing of the Universal Catalog is a matter to be determined. However, the Task Force believes that those who currently use the OLUC need to be assured that system efficiency will not be diminished and that if their pattern of use does not change due to the development of the Universal Catalog, then their costs should not change either. A method to migrate records from one of the ancillary files to the standard file would need to be developed. If a library selects a record from one of the ancillary files, a Slovenian MARC record for example, and uses it as the basis for a catalog record that meets the prevailing cataloging standards, then that record should migrate to the file of standard records. Whether a copy of the record should remain in the ancillary file, in this case in the file of Slovenian MARC records, is a matter for further discussion. The Task Force assumes that there would be a financial inducement to migrate these records consistent with current OCLC policy and practice. Level of Bibliographic Record It should be pointed out that the Task Force is focusing on title-level bibliographic records, as that is the level of bibliographic unit that dominates the current OLUC and most local catalogs, i.e., book and journal titles, films, scores, sound recordings, etc. Analytic records that describe chapters or portions of books do exist and are a valuable part of the OLUC, but their occurrence is relatively rare. Journal articles, book chapters, essays, and other bibliographic units are covered by the abstracting and indexing services that OCLC is mounting as part of FirstSearch. As the Universal Catalog develops, the possibility of allowing simultaneous searching of the abstracting and indexing services should be investigated. Related to the level of bibliographic unit covered, the Task Force also believes that collection level records, like the AMC Format for manuscript collections, should be included in the Universal Catalog in such a way that content notes about unique collections are preserved and made searchable. This would greatly enhance the value of the OLUC as a tool for identifying collection strengths. Issues to be Resolved The purpose of this report is to propose a basic model for the development of a Universal Catalog that would provide access to the best available bibliographic record for any and every work. There are several issues that need to be resolved but that are beyond the scope of this Task Force. First, how will OCLC decide whether to load a given set of records into the Universal Catalog? Second, what steps can be taken to minimize the duplication of records among the main and the ancillary files? The Task Force believes that holdings should be maintained on only one record. This will be necessary to prevent the dispersal of holdings information. Third, if a library upgrades a record in the ancillary file and migrates it to the main file, should the original record remain in the ancillary file? Finally, how do the recommendations of the Task Force affect the "Code of Responsible Use for OCLC Participating Libraries?" The Task Force believes that this is beyond its scope. Next Step The Task Force presents this preliminary report of its work and asks for comments by Thursday, April 15. Please send your comments to: William Gray Potter; Director of Libraries; University of Georgia; Athens, GA 30602; E-Mail: wpotter@uga.cc.uga.edu; Phone: 706/542-0621; FAX: 706/542-4144. The Task Force will complete its final report by the May 23-25, 1993 meeting of the OCLC Users Council. Task Force members include: Sue Burkholder, Library Director, Southern Oregon State College, Ashland; Larry Frye, Head Librarian, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Indiana; George Happ, Director, Salem (Oregon) Public Library; John Harrison, Director of Libraries, University of Arkansas; Margaret Johnson, Director of Libraries, University of Minnesota-Duluth; Bonnie Juergens, Executive Director, AMIGOS; William Gray Potter (Chair), Director of Libraries, University of Georgia; and Ellen Waite, University Librarian, Loyola University of Chicago. The Task Force also wishes to thank Marda Johnson and Betsy Kiser of OCLC for their contributions. ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* ALCTS NETWORK NEWS (ISSN 1056-6694) is published irregularly by the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, a division of the American Library Association. Editorial offices: ALCTS, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611; Liz Bishoff, President; Karen Muller, Executive Director. Editor: Karen Muller (u34261@uicvm); Editorial Advisory Board: Liz Bishoff, Jennifer Younger, Arnold Hirshon; Editorial Assistance: Alex Bloss. ALCTS NETWORK NEWS is available free of charge and is available only in electronic form. Opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the division. News items should be sent to the editor at Bitnet address u34261@uicvm. To subscribe, issue the network command "tell listserv@uicvm sub alcts [your name]." Back issues of AN2 are available through the listserver. To find out what's available, send the following command to LISTSERV@UICVM: send alcts filelist The ALCTS FILELIST contains the list of files with the EXACT filename and filetype. To get a particular file, issue this command to the LISTSERV@UICVM: send filename filetype. Send questions about membership in ALCTS to the ALCTS Office, u34261@uicvm. All materials in the newsletter subject to copyright by the American Library Association may be reprinted or redistributed for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or education advancement granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. For other reprinting or redistribution or translations, address requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions, 50 E. Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. *************************************************************************