Transcript The Catalog of the Future: Integrating Electronic Resources

The Catalog of the Future:
Integrating Electronic Resources
By Dana M. Caudle
Cataloging Librarian
Auburn University Libraries
[email protected]
Electronic Resources
To catalog, or not to catalog, that is the question.
 Electronic books/ journals
 Aggregator databases
 Digital materials
 Web sites
How can we provide useful access to these
resources?
Options
 Put them in the catalog.
 Use several different types of access:
• Web page of electronic resources
• Multiple aggregators
• Internet search engines for web sites
 Something new??
What’s best for the user?
One-stop shopping!!
 Users look in one place for
everything regardless of format.
 Equal access to print and
electronic resources.
The Catalog as Portal
A new purpose for the catalog:
To provide systematic access to
information in whatever form it
takes, not just to inventory a
particular library’s print collection.
Can our catalogs handle the load?
YES!!
If we tell ILS vendors what we want!
AND
We add primarily those things we pay for!
How??
 Single record approach:
All print, microform, and electronic
holdings on ONE bibliographic record.
 CONSER/AACR2 approach:
ONE bibliographic record for print.
ONE bibliographic record for microform.
ONE bibliographic record for all electronic.
Auburn’s Approach:
The Single Record
WHY?
 Less confusing for user to tell what library has.
 Don’t have to maintain separate catalog and web list.
Can generate web list from catalog.
BUT
 Hard to use vendor-supplied records for aggregators.
 Very labor intensive to maintain links and holdings.
Library journal
710 “Q codes” identify electronic resources
attached to the bibliographic record. 710
makes them searchable. The subfield $b
identifies the source of the electronic resource.
CONSER/AACR2 approach
WHY?
Can use definitive electronic record
customized by vendors like
SerialsSolutions and TDNet.
BUT
More confusing for user who has to deal
with multiple records for multiple formats.
What about digitized materials
and free web sites?
 Digital materials are constantly being added.
 Too many web sites to select manually.
Even the catalog cannot contain ALL
electronic resources. Cataloging with
MARC and AACR2 is not always
appropriate.
We need more types of metadata!
“As libraries digitize collections, metadata
is required to organize and provide access
to this content, outside of, or in association
with, the library catalog.”
-- Roy Tennant
Metadata for Libraries
 Dublin Core
 EAD
 TEI
 ONIX
 GIS
Each has a use! Each also uses XML as its
mark-up language.
MARC vs. XML?
NO! It’s like apples and oranges.
MARC is BOTH
a mark-up
language and a
content standard.
XML is strictly a mark-up language.
It does NOT determine content.
The Real Question
The debate should not be one of whether to
replace MARC with XML, but rather how
to define MARC as one more metadata
schema that can be manipulated in XML.
How do we do this? With cross-walks
that automatically convert one metadata
schema to another.
Cross-walks : Library of
Congress
MARCXML, MODS, and Mapping
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc.html
Cross-walks : OCLC
CORC and Connexion
http://connexion.oclc.org/
100-085-322
******
xml,in,li,/2002
Same record automatically converted into Dublin Core
marked up with XML.
The Catalog as Hybrid
(The Portal with a Twist)
An alternative to putting everything
exclusively in the catalog:
Make the catalog one database
in a larger collection of
databases all using metadata
appropriate to the types of items
they are representing.
EnCompass : Putting it all together!
Uses XML and dynamic linking to serve
as an interface for searching across
multiple databases and the Internet.
civil rights
MARC record from catalog automatically
wrapped in XML.
This time the record is actually in Dublin Core instead of MARC.
SFX : Links and more links!
http://www.sfxit.com
Uses dynamic linking to integrate
multiple electronic resources, including
the catalog and Internet searching.
The Catalog of the Future
Depending on the library’s needs,
integrating some electronic resources
into the catalog and using EnCompass
or SFX to integrate the catalog with
other electronic resources could very
well be the best method of all for
providing seamless, one-stop access to
electronic and print resources.
To our users, this will be the catalog of the future.
Bibliography
Kyle Banerjee. “How Does XML Help Libraries?” Computers in
Libraries 22.8 (Sept. 2002): 30-34.
Barbara Baruth.
•“Is Your Catalog Big Enough To Handle The Web?” American
Libraries 31.7 (August 2000): 56-59.
• “Missing Pieces In The Academic Library Puzzle,” American
Libraries 33.6 (June/July 2002): 58-63.
David Dorman. “Metadata Preconference Views Post-MARC
World (at ALA 2000),” American Libraries 31.8 (Sept. 2000): 70.
Norm Medeiros. “Liberating Online Catalog Records” OCLC
Systems & Services 16.3 (2000): 100-101.
Roy Tennant.
•“MARC Exit Strategies,” Library Journal 127.19 (15 Nov. 2002):
27-28.
•“MARC Must Die,” Library Journal 127.17 (15 Oct. 2002): 26,
28
•“Metadata As If Libraries Depended On It,” Library Journal.
127.7 (15 April 2002): 32-34.
•“The Print Perplex: Building the Future Catalog,” Library Journal
123.19 (15 Nov. 1998): 22.
•Editor, XML in Libraries. New York, Neal-Schuman, 2002.
Sarah E. Thomas. “The Catalog As Portal To The Internet.”
Library of Congress. Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic
Control for the New Millennium. Final version (Dec. 2000)
available at:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/thomas_paper.html
Web sites:
Auburn University Libraries web site: http://www.lib.auburn.edu/
Endeavor EnCompass web site http://encompass.endinfosys.com/
Library of Congress MARC Standards
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc.html
OCLC Connexion web site http://connexion.oclc.org/
SerialsSolutions web site http://www.serialssolutions.com/home
SFX web site http://www.sfxit.com