SUMMARY
Executive Summary
The CONSER Summit brought together seventy people from libraries
and the serials industry to discuss trends and future directions
for electronic serials, particularly scholarly journals. The discussions
and recommendations will inform the Cooperative Online Serials (CONSER)
Program as to future directions regarding bibliographic control
of serials, potential new partnerships, and opportunities for an
expanded leadership role.
Major themes of discussion included the need for better identifiers,
the questionable role of the catalog and the need for simpler, clearer
access for users, the importance of subject access, and the desire
for more library-vendor collaboration. The recommendations clearly
reflect these desires.
Introduction
Carlen Ruschoff, Chair of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging
(PCC), welcomed everyone and introduced the day's moderator, Bob
Wolven (Columbia University). In explaining the background to the
summit, Wolven noted that working in the electronic environment
has changed everything we do, particularly in the area of journals.
CONSER has worked hard to deal with electronic serials over the
past decade, first trying out one method, then moving on to another.
Last spring Jean Hirons and Carlin Ruschoff proposed to the PCC
Steering Committee that they sponsor a summit to discuss the issues
and the Committee readily agreed that the time was right for a meeting
of the minds between librarians and industry experts.
Wolven described the summit as a "working" meeting
and indeed, the summit was a highly informal gathering that emphasized
discussion and sharing of information and ideas. There were no formal
papers or PowerPoint presentations. He also noted that attendance
was intentionally limited to enable discussion and that attendees
had been carefully chosen for their expertise and ability to share
with others.
The summit opened with a "keynote conversation" followed by two
panel discussions, the first dealing with publishing trends, the
second with users' needs. The day ended with a one hour breakout
session for open discussion. On the second day, Sally Sinn (National
Agricultural Library) moderated a third panel on standards. This
was followed by breakout sessions where three groups of participants
drafted recommendations for CONSER. Following the summit, the Conference
Steering Committee <http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/team.html>
reviewed the three sets of recommendations and compiled a single
list of those deemed of immediate or longer-term interest.
It is impossible to capture in a summary, the wealth of conversation
shared in two days. This summary provides the key points from longer,
more nuanced responses.
Keynote conversation
Participants: Sandy Hurd (Innovative Interfaces), Brian Schottlaender
(University of California, San Diego), Bob Wolven (Columbia University)
Opening remarks:
In their "keynote conversation," Hurd, Schottlaender, and Wolven
discussed current and future trends regarding searching and access,
users, journal literature, standards, and the role of libraries
in the academic environment.
Perhaps the largest challenge for libraries, and particularly for
catalogers, is the ease of searching the Internet. In her opening
remarks, Hurd cited a quote concerning the "collapse of inconvenience.
It turned out that inconvenience was an important part of our lives
and we didn't realize it." (1) We must make
resources available in a logical way through connectivity. But are
we sacrificing the best, most appropriate data for the most expedient?
Hurd also discussed the blurring of roles among companies, "collaborative
spaces" as working environments past the preprint stage, and the
role of standards. She noted that libraries are recognizing that
there is both a burden and a benefit in the movement to e-serials.
One burden is "bad data"--its impact is insidious. Bad data, including
wrong ISSN for example, causes many problems in delivering our services
adequately.
Schottlaender also began his remarks with a quote: "the next generation
of search engines will give you more than a longer list of search
results. They [sic] will disrupt the economy." (2)
He provided three causal realities of journal literature. 1) Electronic
scholarship and learning are taking hold. It has been five years
since e-scholarship and e-learning took hold and today e-journals
are much more used than print. In fact, user studies show that their
usage is twice as high as that of print. 2) There is beginning to
be a content proliferation towards the e-journal. Of the 50,000
scholarly journals available today, just over half are now available
digitally with most publishers planning to offer more selection
soon (3). Somewhere on the order of two million
articles appear each year in the sciences (4);
and the World Wide Web has now grown to over six billion pages.
3)This huge growth comes at a time when libraries are financially
unable to keep up with the demand for e-serials. At the end of 2003,
state governments were finding themselves running a combined deficit
of $80 billion. By the end of 2004, they expect a deficit of $70
billion; and 2005 is not expected to be much of an improvement.
(5)
Several future possibilities have been suggested within the library
world in the printed vs. e-serial issue. One is that we will see
the demise of the journal in favor of articles as the bibliographic
unit of consumption. Another suggested trend is that there will
be an increase in institutional repositories. And lastly, there
is the suggestion that the Internet will become the first "University
Press" of choice--the hope being that the Internet publishing model
will be the one universities will adopt, reducing library dependence
on costly journals.
For CONSER, the challenge will be providing more granular control
of objects and providing access to different kinds of objects. Currently
the work with FRBR does not meet the granular needs at the sub-work
manifestation level. We need to be able to have sub-item level relationships.
In the future, the ability to obtain an item will become more important
than having an item within one's existing collections. There will
also be more information consumption at a more granular level; and
libraries will need to consider offering more services which require
payment for usage/time.
Questions:
Wolven: In the opening remarks, both speakers used quotations and
information that came from blogs, email and other informal online
sources. Is this a trend in scholarly communication or just a modified
form of the kind of gray literature that has always shaped scientific
research?
Hurd: People are using whatever information they find first, regardless
of whether it is the best. But can we control it?
Schottlaender: Better, stronger search engines are on the horizon
that will be more powerful than Google. How can we assure that what
we think is valuable is found?
Wolven: Both of you noted the need to save users' time and give
them only what they want. Libraries have traditionally tried to
be comprehensive and present as much relevant content and paths
to it as possible. Is this a conflict?
Schottlaender: Library attempts to be comprehensive by providing
multiple types of access are driving users nuts! We have gone too
far.
Hurd: Will metadata be sufficient to find the millions of data
objects stored in large repositories? Will there be connections
from one repository to another or will we have parallel, un-connected
silos?
Wolven: Can we talk about "the user" as if it was one type of person?
Do different users behave differently and, if so, what does that
say about our needs to provide access?
Hurd: We need to develop strategies to serve different types of
users. How can we make it better, easier, and faster?
Schottlaender: When we analyze a resource to provide access, we
don't consider its usage but what it is about. Personalization through
portals, different views, etc. may help with different user needs.
Wolven: Many users seem to know what they want and just need to
know how to get it.
Schottlaender: There are so many ways to get it! The "obtain" function
is more complex than it used to be and also more important.
Wolven: Sandy noted a blurring of roles within libraries and in
companies. What might we see in the next four years?
Hurd: Vendors will be stretched and pushed in new ways but the
shift must continue as money is finite.
Schottlaender: There will be more of the same with two possible
directions/concerns for libraries: 1) a more collaborative role
in the scholarly communication process, and 2) the lack of infrastructure
for the care and feeding (i.e., archiving) of electronic resources
over the long term.
Wolven: While there is a demand for standards (such as DOI, OpenURL,
and metasearch], the need often arises in advance of the ability
to meet it. If we develop standards too quickly, before the real
needs can be assessed, will we develop standards that are too thin
to be useful? What advice can you offer?
Hurd: I applaud NISO for its accelerated pace of development. However,
even when standards have been developed, the fact that some aspects
of the standard will be optional means that companies will implement
them differently making compatibility a problem.
Schottlaender: Standards are whatever the library community chooses
to follow. It is the library community that drives the standards.
Wolven: Do the pressures on libraries to provide transparent access
to users result in a loss of visibility of the library's value?
Schottlaender: It is important that libraries make it clear that
it was the library that helped the user get there!
A participant suggested that if the library focused more on ease
of use, the library would become more used and thus, more visible.
Lively audience participation followed with questions and comments
regarding the importance and tension of legacy data and how we proceed
in today's environment, as well as including the need to reduce
redundancy. Several participants noted the popularity of A-Z lists
and questioned the value of cataloging for journals. It was also
noted that the potential rise of article repositories could remove
the context provided by the journal. On the other hand, are we making
too much of this? Some felt that journals are here to stay and that
we need to focus on keeping this information available for future
generations. You need to be able to tie the object back to the source;
otherwise, how will you be able to tell if the article is scholarly
or just fluff? The role of the library in all of this was deemed
critical.
Panel 1: Publishing trends
Panelists: Julia Blixrud (ARL), Reed Elfenbein (John Wiley), Daviess
Menefee (Elsevier) (6), Jennifer O'Connell (EBSCO
Subscription Services); Bob Wolven, moderator
Question: What do you see as the future of journal publishing in
terms of electronic vs. print and the future of the journal itself?
What are the forces that will shape publishing direction in years
to come?
Menefee:
- Print will be around as long as long-term archiving is still
an issue; will diminish once archiving issues are settled
- The journal life cycle may become digital to print to satisfy
both archiving and user needs
- Articles will become increasingly more visual with sound, video,
and PowerPoint files
- Depending on the market, journals will merge and combine but
there won't be fewer articles
- Doesn't see any major changes in next 3-5 years
Elfenbein:
- Authors and readers shape journals; what do they want? Speed,
discoverability, citability
- Authors do not want to lose the prestige of the journal
- Library needs and authors' needs are quite different!
- Electronic format will become predominant
- While print will be around for a long time, it is more likely
that the path will be from digital to print on demand (rather
than from print to digital)
O'Connell
- More publishers are offering electronic only and more libraries
are purchasing only the electronic
- Smaller publishers are slower to go electronic; print will
still be around
- If you remove the concept of the issue and its frequency, it's
hard to know what you are purchasing!
- Journal name and integrity are still critical
Blixrud
- There needs to be some kind of certification for electronic
content
- Speed of archiving will determine diminish of print
- Community around scholarship is key
- We are in an evolutionary stage
Question: How might the emergence and potential growth of open
access publishing impact on the serial as we know it today? Is the
"branding" of the journal strong enough to hold a title together
in the future?
Blixrud:
- Any move to open access will be determined by promotion and
tenure considerations within academia
- Be careful what you ask for!
O'Connell:
- Sees no difference in subscriptions
- EBSCO now works with the copyright holders; would they work
with individual authors?
Elfenbein:
- Peer review will continue to be important
- Will lead to competition for authors and papers
- Believes the branding that the journal provides will continue
to be critical
Menefee:
- To some extent we are already there. There are already multiple
opportunities for publication, but most still come to journals
due to their certification
- The journal also assures a time stamping
- If authors charged individually for articles would publishers
go to the cheapest authors?
- How could Elsevier separately deal with 500,000 authors a year?
- Open access would have a profound impact on publishing; libraries
would no longer have much say in what is made available
Question: So the named journal as certification is a force. What
about speed? And does this mean continuous revision? What about
stability of the content?
Elfenbein:
- By and large, authors are not interested in stabilization.
Very few authors are also interested in changing articles; doesn't
see this as a problem
Comment from participant:
- Newspapers have revised content without certification
Question: What's happening with digitization of retrospective content
and availability of back files?
Blixrud:
- Everyone wants more! Need ready access to older materials
O'Connell:
- Seeing a lot more effort but access is leased and not owned
Elfenbein and Menefee:
- Back files are good! Elsevier and Wiley have committed to electronic
coverage from the beginning and everyone wants it. Usage statistics
are up. Issues are being scanned not keyed.
Comment from participant: Obscure data is being entered on the
Web and found more readily.
Question: How are publishers tracking data and to what extent might
it be sharable?
Menefee:
- There is a question as to who maintains the bibliographic information,
libraries or publishers, and how it can be shared
- Title changes and new title information are possibilities;
need to go further
- Standards are needed that are developed by librarians and publishers
O'Connell:
- EBSCO uses publisher dispatch data, but only a few publishers
provide it
Elfenbein:
- The challenge is to turn publisher's dispatch data into something
more dynamic
- What is published and what a library purchases are not necessarily
the same thing
Wolven:
- However, what we describe needs to meet all these needs
Further comments from participants:
- ONIX for serials has a dispatch standard for transactions
- Many models of open access publishing could relate to a loss
of funds to libraries and the role as selector would go away
- Role of cataloger would change dramatically as metadata could
accompany the open access serials
- Libraries' role could be predominantly that of archiver
- Surprising how often links don't work; data being used for
OpenURL resolvers was not intended for this purpose
- Basic holdings coverage supplied by the publisher would be
great
Suggestions from Menefee:
- Create a list of data that are needed industry-wide
- Consider Project COUNTER as a model
Panel 2: Users
Panelists: Trisha Davis (Ohio State), Matt Dunnie (CSA), Ted Fons
(Innovative Interfaces), Carolyn Larson (Library of Congress), Vicky
Reich (Stanford University), Jenny Walker (ExLibris); Bob Wolven,
moderator
Question: What are users doing? How are they accessing journals?
What works and what doesn't?
Larson:
- There is a strong preference for articles in electronic format.
However, how patrons are accessing serials literature depends
a great deal on the type of serials-related question they are
asking.
- Most who come to LC are undergraduates searching on a topic
and use A&I services hoping to get full text.
- However, there is another sizable group who come with specific
citations *these users need to be able to search by journal title
and issue * whether through the OPAC or journal lists such as
Serials Solutions and TDNet
- In addition we have a substantial group of patrons who are
doing historical research asking such questions as "What were
the key journals in field X fifty years ago? I'd like to browse
through X issues for a certain time period."
- Recalling the discussion this morning about the possible demise
of the journal, I would be concerned about our ability to respond
to these latter types of questions in future years if archival
issues are not address and if we don't have bibliographic control
at a higher level than the individual article.
Reich:
- A large percentage, up to 25%, (http://ejust.stanford.edu/logdata.html#2viii)
of all e-serial usage comes through interactions with library
finding aids (A-Z lists, OPAC, etc.)
- But will title lists allow us to look back 50 years from now?
No. Users will need metatdata to find materials; they will need
the full text in library collections.
- Usage is changing. A few years ago people accessed full text
pdfs. Now with all the added adjunct links, full text html is
accessed more often.
Davis (7):
- Everyone wants rapid, electronic access, so much so that Ohio
State and other libraries are having to cancel print and archiving
activities to be able to purchase electronic
- Catalogs work well for librarians and serious researches, but
maybe not for most users
- Complexity of multiple routes is a problem; undergraduates
are more likely to go to Google
- We should focus more on obtaining rather than owning; instead
of cataloging what the library owns, we should put onus on publishers
and aggregators to supply the data with the package
- We should flip the model: we should identify the objects we
need to deliver first, then move to the larger package; start
with clearer identifiers at the lower levels and work up
Fons:
- Library systems can handle getting to objects through the OPAC
and link resolvers and all parts of access, including authentication
- Libraries also want to explain some rights management information
in the catalog
- Reference linking plays a critical role
- Identifiers are essential to this! All data exchange relies
on clear identifiers and we don't have them
Walker:
- A-Z lists, provision of citation linkers, A&I databases,
and increasingly courseware are the starting places for user research
- Link servers can be used to generate some of the other tools,
once configured with a library's holdings; can automatically generate
the A-Z list
- Metasearch tools will provide a unified means of getting to
article content through other systems
Dunnie:
- Mindshare of the user is critical; users want pieces of information,
i.e. articles, not A-Z lists
- Quality of indexing and rights are key
- Sees a trend shift from simple to more advanced searching
Question: Who are the drivers of technology? Does it come from
within the company or from libraries?
Walker:
- Libraries are driven by the need for a rule-based knowledge
base on linking servers and metasearch tools.
- With open access, there may be a mix of free and paid articles
within a package; how do you find out whether an article is free
or not?
- Need for one ISSN that brings together related ISSN, like the
XISBN feature available in OCLC which retrieves all related ISBN
for different formats
Fons:
- Drive is from libraries, at least from an ILS, project development
and marketing perspective
- Not worth it for a company to develop a new technology if it
might not be used
Dunnie:
- Competition is a major driver and the bottom line
Reich:
- How much metadata can be generated if libraries had the full
text files "in hand"? How much can be generated automatically?
- Metadata tied to context (the file) is important to preserve
- Catalog is very important for those looking for older content
Question: What data do librarians need? What do we want to do and
care enough to do? Libraries have tracked at the title level and
relied on A&I services to go lower. Will libraries continue
to do this or rely on others?
Menefee:
- Resources are too varied; large libraries must continue to
rely on others
- Need an identifier to see the serial across the board
Question: How important is subject access at the journal level,
either in the catalog or on Web pages?
Walker:
- Libraries have an important role to play here as there are
no standards [re Web subject categories)
Fons:
- While every library seems to have a different system, most
are based on the disciplines taught in the university
Comments from participants:
- This is a very political topic!
- Interdisciplinary and general categories are a problem
- We have done a disservice by not classifying all e-resources;
could use multiple class nos.
- While class nos. have been used (at U. Washington), searches
of general categories by class are too large and pointless
- UCLA is doing classification mapping
Question: How can linking and searching be enhanced? Where are
the gaps in needed data?
Walker:
- Knowing how to link something at the appropriate level
- OpenURL context object should be included in CONSER records
- All variations of title should be included in the CONSER record
Fons:
- Identifiers at the bibliographic level (i.e, an identifier
that stands for all formats)
- Identifiers at the package level
Davis:
- Should be able to get to a journal regardless of its format;
need a solution to multiple versions!!!
- OPAC would be better used if there is one record for all formats
Reich:
- Long term preservation would be easier if publishers provided
a digital signature for their articles to determine authenticity
of content
- If not: freeze content once published; Flag content that has
been changed
- Ejournal "volumes" are often missing front matter (editorial
boards, submission instructions). This information needs to be
explicitly linked to the "main journal content".
Comments from participants:
- For management of e-journals we need transactional data: articles
to journals, journals to aggregations, etc. Our records only cover
some of this data
- OPACs are complicated; undergraduates want printed lists of
journals! Also patrons are confused with start dates thinking
these reflect holdings, which aren't immediately obvious
- Digital signatures could be a real benefit for users and providers;
development could evolve the way standard for OpenURL did?
- We need to think about metadata generation as something built
into the object
Breakout session 1
A one hour breakout session was held at the end of the first day
to give participants further opportunities to share their thoughts
and ideas. The three group leaders were Les Hawkins (LC), Jean Hirons
(consultant), and Steve Shadle (U.Washington).
Participants were asked what topics had not been addressed and
what they would like to further discuss. Selected comments and questions
from the three groups are categorized by general topics below:
Publishing issues:
- What kind of indexing do open access journals receive?
Bibliographic records/database issues:
- Will records for open access journals be in the CONSER database?
Should CONSER records indicate that a journal is open access?
- Are there better ways to display multiple records?
o A group within CONSER is developing a suggestion for a
publication history record that would serve as a super record
o Is FRBR a solution? FRBR doesn't have the needed granularity
and it doesn't seem to work well for serials (an international
group has decided to see what will work for serials then see
how this will fit into FRBR)
- Can we have licensing/holdings/property rights information
in the CONSER database?
- What is the viability of the single record approach if libraries
are not buying print or the print ceases?
Cooperation:
Users
- Do we really know what users want? Are there user studies that
can be consulted?
CONSER
- Distinction between the CONSER Program and the CONSER Database;
program can serve as a catalyst, provide leadership
Panel 3. Standards
Sally Sinn (NAL) moderated the second day's panel discussion on
standards. She explained that standards will play a major role in
the recommendations that will come from the summit. She noted that
CONSER is a community of stakeholders with shared interests and
the ability to move forward on agendas, particularly in regard to
standards development and implementation.
Panelists: Priscilla Caplan (Florida Center for Library Automation),
Tim Jewell (U. Washington), Sally McCallum (Network Development
and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress), Oliver Pesch (EBSCO
Publishing), Regina Reynolds (US ISSN Center, Library of Congress)
Question: How might the standards you are currently addressing
help us with our goals?
Caplan:
- Interoperability standards for subscription information being
developed through ONIX for Serials will be a big help; until now
it's been ad hoc and non-standard
- Transactions can be used for many functions including:
o provide management information for selection and acquisitions
o generate A-Z lists
o populate link resolution servers
o dispatch notification when issues and articles are published
- Everything depends on identifiers, identifiers, and more identifiers!
Identifiers needed are:
o Serial work identifier that can bring multiple formats
together
o Title version identifier (at the manifestation level);
ISSN could serve this purpose but is not consistent and not
currently usable
o Aggregation-level identifiers
o Party identifiers
Reynolds:
- A lot can be done to resolve the ISSN issues. The ISSN facilitates
interoperability, access, and identification and is much better
than title matching.
- The ISSN standard is currently undergoing revision, including:
o Broadening the scope to cover continuing resources (i.e.,
non-serials, such as Web sites; non-serial resources will
be assigned ISSN on a selective basis)
o Resolution of questions about whether to assign one or
many ISSN to resources issued in multiple forms. Various options
are being considered including keeping the status quo, assigning
ISSN at the title level only, changing the ISSN structure
to allow a base ISSN to represent the title level and a suffix
to represent the medium, or designating one of a cluster of
ISSN to represent the "master" or title-level ISSN and the
other ISSN to represent medium-specific versions
o A concern is "bad" ISSN in the CONSER database. These are
on non-US records and result from incorrect (typos, ISSN of
former titles) ISSN on non-US publications being input by
catalogers who do not check or have access to ISSN Online.
Pesch
- OpenURL: link resolvers are making a huge difference; however,
problems involve metadata quality where data created for another
purpose is being used inadequately. Links from bibliographic references
are particularly difficult. ISSN is a problem; need to map one
ISSN to all possible combinations
- Project COUNTER: has been working with developing usage statistics;
vendors are adopting use of COUNTER; but ISSN again is a problem
- Metasearch: broadcasts the same search to multiple databases;
many vendors are collaborating; at issue are duplicates and what
are considered to be duplicate
- Shibboleth: authorization access standards for campuses to
identify users for sign-on accounts; very few using at the moment
Jewell:
- Working on licensing standards for the Digital Library Federation;
work is almost complete
- "administrivia": data for licensing, consortia, tracking documents
- 50 functional requirements and 309 data elements, such as trial,
access, administrative, and organization entities
- Interoperability is key but can be defined in different ways:
ability to communicate with other modules and systems; migrate
data to a new system; share data among libraries, aggregators,
serials agents, and "PAMs"; share data among libraries and consortia
using the "OCLC model" of data sharing
- Noted that license agreements are difficult to understand and
hard to summarize, assuming a standard for describing them is
established. Not all libraries are equipped with proper staff,
and there would be extensive duplication of effort if every library
analyzed each of their licenses; hopefully, DLF work will ease
the burden by making it possible to share license data.
- Suggested that "packages" of data can be defined and shared,
including: "rich description" of content and holdings; authorized
locations and IP's; sales and tech support contacts; license terms,
such as permitted use and archiving rights; pricing; and information
about usage statistics.
McCallum:
Questions from participants:
What do we need in the way of holdings data? Do we need predictive
patterns? Is the MARC Format for Holdings Data (MFHD) too complicated:
o Pesch: Not much interest in MARC21 holdings
records among customers; however, providing holdings data at
least at the summary level is critical
o McCallum: patterns don't address integrating resources (e.g.,
Web sites, databases)
o Caplan:
o Holdings information is needed to populate link resolvers
o NISO Editeur Joint Working Party is looking at both MARC
and Z39.50
o Via ONIX transactions, publication history records could
be populated with information at the issue level
o Release notification at the issue or article level from publishers
could preclude the need for prediction
Further comments on holdings from participants:
o MARC is only as complicated as the serials it is used to describe
o Only the major publishers will participate (based on past experience);
depending on publishers for data is not reliable; however, licensing
agreements could require that it be provided
o If a serial has enumeration and chronology, it should be recorded
somewhere
o A new pricing model? Pay only after article dispatch data has
been received?
o Libraries tend to deal with e-serials in large batches, not
individually; need to link holdings to the package
o What about the SICI? Designed for the issue level; some publishers
are using.
o Don't forget the print!
o Could authority control be an answer to identifiers? FRANAR
is developing an International Standard Authority Number (ISAN)
that can serve for the various names of an entity in different
languages, cataloging codes; this also includes uniform titles
Discussion prior to the final breakout session led to a discussion
of the question of need for CONSER records for scholarly journals,
given the use of A&I services and link resolvers and A-Z lists.
Might CONSER cease to produce a product and serve only as an organizer
and catalyst? After some heated debate, it was acknowledged that
the journal will still be around, that there are many types of serials
apart from scholarly journals, and that there are many needs for
a catalog record.
CONCLUSIONS
While there will be changes in the way that journals and journal
literature are issued over the coming years it seems that the journal
as an entity is probably here to stay.
The primary format of the journal will become electronic, not print,
with print potentially becoming print on demand.
The ultimate goal of users is the article, not the journal. Those
searching by topic will use A&I services and hopefully be connected
to articles via link resolvers and OpenURL. Those with specific
citations or who wish to browse journals by topic, will want access
at the title level.
Libraries need to provide both avenues to the content of journals
as easily and quickly as possible.
For both, identifiers are key and ISSN is the most important.
There seems to be a clear need and a potential role for CONSER
in helping assure that ISSN are correct in bibliographic records
and that there are sufficient ISSN for use in link resolvers.
For access to the title level, A-Z lists may be sufficient for
most users. However, they do not provide for title changes or
more complex situations.
Bibliographic records in the OPAC are needed by libraries for
their own control and by patrons when A-Z lists are not sufficient.
There is no guarantee that there will be a record for an electronic
journal in the CONSER database. CONSER members should find ways
to assure more inclusive coverage.
But do we need as much in them? What is absolutely critical?
(titles, linking relationships, ISSN, URLs) What is not? CONSER
should find ways to continue to pare down the aggregator-neutral
record so that catalogers can spend more time on new activities,
such as ISSN verification.
Detailed holdings may not be needed in these records and publication
patterns are probably not necessary. But accurate summary level
holdings data is essential for linkages. As much as possible,
this data should be supplied by the publisher (acknowledging
that what is published may not be what has been purchased)
CONSER should keep abreast of developments and standards that
would allow for inclusion or pointing to other useful types
of shared data. One possibility is to use a metadata container,
such as METS, to bundle together licensing data from the DLF
standards with descriptive metadata (i.e., CONSER or other record).
Developers of electronic resource management systems could work
directly with publishers to obtain license data. If this data
were to be made available via the Web, the CONSER record could
point to it.
Bibliographic records could be more useful to patrons if multiple
formats were more clearly displayed and search results were not
so confusing. Some libraries are more successful at this than
others.
Are there other models that we should consider, such as the
EZB? Is the publication history record a possible solution?
Should ILSs make it possible to bring together multiple records
in single displays? CONSER should consider the possibilities
to determine its role.
Developing standards may enable more exchanges of data among
publishers, subscription agents, A&I services, libraries,
and others; these may be particularly useful at the article level
and for summary holdings. The publishers at the Summit were very
willing to work with CONSER to try to be more responsive to the
needs of libraries. Getting all publishers to provide the dispatch
data is a potential problem; however, it could be built into licensing
agreements. Keeping an eye on developments with ONIX and DLF will
be important.
Libraries will need to cooperate more with publishers and vendors
in the future. Libraries also need to cooperate internationally
to better use each others' records. CONSER can play a leadership
role in enabling cooperative ventures.
Recommendations
The breakouts produced three lists of recommendations. Following
the summit, the Steering Committee met to merge the lists, prioritize,
and suggest assignments to those most important. The following list
is organized by priority.
1. Revisit CONSER's mission to determine potential new emphases,
and leadership opportunities
Who: PCC Policy Committee
When: November 2004
2. Collaborate with the ISSN International and U.S. and Canadian
national centers to assure more complete and accurate ISSN in the
CONSER database.
The problems associated with the ISSN include the following:
- Not enough; many serials lack them
- Too many: separate ISSNs assigned for print and electronic;
need for a work level identifier
- Incorrect ISSN in CONSER records due to wrong ISSN on publications
CONSER should:
2a. Develop ways to work more closely with the ISSN national centers
(NSDP and ISSN Canada) to help assure ISSN coverage and accuracy;
make this a priority of CONSER work.
Who: CONSER Operations Committee, NSDP
When: Discuss at CONSER Operations meeting in May to develop
action plan
2b. Respond to the survey currently being distributed by the ISSN
International Centre as to the most desired choice for handling
multiple versions of the same serial.
Who: CONSER Office will organize
When: April
2c. Investigate ways to make the ISSN Database available to CONSER
members.
Who: LC/Serial Record Division, CDS, PCC chair, ISSN Network
When: 2004
3. CONSER should take a more systematic approach to coverage of
electronic journals, particularly those in aggregations and journal
packages.
Who: CONSER Office, CONSER Operations Committee
When: Discuss at meeting in May
4. Establish a CONSER/publisher advisory board to recommend initiatives
for collaboration between publishers and CONSER.
Who: PCC Steering Committee to discuss appointments and charge
When: June 2004 at ALA
5. Explore ways of accommodating OpenURLs in the CONSER/PCC record
Who: CONSER Operations Committee
When: Already begun; discuss in May
6. Discuss ways to monitor the success of the aggregator-neutral
record in order to recommend further additions or deletions from
the record, as well as ways to accommodate non-AACR2 data from international
sources as well as pre-AACR2 data.
Who: CONSER Operations Committee
When: May 2004
7. Establish a task group to recommend new displays of records
representing multiple versions in order to make OCAT displays clearer
and more usable.
Who: Discussion to begin at joint meeting of CONSER and BIBCO
Operations Committees with recommendations as to who might serve;
possible further action from PCC Standing Committee on Automation
When: May 2004
8. Prepare a top down list of data elements created by different
sources (pubishers, subscription agents, etc.) to determine where
CONSER fits in.
Who: To be assigned, PCC Steering Committee
When: 2004
9. Examine existing user studies to determine what methods of access
are most useful and desired methods of subject access. Consider
information currently available from Stanford and OCLC studies.
Who: PCC Steering Committee will discuss appointment
When: June 2004
10. Analyze the CONSER database to determine current makeup.
Who: CONSER Office
When: 2004
11. Monitor developments with ONIX for serials to determine whether
there is a greater role for CONSER or potential for data sharing.
Pay particular attention to piloting organizations.
Who: CONSER representatives who are also members of the NISO EDItEUR
Joint Working Party on the Exchange of Serials Subscription Information
(JWP)
When: 2004-2005
12. Explore the potential for a work-level record, including commenting
on developments with FRANAR
Who: CONSER FRBR task force and CONSER Publication History Record
task force
When: 2004-2005
13. Monitor developments with administrative metadata and the Digital
Library Federation to determine whether some data might be shared
via a pointer in CONSER records.
Who: CONSER and members of the DLF
When: 2005-2006
14. Consider a broader mentoring and educational role for CONSER
via SCCTP or other methods
Who: SCCTP Advisory Board, PCC Steering Committee, CONSER Operations
Committee
When: 2005-2006
Notes
1. Siva Vaidhyanathan's blog at www.nyu.edu/classes/siva
2. Salon.com 9 March 2004
3. Carol Tenopir, Library Journal 1 Feb. 2004
4. Andrew Odlyzko, Library Journal 15 Jan.
2004
5. 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: 15
6. Menefee noted that his comments were his
own and not those of Elsevier.
7. Davis noted that her comments reflected
input from a number of colleagues she consulted prior to the summit.
|
The
Library of Congress >> CONSER
Home