The Catalog of the Future: Integrating Electronic Resources

1. The Catalog of the Future: Integrating Electronic Resources By Dana M. Caudle Cataloging Librarian Auburn University Libraries caudlda@auburn.edu

2. 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?

3. 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??

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Can our catalogs handle the load?YES!! If we tell ILS vendors what we want! AND We add primarily those things we pay for!

7. How?? • Single record approach: • CONSER/AACR2 approach: All print, microform, and electronic holdings on ONE bibliographic record. ONE bibliographic record for print. ONE bibliographic record for microform. ONE bibliographic record for all electronic.

8. 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.

19. Library journal

30. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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

35. Metadata for Libraries • Dublin Core • EAD • TEI • ONIX • GIS Each has a use! Each also uses XML as its mark-up language.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Cross-walks : Library of Congress MARCXML, MODS, and Mapping http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc.html

46. Cross-walks : OCLC CORC and Connexion http://connexion.oclc.org/

47. 100-085-322 ******

50. xml,in,li,/2002