Consortial Cataloging Guidelines for Electronic Resources: I-Share Survey and Recommendations

Abstract

Electronic resources have been a growing portion of library collections. , Concurrent with their growth in numbers has been the need for libraries to manage their access, including through the library catalog. Libraries have addressed the need to represent e-resources in their catalogs by modifying and transforming cataloging rules originally designed to handle physical items, and by developing new workflows and guidelines. Since 2000, the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI) and its predecessor, the Illinois Library Computer Systems Organization (ILCSO), have created three working groups to address cataloging practice and catalog access to e-resources for member libraries participating in the shared union catalog (currently the I-Share union catalog). The third of these, the Cataloging Electronic Resources/Electronic Resources Display in the OPAC Task Force (2009) (hereafter 2009 Task Force), was to build upon and update work done by the previous iterations of the Task Force and update recommendations created in 2004. The 2009 Task Force, of which the authors of this paper were members, was given the following charge:  Document needed changes to the 2004 Report and provide additional recommendations as appropriate.  Identify current best practices and additional issues related to the cataloging of, access to, and display of electronic resources in I-Share's consortial environment.  Identify related issues concerning access to electronic resources that are outside of this charge and make recommendations to the I-Share User's Group for additional action. 1 In 2003 the second Task Force surveyed library consortia from around the United States as they determined how to revise the existing recommendations. 2 Rather than perform another national survey, Consortial Cataloging Guidelines for E-Resources 2 the 2009 Task Force chose to focus its efforts in a more inward direction and designed a survey to collect information about how I-Share members handle e-resources cataloging issues, their awareness of and compliance with the existing consortial recommendations, and challenges faced in e-resources cataloging practices. These 2010 survey results provide a snapshot of a group of libraries' cataloging practices. The survey, which covers all types of e-resources, and the recommendations that were developed from it, provides a rarely found example of an attempt to identify and to address major issues surrounding e-resources cataloging, regardless of format or record source. Libraries participating in the survey cover a wide variety of academic libraries, including libraries at large research institutions, small private liberal arts schools, community colleges, and libraries at specialized research institutions. This paper reports on the results of that survey and the recommendations developed by the 2009 Task Force. It will be of interest to other libraries and consortia considering their own cataloging practices in this environment of continued growth in electronic access and new methods of ...

From union catalogue to fusion catalogue

“…It explains why electronic resources cataloguing and access is one of the "popular" collaborative initiatives described in literature reviews, ranging from the development of consortial cataloguing standards (Carya and Ogburnb, 2000;Naun and Braxton, 2005;Chen, 2011;Martin et al, 2011) to cataloguing of selective e-book packages (Preston, 2011;Young et al, 2013). Sharing of workload is found to be an efficient way of achieving success on projects that would be time and resource intensive for individual organizations to pursue on their own (Keenan et al, 2013).…”

A comparison between select open source and proprietary integrated library systems

“…For example, Voyager's internal hardware-based client/server system made patron-finding "quick and consistent (Bryant and Ye, 2012). Martin et al (2011) find that many libraries use Voyagers bulk import function for e-resources records. Ex Libris provides many features that librarians favor such as application programming interfaces, left-anchored-known-item title searching, and a less strict USMARC importation function.…”

“…Validating authority headings overly complex (Khurshid and Al-Baridi, 2009) OPAC is easy to use for finding library resources (Ali and Rehman, 2012) Michigan library Consortium found it easy to customize/add Evergreen's modules (Dykhuis, 2009) Voyager Ineffective stop-word handling in OPAC (Ho, 2011) Reporting module is too complex and interface requires extensive training (Bryant and Ye, 2012) Client/server hardware system makes patron-finding easy consistent (Bryant and Ye, 2012) Cataloging module has easy USMARC importation function (Martin et al, 2011) Librarians favor APIs (Martin et al, 2011) Evergreen Has capacity to display in mobile browsers (Hamby andStubbs, 2010) Yang andHofmann (2010) criticized Evergreen for lack of an intuitive interface OPAC suggests alternate spellings (Yang and Hofmann, 2010) Koha Searches can post as persistent links (McDermott, 2012) Reporting module has no file size restrictions and allows for creation of numerous SQL-based reports (Walls, 2011;McDermott, 2012) Some staff in Pakistan library system reluctant to use all of Koha's modules (Shafi-Ullah and Qutab, 2012) Catalog module has difficulty importing OCLC bibliographic records (Walls, 2011) Student assistants needed almost no training to use the new system (Kohn and McCloy, 2010) Pull down menus for systems administration module is easy to use (Dennison, 2011) Table IX.…”

Positioning Libraries for a New Bibliographic Universe

“…127 Martin et al present a case study of managing cataloging guidelines for e-resources for the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI) shared catalog, I-Share. 128 In the aptly named article, "10% Wrong for 90% Done: A Practical Approach to Collection Deduping," Hamby discusses the challenge of identifying and merging duplicate records in a new open-source consortial integrated library system for the South Carolina Library Evergreen Network Delivery System (SC LENDS). 129 The consortium developed an algorithm that matched bibliographic records 90 percent of the time.…”