Third time lucky?? No attachment this time - text below
Sally
Decision to use Separate records for e & p records at LSE
Summary of Reasoning
There are advantages and disadvantages to both solutions. It was a question
of making the best decision based on catalogue display and management. In
order to justify our recommendations to senior management, a summary of our
reasons is as follows:
Searching and appearance of the Catalogue
· Users could search the catalogue by material type should they only
require a certain format, e.g. electronic book
· the display in the summary results page of the catalogue etc will
show clearly with the use of icons (we hope – to be investigated) the same
records grouped next to each other with a clear indication of format. [This
is to be investigated] If single records are used, electronic formats can
become lost at this level
· in the body of the bib record itself, one often has to catalogue
details relating to format when cataloguing to MARC21 standard – easier,
and therefore much clearer to the users, if there can be one print record
and one supplier-neutral electronic record
· It seems to be more user friendly if the records display directly
next to each other.
· The other alternative of single records seems to be less user
friendly. As users will have to go in and read the record, the record will
be long, and overly complicated and they will be more inclined to miss e-
sources.
· If it is all one record could users do a search on the catalogue by
resource type and just pull up a particular type of e-source?
· It really doesn’t really matter in many ways what we choose from a
user’s point of view PROVIDING it is clear.
Managing the catalogue
· Catalogue changes are easier to make and records easier to maintain
so the catalogue can be kept up to date and accurate which is more helpful
for the users
· Define the item exactly - rather than mixing up material formats
and ISBNs in one catalogue entry
· Allow for quicker cataloguing since batches of records can be added
in a batch load - important when cataloguing resources are under pressure
or when large subscriptions are taken out
· Cancellations of subscriptions can be handled quickly - records
withdrawn in a batch rather than having to seek out the record that
contains details of all material types and amend it
· Statistics gathering and usage is easier to obtain
· having separate records fits better with the supply of record data
from Serials Solutions, from book suppliers and so on. This means that the
import of new records, updating and deleting of records can be more easily
automated – this is a benefit to end users because the records are kept
comprehensive and up to date.
· separate records will facilitate integration with Meridian, which
expects to deal with bibliographic records from Voyager for electronic
resources
· management information – this seems potentially easier to obtain if
records are kept separate, though I think this can be done at the MFHD
level too.
· Regarding datasets, the Data Library contains just electronic
resources and there will not be that many which also have p format . In
that respect it really doesn’t mattersthat much having single or separate
records as long as there is a record on the catalogue for each dataset.
· Ease of adding and removing e- materials, and because of basic
cataloguing principle that a different material type needs a different
bibliographic description.
· we will probably be downloading electronic records en masse from a
3rd party, so it is highly likely, as with any database, it will make it
*much* easier for us to manage e-journals, update our holdings, and keep
statistics on e-journal use if we keep the records separate.
· If we keep records separate, it leaves our options open, if we
decide to integrate records in future. It also will make it easier for
users to select "electronic only" as a search on the OPAC?
· There are a number of benefits for managing the catalogue such as
cancellation and withdrawal of records and the staff time involved
· The possibility of divergence of content, particularly for eBooks
There were some provisos and other points that were raised
· the use of icons on the catalogue is important for spotting
different formats in the results summary page [work will need to be carried
to find out if this is possible]
· It would be interesting to be able to display another relationship
between p and e, sometimes an e-dataset will have a publication about it,
could that be displayed somehow?
· Linking print to e-resource and vice versa is important, or
grouping, in case records do become separated in the results summary page.
· Single records for serials are best for the average user, in terms
of :
a) minimises number of 'clicks' to retrieve all relevant information via
the OPAC; clarity - all in one place
b) a single record, with multiple holdings, is more likely to draw users'
attention to the different available formats/holdings
c) we currently put different holdings locations on the same bibliographic
record (CURRENT PERIODICALS, MAIN, etc), so we could easily follow that
model and treat e-journal as additional "location"
· we should use separate records but with the caveats:-
- we look into ways of making it *very clear* on the catalogue that
both print and electronic versions exist for any given title - so that both
in title lists, and in the full record, the user is clearly directed to the
other alternative format/holdings.
· separate records will be annoying if they can't be linked to each
other somehow, or guaranteed to always display in summary results lists and
browse lists next to each other.
· is there any way of making holdings dates *very* visible in title
lists? ... the worry is that, becoming used to e-books, users will assume
that our e-journals holdings dates for any given title are the same as
print, without investigating the full records.
Sally Rumsey
E Services Librarian
Library
The London School of Economics and Political Science
10 Portugal Street
London
WC2A 2HD
020 7955 7943
[log in to unmask]
|
