Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:13:11.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fluxion-structures: records for remote access electronic resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

James Caudwell
James Caudwell*
Affiliation:
Technical Services, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3BG, UK
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

At the 2003 ARLIS/UK & Ireland Annual Conference, Creative partnerships, at the University of Sussex, a workshop entitled Documenting electronic resources: standards and challenges attracted delegates interested in exploring the practical and theoretical issues raised by cataloguing electronic resources in traditional library environments. This article further details recent changes made to the Anglo-American cataloguing rules to accommodate various types of e-resources. While quasi-established methods of representing such resources have undergone substantial revision, new metadata schemes are emerging and divisions between respective repositories containing different material types are disintegrating. Adapted or entirely new workflows for managing cataloguing of e-resources are under development (TrackER) and a fundamental restructuring of the very framework for relating data in bibliographic records to the needs of users (FRBR) may impact significantly on the representation of e-resources in library OPACs. Do these developments in any sense touch the library user whose ‘infosphere’ is underpinned by the seamlessness of Google’s PageRank algorithm and will the Research Libraries Group’s pilot service RedLightGreen sufficiently ‘Google-ize’ what libraries provide for these users?

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , 2004 , pp. 5 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Weightman, Gavin. Signor Marconi’s magic box: how an amateur inventor defied scientists and began the rad, revolution. London: HarperCollins, 2003, p.19–20.Google Scholar
2. Corazza, Gian Carlo. ‘Marconi’s history’. Proceedings of the IEEE vol. 86 no. 7 July 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Gorman, Michael. ‘Osborn revisited; or the catalog in crisis; or, four cataloguers, only one of whom shall save us’. American libraries vol. 6 November 1975, p.599–601.Google Scholar
4. OCLC. 2003 OCLC environmental scan: pattern recognition, p.vii, 96 (http://www.oclc.org/membership/escan/). Google Scholar
5. OCLC, ibid., p.x.Google Scholar
6. OCLC, ibid., p.5.Google Scholar
7. Levy, Stephan. ‘Welcome to history 2.0’. Newsweek November 10 2003, p.58.Google Scholar
8. OCLC, ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar
9. Quint, Barbara. ‘OCLC shares its strategic vision’. Information today Jan. 19 2004.Google Scholar
10. Johnson, Steven. ‘Digging for Googleholes: Google may be our new god, but it’s not omnipotent’. Slate July 16, 2003 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2085668). Google Scholar
11. Gillies, James and Caillau, Robert. How the web was born: the story of the world wide web. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Winston, Brian. Media technology and society: a history: from the telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge, 1998, p.29.Google Scholar
13. Whittaker, Jason. The cyberspace handbook. London: Routledge, 2004, p.l7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Winston, ibid., p.325. In the invention of packet-switching, for instance, Winston considers the ratio of influence between the drivers of pure computer science and the pressure to establish nuclear-bomb-proof communications systems.Google Scholar
15. Olson, Nancy B. ‘Cataloguing remote electronic resources’. Cataloging & classification quarterly vol. 31 no. 2 2001, p.l04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Copeland, Ann. ‘Works and digital resources in the catalogue: electronic versions of Book of Urizen, The Kelmscott Chaucer and Robinson Crusoe’. Cataloging & classification quarterly vol. 33 no. 3/4 2002, p. 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Delsey, Tom. ‘Modeling the logic of AACR2’ in: The principles and future of AACR: proceedings of the international conference on the principles and future development of AACR. London: Library Association, 1998, p.l5.Google Scholar
18. OCLC, ibid., p. 105.Google Scholar
19. Winston, ibid., p.272.Google Scholar
20. Seadle, Michael. ‘Mental models for personal digital assistants (PDAs)’. Library hi tech vol. 21 no.4 2003, p.391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Anonymous (2003a). ‘HANDSCAPE: Handheld access to the museum landscape’ available at: http://www.cimi.org/wg/handscape/handscape_long_desc_1201.html. Google Scholar
22. Research Support Libraries Group. Final report, p.21 (http://www.rslg.ac.uk/final/final.pdf); Annexes (http://www.rslg.ac.uk/final/finalann.pdf). Google Scholar
23. Bonthron, Karen, et al. ‘Trends in use of electronic journals in higher education in the UK: views of academic staff and students’. D-libmagazine vol. 9 no. 6 June 2003 (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june03/urquhart/06urquhart.html). Google Scholar
24. Research Support Libraries Group, ibid., p.l1.Google Scholar
25. Research Support Libraries Group, ibid., p.20.Google Scholar
26. Hey, Tony. ‘Why engage in e-science?’. Library + information update vol. 3 no. 3 March 2004, p.25.Google Scholar
27. Research Support Libraries Group, ibid., ‘Annexes’ (http://www.rslg.ac.uk/final/finalann.pdf). Google Scholar
28. Freedman, David H. ‘The virtual heart’. Technology review March 2004, p.64.Google Scholar
29. See: http://www.bio-diglib.com/.Google Scholar
30. Lloyd, Catherine M., et al. ‘CellML: its future, present and past’. Progress in biophysics & molecular biology, article in press April 2004, p.l, 3, 16.Google Scholar
31. Anonymous (2003b). ‘CIMI XML Schema for SPECTRUM’ available at: http://www.cimi.org/wg/xml_spectrum/. See also the table ‘brief guide to data elements and format standards’ provided for the purpose of contributing descriptive data to the RLG Cultural Materials Alliance for a useful summary of published standards employed in the art library community (http://www.rlg.org/culturalres/descguide.html). Google Scholar
32. Kemp, Martin. Visualizations: the Nature book of art and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p.2, 3.Google Scholar
33. Kemp, Martin, ibid., p.178.Google Scholar
34. Hey, Tony, ibid., p.25.Google Scholar
35. Wilson, Andrew. ‘Metadata debate: two perspectives on DC’. DigiCULT.Info 6 December 2003, p.33. (http://www.digicult.info/downloads/dc_info_issue6_december_20031.pdf)Google Scholar
36. McKiernan, Gerry. ‘New age navigation: innovative information interfaces for electronic journals’. Serials librarian vol. 45 no. 2 2003, p.l16–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Available at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/isbdcr-final.pdf. Google Scholar
38. Hirons, Jean and Graham, Crystal. ‘Issues related to seriality’ in The principles and future of AACR: proceedings of the international conference on the principles and future development of AACR. London: Library Association, 1998, p. 180–213; the second paper is available via the JSC’s website: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/ser-rep.pdf [and] http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/chl2.pdf.Google Scholar
39. Hirons, Jean. ‘Seriality: what have we accomplished? What’s next?’. Cataloging ش classification quarterly vol. 36 no. 3/4 2003, p.121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Hirons, Jean, ibid., p.122-123.Google Scholar
41. It is worth noting that the Library of Congress Rule Interpretation (LCRI) 1.0 says non-monographic direct access electronic resources (CD-ROMs; diskettes, etc.) should be catalogued as serials (using AACR2 chapters 9 and 12 and others as appropriate), not as integrating resources – even if, when mounted on the network, earlier issues of the resource are replaced by later issues. Uniquely, such direct access electronic resources are catalogued according to the issuance of the carrier which for CD-ROMs etc. is successive, a situation ‘analogous to print serials where the latest volume supersedes any earlier volumes’.Google Scholar
42. Hirons, Jean and Graham, Crystal, ibid., p.209.Google Scholar
43. Kepler, Johannes. The six-cornered snowflake. Translated by Hardie, Colin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966, p.41.Google Scholar
44. Geikie, Archibald. Class-book of geology. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1890, p. 146.Google Scholar
45. Geikie, Archibald, ibid., p. 165.Google Scholar
46. OCLC, ibid., p.l01.Google Scholar
47. E-mail posting to AUTOCAT: Patton, Glenn. ‘OCLC and integrating resources’. 12 March 2004 (originally posted to: OCLC-CAT in June 2003).Google Scholar
48. For a detailed description of this and other options, see: Task Group on Implementation of Integrating Resources. Final report (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tgintegrfinal.pdf).Google Scholar
49. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. ISBD(ER): International standard bibliographic description for electronic resources. 2004 revision, p. 34 (http://www.ifla.org/VII/sl3/guide/isbder_ww2-1-04.pdf).Google Scholar
50. The CONSER cataloging manual, module 31, Remote access electronic serials (online serials) is made available online: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/Module31.pdf.Google Scholar
51. Documentation, including an FAQ, on the aggregator-neutral record can be found via the link at http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/agg-neutral-recs.html.Google Scholar
52. The phrase is adapted from Hawkins, Les. ‘E-serial titles that disappear’. Serials review vol. 28 no. 3 2002, p.222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. CONSER cataloging manual, ibid., 31.18 Changes that require the creation of new records. Google Scholar
54. The course materials are available for purchase via the Library of Congress Cataloguing Distribution Service at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/cds/training.html#ircw/.Google Scholar
55. Dowski, Craig A. ‘Introduction to AACR2r revised Chapter 12’. Serials review vol. 28 no. 4 2002, p.338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Notable exceptions are Nicklin, John E. ‘Serials cataloguing and harmonisation’, paper presented at the United Kingdom Serials Group’s 26th (2003) Annual conference and exhibition (http://www.uksg.org/presentations3/nicklen.pdf); and the UK C&I standards forum at the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), Cataloguing and Indexing Group’s 2004 annual conference, The future of cataloguing. Google Scholar
57. Available via the link at http://www.uwm.edu/~mll/resource.html.Google Scholar
58. This learning resource has been reviewed in Cataloging ش classification quarterly: see Ellett, R.O. ‘An evaluation of the effectiveness of OCLC Online Center’s web-based module on cataloging internet resources using the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules and MARC21’. Cataloging ش classification quarterly vol. 34 no. 3 2002, p.311–338;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, A.M. ‘Cataloging internet resources using MARC21 and AACR2: online training for working catalogers’. Cataloging ش classification quarterly vol. 34 no. 3 2002, p.339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. For the survey document issued by the ISO/TC 46/SC9 Working Group 5, see http://www.collectionscanada.ca/iso/tc46sc9/wg5/wg5 n8.pdf; and to keep abreast of the revision, see http://www.collectionscanada.ca/iso/tc46sc9/wg5.htm.Google Scholar
60. The revision and invitation to comment are available via the link http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/guide/isbder04.htm.Google Scholar
61. Weinheimer, James L. ‘To the Editor’ [in response to the story ‘Keeping Dublin Core simple: cross-domain discovery or resource description?’]. Dlib magazine vol. 7 no. 3 March 2001 (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/031etters.html).Google Scholar
62. The phrase is SirHyde, Thomas’s in his 1674 Preface to Catalogue for the Bodleian Library, quoted in Svenonius, Elaine. The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000, p.9–10: ‘What can be more easy (those lacking in understanding say), having looked at the title-pages than to write down the titles?... In the colossal labour, which exhausts both body and soul, of making into an alphabetical catalogue, a multitude of books gathered from every corner of the earth there are many intricate and difficult problems that torture the mind’.Google Scholar
63. See, for example, Anonymous, (2004). ‘Innovative new 3D page-turning technology on the Web’. Program vol. 38 no. 1 2004, p.67.Google Scholar
64. Ezard, John. ‘New town planning, Leonardo-style’. Guardian August 23 2003.Google Scholar
65. PCC/BIBCO. Report of the Task Group to Survey PCC Libraries on Cataloging of Remote Access Electronic Resources (2003) (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tgsrvyeres_final.pdf).Google Scholar
66. For further examples, see Burnett, Peter and Seuring, Christina. Organising access to free Internet resources: an overview of selection and management issues in large academic and national libraries with a view to defining a policy at Oxford University’. Program vol. 35 no. 1 January 2001, p.l5–31.Google Scholar
67. Byrum, John D. ‘>Challenges of providing bibliographic access to remote electronic resources in national bibliographies. Problems and solutions – an overview’, paper presented at the 68th IFLA Council and General Conference, August 18-24, 2002 (http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/l17-152e.pdf).Challenges+of+providing+bibliographic+access+to+remote+electronic+resources+in+national+bibliographies.+Problems+and+solutions+–+an+overview’,+paper+presented+at+the+68th+IFLA+Council+and+General+Conference,+August+18-24,+2002+(http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/l17-152e.pdf).>Google Scholar
68. On these ‘assumptions’ in particular, see Delsey, Tom. The logical structure of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 1998/1999 part 1, Introduction (including key issues and recommendations), p. 33-34 (http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/aacrint.pdf).Google Scholar
69. Calhoun, Karen. ‘Redesign of library workflows: experimental models for electronic resource description’, presented at the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium held at the Library of Congress, Nov. 15-17, 2000 (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdu7/bibcontrol/calhoun_paper.html). Further detail on cataloguing remote access electronic resources in ARL libraries is available from Boydston, Jeanne, M.K. and Leysen, Joan M. ‘Internet Resources Cataloging in ARL libraries: staffing and access issues’ in E-serials cataloging: access to continuing and integrating resources via the catalog and the web. Ed. by Cole, Jim and Jones, Wayne. New York: Haworth Information Press, 2002, p. 127–145.Google Scholar
70. Ferguson, Chris. ‘“Shaking the conceptual foundations”, too: integrating research and technology support for the next generation of information service’. College and research libraries vol. 61 no. 4 July 2000, p.302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. In 2001 the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) appointed the Format Variation Working Group specifically to address issues of enhancing access to works in multiple formats. In particular, this Group is seeking to ensure that AACR is more fully aligned with the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) so that different manifestations of an expression of a work can be clearly collocated in online catalogues. A useful report, published in July 2003, from the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress, Displays of multiple versions from MARC 21 and FRBR, can be found on the web via the link: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/multiple-versions.html. Section 3 of this report, ‘Single record for manifestations of an expression’, discusses implications for AACR and MARC 21 ‘with respect to the inclusion of data for multiple manifestations within a single descriptive record’ and demonstrates the necessity for separate records with regard to concerns over field repeatability and interpretation of the 008 fixed-length data elements.Google Scholar
72. Calhoun, Karen, ibid.Google Scholar
73. Library of Congress Cataloging Directorate (2004a). Cataloging Directorate Strategic Plan Goal IV, Group 2: Processing Rule Analysis Group report (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/stratplan/goal4wg2rep ort.pdf).Google Scholar
74. Library of Congress Cataloging Directorate (2004a), ibid. ‘Recommendation 11: Examine the feasibility of generating ‘use statistics’ that would indicate the extent to which users access electronic resources from MARC/AACR records in the catalogue’ (p. 17).Google Scholar
75. OCLC, ibid., p.l05.Google Scholar
76. For a very full evaluation of MODS (and its advantages over Dublin Core) see Gartner, Richard. MODS: Metadata Object Description Schema (JISC Technology and Standards Watch Reports on MODS, 2003) (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/tsw_03-06.pdf). It is especially worth noting in this context Gartner’s assessment that ‘the main barrier to the success of MODS is the current lack of a critical mass of encoded material large enough for its advantages as an interchange medium to become apparent’ (p.9). The official web site of the standard is available via the link: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/.Google Scholar
77. Billington, James H. ‘Humanizing the information revolution’. Speech delivered to the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Conference, August 21, 2002 (http://www.loc.gov/about/welcome/speeches/information/revolution.html).Google Scholar
78. Arms, Caroline R. ‘Available and useful: OAI at the Library of Congress’. Library hi tech vol. 21 no. 2 2003, p.136–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79. Cole, T. W., et al. ‘Now that we’ve found the hidden Web, what can we do with it? The Illinois Open Archives Initiative metadata harvesting experience’, paper presented at the 2002 Museums and the Web Conference (http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/cole/cole.html).Google Scholar
80. Arms, Caroline R., ibid., p. 136.Google Scholar
81. In this context, see also the advantages in use of the XML standard METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) for complex cultural heritage digital objects as outlined in Proffitt, Merrilee. ‘Pulling it all together: use of METS in RLG cultural materials service’. Library hi tech vol. 22 no. 1 2004, p.65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82. Library of Congress Cataloging Directorate (2004b). Cataloging Directorate Strategic Plan Goal IV, Initiatives 1 and 3, relating to Bibliographic Control of Digital Content Work Group 4: Workflow Analysis (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/stratplan/goal4wg4report.pdf).Google Scholar
83. Library of Congress Cataloging Directorate (2004b), ibid., p. 16.Google Scholar
84. Marmor, Max. ‘ArtSTOR: a digital library for the history of art’. Journal of library administration vol. 39 no. 2/3 2003, p.61–68;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trant, Jennifer and Bearman, David. ‘Educational use of museum multimedia The AMICO Library TM’. Visual Resources Association Bulletin (winter 2002), p. 1–26 (http://www.amico.org/docs/papers/2002/ArtDoc0302.pdf).Google Scholar
85. Potts, Alex. ‘Tactility: the interrogation of medium in art of the 1960s’. Art history vol. 27 no. 2 April 2004, p. 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86. Potts|Alex, ibid., p.296.Google Scholar
87. Kemp, Martin. ‘Pixels and piety’ [review of the digital collection at the Museum of the History of Science in Florence, and the Galileo//thek@ project available via the link at: http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/]. Nature vol. 425 September 11 2003, p.l28.Google Scholar
88. See http://www.blakearchive.org.uk/.Google Scholar
89. Copeland|Ann, ibid., p. 166.Google Scholar
90. Hillis Miller, J. ‘Digital Blake’, paper presented at the Fall 2000 conference of the Digital Cultures Project at the University of California, (http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/conference/2000/PANELS/BEssick/jhmiller.html).Google Scholar
91. The digital preservation of this 1982/1985 work by Grahame, Weinbren and Roberta, Friedman is described in Permance through change: the variable media approach. Edited by Depocas, Alain, Ippolito, Jon and Jones, Caitlin. New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 2003, p. 100–107.Google Scholar