Electronic Resources in Union Catalogs

ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS: URLS AND ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES Joan T. Beam and Nora S. Copeland

Beam is Associate Professor, Morgan Library, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1019; e-mail: [email protected]; Copeland is Associate Professor, Morgan Library, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1019; e-mail: ncopeland@manta. library.colostate.edu.

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

Library patrons—whether they use academic, public, or special libraries—have rapidly become accustomed to being able to link directly to Internetbased electronic resources through online catalogs. When libraries belong to consortia, their records may be merged into a regional union catalog. Do merged records for electronic resources always provide easy access for people using the union catalog? How are URLs in catalog records obtained from member libraries displayed, and where are URLs best placed for patron access? If electronic resources are subscription based and licensed by individual libraries in a consortium, how does the process of patron verification occur? Although patrons are more likely to retrieve a larger number of relevant hits in a union catalog than in a local one, will they be well served by the results when electronic resources are involved? Will patron access be expanded or limited by the design and displays of the union catalog? How well will participating libraries maintain URLs in their local OPACs and in the union catalog? This article addresses all of these questions. The authors describe the problems and challenges of determining where and how to provide hotlinks to electronic resources from a union catalog. Specifically, we concentrate on the MARC 856 “Electronic Location and Access” field and issues surrounding whether users are better served when URLs are

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

33

placed in bibliographic or item records. We also address the problem of URL maintenance in a union catalog environment. The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries’ (the Alliance’s) Prospector union catalog, based upon Innovative Interfaces, Inc.’s INNOPAC/Millennium systems and INN-Reach software, serves as a case study.

LITERATURE REVIEW A thorough examination of recent library literature for articles about how consortia deal with electronic resources in online catalogs uncovered only a few relevant papers. A 1998 article by Rick Forsman1 discussed the dramatic changes that have been transforming research libraries since the introduction of the World Wide Web and the explosion of digital materials. He explained that the roles of librarians in acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and user instruction are changing, and that consortial agreements are becoming critical in managing technological access and sharing the costs of access to electronic formats. A 1999 article by Luise Hoffmann and Ronald Michael Schmidt2 indicated that originally Germany’s Rhine–Westphalian library network had few electronic serials in the OPAC, as they had chosen instead to provide access to these publications via library homepages. Those authors pointed out that when patrons who searched the local catalogs did not retrieve bibliographic records for e-serials, they often failed to check the library homepages for e-journal lists and thus were unaware that electronic versions of the serials were available. As a result, libraries in the network decided to begin cataloging electronic resources and putting the records into the union catalog database. The group discovered, however, that because only selected libraries in the network often licensed electronic journals, they needed to provide institution-specific data in the catalog. Moreover, the consortium decided that it also needed to store institution-specific information regarding restrictions and access points. As early as 1995, forward-thinking Eric Lease Morgan3 advocated the addition of bibliographic records for electronic serials and Internet resources to OPACs. He believed that a library catalog should serve as a complete finding tool as well as an access tool.

34

SERIALS REVIEW

Difficulties in dealing with online resources in merged OPACs have not prevented libraries from successfully addressing the situation. The Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) actively acquires electronic journals for its 140 libraries. Nancy Newsome4 reported on a presentation by Adolfo Rodriguez at the 1998 NASIG conference, in which the latter explained that UNAM can be viewed as a consortium of academic libraries. At that time, the UNAM libraries shared online access to Elsevier journals and were negotiating with Academic, Blackwell, EBSCO, and others for further access. Rodriguez said that different types of licenses, a variety of (sometimes overlapping) products available from different vendors or aggregators, and access options were all major issues faced by the “consortium.” UNAM libraries resolved one problem by requiring that the products they licensed allow IP address–based access as distribution of passwords would be insurmountable considering the number of campuses and students involved. In a 2000 article that discusses the merging of online catalogs, and the potential difficulties of electronic access, Carmel Bush et al.5 detailed the origins, background, complexity, and functionality of the Colorado Prospector union catalog. The authors explained that Prospector was unique in that it merged collections from multitype (public, special, college, and university), multisystem (CARL Systems, Innovative Interfaces, Inc., and Endeavor’s Voyager), and multistate (Colorado and Wyoming) institutions. The Alliance had a history of cooperative ventures in the areas of automation, joint acquisitions, and resource sharing. In conjunction with the University of Northern Colorado, the Alliance obtained a grant to establish the Colorado union catalog, known as Prospector, and it encompassed the collections of the sixteen largest research libraries in Colorado and Wyoming. Although Prospector was initially based upon libraries that used Innovative Interfaces, Inc.’s INNOPAC/Millennium systems software, it planned to incorporate other sites that used other integrated library systems. Using Innovative’s INN-Reach software, the consortium began union catalog implementation in mid-1997 and became available to the public in 1999. Bush et al. explained that each record in the Prospector union catalog contained full bibliographic and item-level records for each member library, including local call numbers and current circulation statuses. Journal records contained summary holdings

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

data for each member but did not include the individual serial check-in record grids, which were displayed locally. Printed materials and electronic resources were both represented in the union catalog, with links from the 856 field to resources on the Internet.

BACKGROUND COLORADO ALLIANCE OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES Headquartered in Denver, the Alliance is a partnership of research, public, and educational institutions working together to fulfill the informational needs of member institutions and the general public. It has participated in establishing cooperative programs in collection development and preservation and has facilitated cost savings through shared access to electronic databases from vendors such as OCLC, OVID, and Silverplatter. Discounts received from cooperative purchases are passed on to the participating members. In 1995, the Alliance created an Internet-accessible collection of electronic journals—the Electronic Journal Miner—which is available to all member libraries. In January 2001, the Alliance implemented a new version of Miner that utilizes a MySQL database to store e-journal metadata on a Sun Unix system with a custom Web interface developed in Cold Fusion™. All patrons in Alliance member libraries share access to these 7,000 e-journals. The collection focuses on publisher-based electronic journals, rather than titles embedded within vendor aggregations. In conjunction with the University of Northern Colorado and funded by a special grant, the Alliance was instrumental in installing Innovative’s INNReach software, which was used to create the union catalog known as Prospector. Over thirteen million books, journals, and other forms of media are available to sixteen academic, special, and public library patrons. With a single search, users can identify and borrow materials from any collection and have printed materials quickly delivered to their local library. Patrons can search the union catalog using a number of index keys, including author, title, keyword, and subject heading. Records, including current circulation status, are continuously updated from each local library catalog over the Internet. It is important, however, to point out that in addition to sharing the journals in Electronic Journal Miner, individual Alliance libraries reflect local holdings for

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

electronic subscriptions licensed to their particular institutions; although these records appear in the union catalog, access is restricted to patrons of the subscribing institutions. The Alliance is constantly searching for ways to work with additional vendors to provide shared, low-cost access to networked electronic resources. Recently, the Alliance collaborated with netLibrary, based in Boulder, Colorado, to provide access to a collection of e-books to consortium members. The Alliance purchased OCLC records for the netLibrary electronic books and loaded them at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Once the records were uploaded, they were accessible to all Alliance member libraries via Prospector. The Alliance arranges consortial agreements, and the staff at Alliance headquarters maintain the INN-Reach central-site hardware and software. However, Alliance staff members do not catalog, load MARC records, or perform authority control work—member libraries fulfill these responsibilities. The Alliance’s latest project, Gold Rush, is a centralized database of the e-journal metadata that are contained within aggregations to which member libraries subscribe. Institutional ownership of the electronic resources listed in Gold Rush will soon be linked to Prospector. HOW INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC. FUNCTIONS Innovative Interfaces, Inc., which is headquartered in Emoryville, California, offers libraries an INNOPAC/Millennium systems software package that is comprised of several modules that together comprise an online catalog, or OPAC. The modules include acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, database maintenance, serials, and interlibrary loan. An INNOPAC/Millennium catalog contains seven basic types of records: bibliographic, item, patron, course reserve, order, check-in, and circulation. Record structure is uniform throughout the seven basic record types; each record consists of a single set of fixed-length “coded” fields and repeatable variablelength fields. The primary record is the bibliographic record; one or more item records may be linked to it. For each record type, individual libraries decide which fields to display in the bibliographic information in the OPAC. Item records represent physical pieces; they store bar code, copy, volume, number, and circulation data for each volume. Order and check-in records may also be attached to the bibliographic records, whereas

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

35

patron and course reserve records may be linked to item records. Innovative offers the option of creating item records for individual volumes of materials that are available online. In the case of nonserials, most libraries create an item record for printed materials but may not create separate items for electronic versions. Innovative differentiates between print and nonprint or electronic issues of item records or check-in records. For journals, some libraries opt not to create an item record for each bound volume, even though they may create a separate check-in record for recent issues. Instead, the OPACS for these libraries contain a summary holdings display that indicates volumes and years owned, plus call number and location. Within certain parameters, all libraries that use INNOPAC/Millennium systems software for their OPAC can customize screen displays. Users of the software set up their initial index and display profiles, and library staff decide what data will display from each of the seven basic record types. Some libraries create sophisticated screen displays, whereas others accept basic, out-of-the-box products. The Innovative INNOPAC/Millennium software determines OPAC screen profiling based upon data in bibliographic, item, and order records. Although Innovative provides general guidelines for library staff to follow when setting up the INNOPAC/Millennium system software, each individual library’s staff determines the specific data to be used to profile their library’s own unique OPAC. Individual libraries can design their own brief and full displays for records retrieved by searches. They can also customize backgrounds, colors, search buttons, main menu screens, headers, and footers, as well as determine what indexes can be used in searches. Besides the conventional author, title, subject heading, and keyword indexes, libraries can set up for searching by combined author/title, call number, OCLC number, ISSN/ISBN, and so forth. Each library has a great deal of flexibility regarding presentation of its online catalog, how the catalog is searched, how records are retrieved, and how records are displayed. MARC field labels and the order in which the fields display in the OPAC also are profiled by individual libraries; however, Innovative’s INNOPAC/Millennium software forces the arrangement of a few OPAC display options. For example, the MARC 856 hotlinks to the Internet, and summary holdings data display immediately under the title and publisher fields in the bibliographic record. The 856 link displays above sum-

36

SERIALS REVIEW

mary holdings data, and above the majority of the bibliographic information (subjects, added authors, and titles, etc.) in both serial and monographic records. The intent was to make the 856 link readily apparent to patrons. Because so many materials are now available electronically and because URLs in the MARC 856 field provide a direct link to the electronic resource, Innovative has created a link verification software program, Automatic URL Verification. Libraries can set the program to automatically scan their online catalogs at a predetermined time, such as once a week. The Innovative Automatic URL Verification software finds broken links in both bibliographic and item records and creates an error report; however, library staff must hand-correct broken links on the bibliographic and item record. The software does not automatically perform this task as human intervention may be required to determine a correct address. If a URL is broken and staff cannot determine the correct address, a library may decide either to delete the URL altogether or to suppress it in the record display until a correct Internet address can be found. INNOVATIVE’S INN-REACH Innovative designed its INN-Reach software to create a union catalog with one “master” record per title with item level holdings from each owning library attached to it. The “master” record is the generic bibliographic entry for a particular item owned and held within the union catalog, and is based upon one of the member libraries’ MARC record for that item. All other union catalog member libraries’ item records are attached to that one generic bibliographic record to indicate individual member libraries’ ownership of that item. Initially designed for INNOPAC/Millennium systems, INN-Reach can now incorporate libraries with other integrated library software systems into the INNOPAC-based union catalog. Such is the case with Prospector, in which CARL Systems software is currently and Endeavor software soon will be included. For Prospector, the INN-Reach software resides at a central server at the Alliance headquarters in Denver and is overseen by Alliance staff. The method by which the union catalog is created is the same regardless of the type of library system software used. In the Prospector union catalog, if only one library owns a title, that library contributes the master record. If several libraries own the title, the system

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

uses an algorithm to determine which record has the highest encoding level on the bibliographic record, and that record becomes the master. When two or more libraries have the same encoding level, the system uses a priority table established by the Alliance to determine which library’s record will be used as the master. During the initial planning phase of the union catalog, a task force comprised of representatives from member libraries created the priority table. The group took into account each member library’s level of cataloging, use of authority control, and participation in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. If the library that has contributed a master record to Prospector later withdraws it, the system performs the same algorithm on the remaining libraries’ records and substitutes the next highest on the priority table. The central-site computer at the Alliance includes only the master records and holdings, but it automatically rechecks all member libraries’ records from their local sites if it becomes necessary to replace a master. The same task force was also responsible for determining the OPAC display specifications for Prospector based on the commonalties and differences in bibliographic indexing among the member libraries. The group determined the search indexes as well. In fact, Prospector contains more indexes for searching than the OPAC of any individual member library. Indexes include those for author, title, author/title, and keyword; Library of Congress (LC) subject headings; medical subject headings (MeSH); LC children’s subject headings; a separate journal title index; LC classification; National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification, and Dewey decimal classification numbers. The number indexes include those for the ISSN and ISBN, OCLC, Superintendent of Documents, Colorado documents call numbers, and other special numbers. Therefore, in Prospector it is possible to search using MeSH or LC children’s subject headings contained in records that do not display and are not indexed at a local site but are included in the record at the INN-Reach Prospector site.

ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN LIBRARY CATALOGS In recent years a proliferation of electronic resources (indexing and abstracting services with selected full text, books, and journals) have become available to libraries. In fact, the incredible expansion of electronic resources has begun to create fun-

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

damental changes in how libraries define their collections and holdings, as well as in the methods by which patrons access materials. Library collections may no longer consist primarily of printed books or journals or media in the form of video- or audiotapes. Many materials now exist only in electronic form: standard reference tools are available online and are searchable by keyword, name, and subject; indexes to the periodical literature that go back for decades are accessible via electronic databases. In fact, libraries often are able to access certain popular titles through multiple vendors or publishers, and as a result, all of these paths may be included in online catalogs. A consortium such as the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries collectively purchases integrated library systems, lower-priced access to cataloging utilities, and shared subscriptions to vendor products. The Alliance’s consortial agreements have allowed libraries to take advantage of relatively low prices on databases such as OCLC’s FirstSearch and OVID, on collections such as the electronic books from netLibrary, and on a larger collection of electronic journals than many individual libraries would be capable of affording. The union catalog is the vehicle that makes this expanded collection of consortially purchased electronic books and electronic journals accessible to patrons. When several libraries within a consortium share access to the electronic resource, all of their patrons can utilize the resource from a variety of sites—their local library, other libraries in the consortium, and even from home. Should an electronic book or journal be purchased by the consortium but only cataloged by one participating library, that record is uploaded into the union catalog as the master. All the libraries in the consortium and their patrons then have access to the electronic book or journal, and patron access is allowed from a much larger number of local libraries, not just the one library that did the cataloging. Patrons can access a greater arena of electronic resources when consortia have purchase agreements that allow titles to be displayed and accessed through a union catalog. The digital age has also created a number of new problems, however. These include the need to negotiate license agreements, to verify continued electronic access into new subscription years, to find sufficient funds to support both print and electronic resources, to provide ongoing training for patrons and staff, and to be able to authenticate legitimate off-site patrons. Other important issues are how

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

37

libraries can best provide access to electronic resources through their online catalogs and how to cope with the workload created by the need to maintain valid URLs. Because of the rapid proliferation of electronic resources, not every library has been able to make every electronic resource it acquires available through its online catalog. Sometimes libraries make a conscious decision not to include electronic resources in the OPAC. It may be that the library has insufficient catalogers to cope with the seemingly endless number of electronic titles to be cataloged. Libraries that elect to include bibliographic records for electronic resources in their OPACs can accommodate online access in different ways. They can add links for electronic versions of the title to the bibliographic record for the printed version. On the other hand, in part because electronic editions can vary significantly in content from the printed version, they can separately catalog electronic versions. In either case, the bibliographic record includes a Universal Resource Locator—URL—in the MARC 856 field; patrons benefit from the ability to directly access and retrieve full-text articles from electronic publications while working at remote workstations. Embedded links to Internet sites reside in the bibliographic entry for the electronic journal in the online catalog. Entered in the 856 field, and displaying in the online catalog as either the subfield “u” (|u) http:// address or as the subfield “z” (|z) librarydefined hotlinked text, the URL provides access via a click of a mouse. Of course remote electronic access is only viable if the link is valid. Links are often broken, sites change their addresses, and sometimes a wonderful resource just disappears from the Internet without warning. But, unless someone has caught the change, the cataloged record with the incorrect URL will still exist in the online catalog. Some form of link-checking software that regularly scans the online catalog is required to identify broken links and to allow staff to update the records. Access to electronic resources may also depend upon the location from which the patron attempts access. For example, a license may permit access within the library, but what about from home? Patrons may freely access the electronic journals or databases within the library or on the campus, but a proxy server installed on the patron’s computer or Web access management program installed on the library’s system may be necessary to allow patron

38

SERIALS REVIEW

verification and access from remote locations. Do patrons understand how to access a remote authentication system from their home computer? Does the library have a Web access management program to authenticate its patrons? Is the patron trying to access the database from an office or other location that has security firewalls installed by network administrators that prevent such access? Does the remote authentication system work with every upgrade to a Netscape or Internet Explorer version? The Internet provider or the Web browser the patron is using could be the problem when connectivity is not achieved. Current patron status may also preclude access to electronic library resources. For instance, graduate students who fail to enroll for summer sessions may find themselves denied access as they are not considered current valid patrons of the library. Retired professors or recently graduated alumni may find their Internet privileges denied by their university library. Community users may have access while in a university library but find they are denied access from home. Patrons who rarely check out books may find themselves purged from the library’s patron files and unable to be authenticated as current patrons when they attempt to access their library’s databases. Sites may also be inaccessible due to Internet malfunctions or site maintenance. Individual online systems may crash or undergo routine maintenance or software upgrades and thus become temporarily unavailable. Live links to electronic resources from a local library are wonderful if everything is working well. If the links in bibliographic records are checked and updated regularly; if patrons are in good status; and if Internet software programs, browsers, and remote sites are functioning correctly, then access to Internet resources in online catalogs is a wonderful addition to a library’s resources.

ELECTRONIC RESOURCE ACCESS THROUGH CONSORTIAL CATALOGS If some of the factors that influence local patron access to Internet electronic resources are not functioning optimally, then a consortial catalog may provide some solutions. Site licenses for the entire consortium, rather than an individual library, open access to a wider population of patrons. A consortial computer system may be operating when a particular local library site is disabled. Access to a subscrip-

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

tion database or electronic journal in the consortial catalog may even be possible via another library’s record in the union catalog, when both institutions have a similar license agreement and a patron’s home library site is unavailable. Consortial catalogs provide another way for patrons to achieve access to electronic resources in addition to going through their local catalog. As libraries in specific geographic areas join together to create a shared resource, the number of regional union catalogs increases. These consortial catalogs are important because they provide users with access to a much broader range of materials than those held by any one library or institution. Early examples of union catalogs include California’s MELVYL and Illinois’s ILLINET. In the 1990s, the number of union catalogs increased thanks to software that permitted the merging of catalogs using integrated ILS software. INN-Reach software added another option, allowing libraries the ability to merge records from different ILSs into a single union catalog. OhioLINK in Ohio, Prospector in Colorado, and Orbis in Oregon and Washington have all used INN-Reach software to create merged catalogs. Regardless of whether the union catalog is virtual or a real physical catalog, there are issues surrounding access to the electronic resources contained therein that can plague both libraries and patrons. When libraries participating in a union catalog include electronic journals, books, and databases that they have cataloged in their local online catalogs, these records are uploaded into union catalogs, complete with the URLs in the 856 field. That is not the end of the story, however! A number of problems can creep into this seemingly straightforward scenario. For example, when subscriptions to electronic resources are not shared across a consortium but rather are accessible to patrons of only a limited number of libraries within the consortium, others retrieving a record and following a link will not have access to full text. URLs that display in master records will not be accessible to patrons from nonsubscribing libraries because of IP filtering, even though the URL displays as a live link in the union catalog. Conversely, if a library that has, by virtue of its higher encoding level, contributed the master record to the union catalog but does not have a subscription to the electronic version and thus has not included a URL in the 856 field, patrons from other libraries whose holdings are attached to the record (and whose local records have URLs) will not find expected links.

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

Yet another wrinkle is that different libraries within the union catalog may have subscriptions to a particular title—but through different vendors. Thus patrons from one library who are aware of their library’s subscription rights to a particular journal or database may find themselves blocked out of the union catalog because the master record was contributed by a library using a different vendor. Can all the different libraries each have their own URLs listed in the union catalog? How can patrons from each library know which URL is “theirs” in order to be able to access a title through the union catalog? If a published conference proceedings has links to electronic versions for the most recent year or two but not the entire set of years held by a library, how can the links for these back issues be displayed and accessed? Traditionally a title’s URL resides in the 856 field of the bibliographic record, but now it is possible to insert a URL for a specific year or volume into the item level of a record through Innovative’s software. In libraries using Innovative software, staff can even input URLs into the summary holdings, although these do not link to the Internet (URLs work only when inserted in the bibliographic, item, or serial check-in records). Ideally the links to a current proceedings would be within the item records for those years, but could each item record for each year of a proceedings have its own live URL link to the full text of the proceedings and be accessible by patrons from within the union catalog item record display? How can item records display as live links in a union catalog’s library holdings display when the bibliographic record for the library in question has not been chosen as the master record? These concerns and others were addressed by the members of the Prospector union catalog using Innovative’s INNReach and its URL verification software programs. PROSPECTOR: THE COLORADO UNION CATALOG By definition, union catalogs combine the catalog records of multiple libraries into one database using a single—or “master”—bibliographic record with specific item records and summary holdings data for each institution attached to it. The item records may pertain either to monographs or journals. Journal holdings data from some libraries display summary MARC holdings statements, such as (v. 1 [1990]–v. 12 [2001]) for that library, with no individual attached item records. Other libraries display not only summary holdings information but also individual

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

39

item records for each journal. Still other libraries have only electronic access to a particular book or journal, and thus no item records but only a live link to the Internet site. Records for libraries with the same ILS vendor can be merged fairly efficiently, assuming that cataloging standards among the libraries have been similar. In Colorado, many university, college, and special libraries use Innovative’s INNOPAC/Millennium systems software. As described earlier, INN-Reach operates using a “master” record, which provides one bibliographic entry per title in the union catalog. Again, only one library’s record serves as the master record—a master record is not a compilation of parts of several libraries’ bibliographic records. After the software chooses the master record, other member libraries’ records are matched to it. Matches are built on standard numbers, such as the OCLC control number and the ISBN or ISSN number. A MARC 245 Title field title match is also included in the algorithm in case the standard number match points are unsuccessful. Thus, one bibliographic record serves as the master record, sometimes with multiple matches to it in the system. A bibliographic record may be one that had no matches and thus became a master. Any library participating in the union catalog can contribute master records, depending on the uniqueness of its collection. As one might imagine, there are many duplicate titles in the union catalog because of different editions or publishing dates, as well as different cataloging standards and polices. Examples of situations that produce duplicate entries in a union catalog include successive versus latest-entry cataloging for serials, and paperback versus hardback editions of a monograph. When Prospector went live, each member library’s administration designated a cataloging site liaison. The cataloging site liaisons provide a point of contact for other Prospector libraries that have inquires concerning catalog maintenance, access, and record merging. The liaisons handle problems with records in Prospector and report discrepancies to the other library liaisons for updating records. To avoid duplication in serials, liaisons investigate and merge records if the problems can be traced to a nonmatch because of different OCLC number, a problem with the ISSN, or differences in the 245 |a (title) and |b (subtitle). When patrons search Prospector for journals, they usually find one master record for the print title. However, the electronic version may be another

40

SERIALS REVIEW

story altogether. Among the Prospector membership, many libraries have opted to note the existence and electronic location of the online version in the bibliographic record of the print version, rather than catalog the online version separately. The former option provides patrons with the opportunity to successfully locate each format in which any particular journal is published—both print and electronic in one record. But when libraries participating in Prospector create separate catalog records for the print and electronic versions, if their records are the master records the catalog records for electronic formats appear separately from records for printed versions. Thus, when patrons search for their local institution’s electronic journals in Prospector, they may encounter either one or multiple title entries for a single journal title. Patrons may erroneously believe that they can access their library’s electronic format through the entry for an e-resource record. In reality, however, if patrons try to access an electronic version of a title via another institution’s link, they may be denied access because lack of IP address recognition. HOW URLS DISPLAY AND FUNCTION PROSPECTOR

IN

INNOPAC/Millennium systems software offers several options for displaying URLs in catalog records. A library has the choice of storing URLs in either the 856 field of the bibliographic record or in the item record of a title, or storing multiple URLs in both the bibliographic and item records. For journals, libraries are also offered the option of storing URLs in the check-in record for individual issues. Since Prospector’s INN-Reach software does not allow the display of check-in boxes for individual journal issues in the Prospector union catalog, the authors do not address that option in this article. Rather, we focus on the allowable options of storing URLs in bibliographic records, item records, or both in the union catalog and discuss including advantages, disadvantages, and (where possible) solutions to the latter, for each case. URLs are entered in the MARC 856 field of the bibliographic or item record. The 856 field contains subfields, each including distinct data. Every library in Prospector has its own policy regarding display of the data in 856 fields in its local OPAC. When a library’s record serves as the master record in Prospector, that library’s policy affects how the URL displays in the union catalog. The three subfields from the 856 field that display data in the OPAC are |u,

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

which contains the http address; |z, which contains locally entered text for the public; and |3, which contains volume- or issue-specific information for the public. The ability to enter text in |z and have it display to the public in place of |u’s URL address is vendor specific. In INNOPAC/Millennium systems catalogs, locally defined and entered public instructional text in |z takes precedence over an Internet address in |u and will display as the hotlink in the OPAC instead of the http://www address. The hotlinked text that displays in the OPAC is determined by the individual library and may read “Access Online Version,” “Connect to Electronic Version,” or whatever instructional text the local library wishes to use. Records with links to electronic resources in INNOPAC/ Millennium systems catalogs always include the 856 |u subfield, but they may not contain the |z or |3. If the library contributing the master record has entered library-defined instructional text for the public into the |z subfield, this text, instead of the |u’s Internet address, displays in the union catalog as the link to the resource. If there is no locally defined text in the 856 |z subfield of the master record, the Internet address in |u displays as the hotlink in the union catalog by default. OPTION ONE: URLS IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD Advantages URLs stored in the 856 field of a master record in the Prospector union catalog display prominently under the main title, as they do in the local OPAC. INN-Reach software places the hotlinked display of the 856 field immediately under the title main entry, where patrons cannot miss it. The master record’s 856 link from the |u http://www address, or the |z text—such as “Access Online Version”—appears before the summary holdings data and before other MARC fields for added authors, titles, subjects, and so forth. This is advantageous because the URL is highly visible to patrons. For government publications that offer free access to everyone, storing the URL in the bibliographic record is an excellent option. For electronic journals and e-books that have been licensed on behalf of the entire consortium, placement of the URL in the bibliographic record is likewise an advantage: all consortium patrons can readily find the hotlink. As described earlier, the Alliance has provided

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

access to the netLibrary collection of electronic books. Authorized users searching the union catalog can easily see the URLs and access the e-books from an OPAC in any of the Alliance’s member libraries. Another example is the Academic IDEAL® package of electronic journals, to which many of the Alliance libraries have an institutional subscription. Regardless of which member library with an institutional subscription contributes the master record, the URL from the bibliographic record for the Academic IDEAL title is prominently displayed on the union catalog screen. The electronic version of the journal title can be accessed through Prospector by patrons from any subscribing institution. The INN-Reach union catalog software recognizes subscriber IP addresses and verifies the patron, allowing access to the electronic resource (see Figure 1). Disadvantages If the library that contributed the master record to the union catalog restricts access to a title, Prospector restricts access to individuals from that institution. Live URLs that are prominently displayed in the catalog are visible to everyone, but patrons from other libraries are asked by the Internet vendor or publisher to provide a user name and password. Because these are not available, patrons from other institutions are unable to successfully access the restricted resources via the 856 link. Patrons are generally unfamiliar with the differences between consortial and individual institutional licenses and when some links work and others do not, patrons become confused and frustrated because they cannot access materials in what they believe to be a shared catalog. There are instances when an institution has licensed access to an Internet resource via one vendor, whereas another library has subscribed to the same resource via a different provider. Because the master record in the union catalog displays the URL for the library that contributed it, patrons from libraries with licenses through the second vendor will not successfully link to the resource, even though they can do so through their local catalog. Once again, patrons have good reason to be confused about when they can and cannot access e-resources. So long as the URL only from the library contributing the master record displays, patrons from other libraries—those with different licenses—will not be allowed access. Another disadvantage occurs when the library contributing the master record does not have an

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

41

Figure 1 Master Record for Anaerobe; Academic IDEAL Subscription Accessible to All Eight Member Libraries Is Matched to Bibliographic Entry

electronic license for the resource, in all likelihood because they have a subscription to the print version only. Patrons from libraries that have license agreements for the title and that have URLs in the 856 fields in their local records will not find a link to the resource they should be able to access online. Solution for Bibliographic URL in The Master Record Only The picture just painted, which was the situation for some time with Prospector, has been resolved. A recent release of the INN-Reach software provides an enhancement to the display of the URL from the 856 link in the bibliographic records for electronic resources in the union catalog. The revised software allows each subscribing member library to have an 856 link display under its institutional name—the place where the individual library’s holdings display. This URL is pulled from the 856 field of the bibliographic

42

SERIALS REVIEW

record, but it displays at the top of the attached holdings under each library’s name. Once again, the 856 link may display not as an Internet http://www address but rather as hotlinked text retrieved from the |z subfield that indicates “Access Online Version” or “Connect to Online Version.” In this manner, each library’s patrons can find the home institution’s connection to an electronic resource (see Figure 2).

OPTION TWO: THE URL IS STORED RECORD

IN THE ITEM

In addition to being able to include URLs in the 856 field of the bibliographic record, INNOPAC/ Millennium systems software offers libraries the option of storing URLs in item-level records. As already mentioned, item records in the INNOPAC/Millennium system contain information about call number, location, and circulation status, as well as a bar code for

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

Figure 2 Display of Master Record 856 Links and the Institution-Specific 856 Link for Colorado State University in the Prospector Union Catalog

each circulating item, and are attached to bibliographic records. In the case of bound journal volumes, there could be any number of individual item records, especially if a library allows the journals to circulate. Advantages If the full text of a specific issue, volume, or year of a journal is available on the Internet, library staff can enter the URL for it into an item record that is tied to that specific item. In other words, the URL is linked to a specific year, volume, or issue, rather than to the title at the bibliographic level. This approach allows direct access rather than requiring several mouse clicks to reach the material. Item records that contain URLs for the material and are attached to the bibliographic record automatically transfer to the union catalog. This feature also offers an advantage to patrons from other libraries with access rights but whose staff members have not entered

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

item-specific URLs. For example, suppose that a library maintains conference proceedings from 1963 to 1997 as bound volumes, but that those from 1998 to 2000 exist only as links to an online version. If one member library in the union catalog adds URLs to the item record for 1998, 1999, and 2000, then patrons from any library with an institutional subscription can search for the proceedings in the union catalog, view the specific-year item records for that institution, and directly access those three years (see Figure 3). Disadvantages When libraries create individual item records for every volume of a serial, the volume holdings in the item record in the OPAC can be listed in either ascending or descending order, and either chronologically or numerically after the bibliographic entry. If a particular journal has an extensive list of item records, the URL embedded in a particular item record may display very

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

43

Figure 3 Item-Level Display of a URL for a Proceedings Conference in the Union Catalog far down in the long list of volume holdings. If the URL does not display in the bibliographic record but only in the item records, and the list of items is extensive, patrons may not be aware that the journal volume can be accessed electronically. Even when patrons are aware that there is electronic access to a recent issue or year, they may become frustrated wading through screen after screen to find the one volume that they need. Another problem involves maintenance: a staff must manually place URLs in bibliographic or item records. Any time there is a change in a URL, every item record that is affected also has to be updated— and the maintenance impact has the potential to become significant. As a result, the choice to place URLs in individual item records should be carefully considered—in terms of both the benefits it offers patrons and the work that it creates for library staff. Changing a single URL in a bibliographic record is labor intensive enough for most libraries. Changing many item-level records when URLs change may be more work than a library can reasonably handle.

44

SERIALS REVIEW

OPTION THREE: URL IS STORED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ITEM RECORD There are circumstances under which a library might choose to store URLs in both the bibliographic record and the item record of a particular title, to link both to a title’s homepage as well as to particular issues or volumes. Under these circumstances, when patrons retrieve the holdings, INN-Reach software displays both URLs as live links. Advantages If a library has a serial subscription with an extensive list of item-level holdings, a live link in the bibliographic record brings electronic access to the attention of the patron much more effectively. As discussed earlier, the display of the bibliographic-level URL is far more prominent on the OPAC and in the union catalog. This would be especially true for the contributor of the master record, since its bibliographiclevel 856 link appears directly beneath the title entry

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

Figure 4 Improved Display of an Institution’s 856 Links from the Master Record

on the union catalog screen. When libraries choose to have a URL in the bibliographic record and individual, issue-specific URLs within the item records, patron access is significantly improved. Disadvantage As already indicated, the location of an institutionspecific 856 link in the union catalog display screens could be far down in a long listing of many libraries’ holdings or embedded in a long list of items attached to a particular member library’s holdings. Although the bibliographic-level URL displays directly under each library’s name in the union catalog, if a large number of libraries own a particular title the display of all members’ holdings could be extensive, with any one library’s name appearing on a second, third, or subsequent display screen. The URL displays directly under the library name for the bibliographic level, and again for the item level further down in the item records attached, but perhaps too far down an extensive holdings listings for patrons to easily find.

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

Possible Solution to Display Issue in Extensive Holdings Currently patrons looking for an institution-specific 856 link in either the bibliographic or item record must be patient enough to search the full display of all the member libraries’ holdings in the union catalog. One improvement would be to rearrange the display of the 856-linked text or URL addresses for all the owning libraries of the electronic journal’s title such that each link is clearly associated with its local institution’s name. Under these circumstances, patrons would not need to search the entire list of holdings to find their institutions’ 856-links display. Figure 4 shows how a possible screen display for the journal Nature Medicine might associate each library’s 856 link with each institution’s name directly under the main entry on the union catalog. Instead of appearing later in a long list of member holdings, the institution names and links are all displayed at the top of the first screen.

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

45

URL MAINTENANCE Regardless of whether URLs are stored in bibliographic records, item records, or check-in boxes, verification and maintenance are major concerns for all libraries that choose to include links to Internet resources in their catalog. When libraries are members of a union catalog, lack of URL maintenance can have a serious and deleterious effect on functionality. URLs in the INN-Reach Prospector union catalog are maintained at the local level, not at the central site. The link-checking software offered by Innovative— Automatic URL Verification—performs this task. The Innovative INN-Reach software and the Innovative URL verification software work together, and automatically upload the URL corrections from the local catalog to the union catalog. URL maintenance, although handled at the local level, affects not just library staff members and local catalogs, but the union catalog as well. MAINTAINING URLS IN THE UNION CATALOG For libraries using INNOPAC/Millennium systems software, verification of URLs in bibliographic and item records can be accomplished with Innovative’s link-checking software. Although most automated link-checkers scan URLs only in bibliographic records, Innovative’s Automatic URL Verification software also checks URLs in item records. Whether URLs are inserted into bibliographic records, itemspecific records, or in both locations, each library that creates them must also maintain them to ensure accessibility. Entering the original links, periodically checking for broken links, finding the correct sites or addresses, and replacing broken links with valid ones is a labor-intensive, manual operation. The more links a catalog contains, the greater the impact on staff. Fortunately, local maintenance of URLs in bibliographic or item records automatically transfers up to the union catalog. No maintenance needs to be performed by the Alliance staff at the central site as the URL verification software working with the INN-Reach software automatically uploads the corrected and verified URLs to the union catalog from the local catalogs. If the library contributing the master record to a union catalog doesn’t run its own URL verification program regularly (or even periodically), broken links are likely to go undetected unless reported by patrons. When broken links remain in bibliographic

46

SERIALS REVIEW

records, even patrons from the library that contributed the master records—those most especially who should have access to electronic journals their institution has licensed—will not be able to successfully access the resources. If a master record in the INNReach union catalog does not include a current URL, even though other member libraries have run link-checking software and updated their URLs, the outdated URL from the master record is still the prominently displayed URL on the main bibliographic record screen. Union catalog patrons trying to use the incorrect URL from the master record may not consider viewing their own library’s holdings to see if the correct URL is displayed there. Because the master record has the possibility of being contributed by any one of the member libraries, procedures need to be established to insure that all member libraries routinely check and correct URL links. These procedures could be set up by a union catalog oversight committee, comprised of representatives from the staffs of all the member libraries. For example, if a library has a high encoding level that often results in its records serving as master records in the union catalog but that library doesn’t routinely perform link maintenance, the consortium may need to give it a lower status in the priority table. The reverse might also be the case— libraries with lower encoding levels that do consistent link checking might be given higher status in the priority table so that their records could serve as master records. Currently there is no mandate for Prospector member libraries to routinely check and maintain links; however, the organization needs to promote this crucial maitenance activity. As of this writing, URL verification software is not available for the INN-Reach product. Moreover, the Alliance has not yet developed policies or procedures to process broken links, and routine URL maintenance is not performed at Alliance headquarters. It is up to the individual member libraries in Prospector to detect broken links and correct them; once corrected, the new data upload automatically to the central site. It would be ideal if the central site in a consortium could run a URL verification program on all links in its union catalog. If this were possible, then determining who has primary responsibility for investigating the correct address and updating the links would be a first priority. If central-site staff for a union catalog assumed responsibility, then verification of URL links in the union catalog would not

– JOAN T. BEAM AND NORA S. COPELAND –

solely depend upon individual member libraries’ available staff time or priorities.

CONCLUSION The proliferation of electronic resources—and the desire of patrons who do not understand the complexities of licensing and of system architecture to easily access them—is putting an ever greater burden on libraries to figure out how to provide access to Internetbased resources that they do not physically own. Many libraries are adding MARC 856 fields to the bibliographic record in their OPACs to provide quick links to electronic books, journals, databases, and Websites. Both in-library and remote access require that complex IP-filtering and licensing issues be thought through and handled. These issues can often be addressed locally with Web access management programs, proxy servers, and precise patron instruction. When libraries join union catalogs, however, the display and accessibility of live URLs for patrons from a variety of institutions becomes much more complicated. Numerous challenges are involved: how to merge and maintain records in the union catalog, how to display records with complex holdings (which may include long strings of item records), how to verify and maintain URLs, how to authenticate patrons for online access, and how users find URLs that will allow them access to specific materials. Master records in the union catalog may not contain links to Internet sites. When they are present, patrons from libraries without licensing agreements will find themselves blocked. Although consortial purchases of electronic resources that are cataloged and loaded into the union catalog provide access to the entire spectrum of users from member institutions, restrictive licensing agreements between individual libraries and vendors limit access to other patrons who attempt to use electronic resources discovered in the union catalog. URLs loaded and displayed in the union catalog may be either a blessing or a curse from the viewpoint of patrons trying to achieve access to an electronic resource. When an institution’s URLs can display in the union catalog along with the institution’s name, even in item-level records, some of the problems discussed above can be alleviated. Although some ILS software allow links from either bibliographic or

– ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN UNION CATALOGS –

item levels, as of this writing, the software used in Prospector does not permit live links from summary holdings fields, an approach that would resolve even more problems concerning access and display. Item records for electronic books, journal volumes or issues, and individual conference proceedings can have links to item-specific addresses on the Internet. Potentially all links to all electronic resources, whether at the bibliographic or item level, have the ability to display and be accessible in a union catalog to verified patrons. Some issues remain. Patrons need to be instructed on how to find their own library’s holdings display in a union catalog so they can retrieve electronic resources licensed by their home institution. Individual member libraries need to address maintenance issues so that links are kept in both the local and union catalogs. Members of consortia need to cooperate more freely if the union catalog is to function adequately. Members need to set policy early on about how to cope with the choice of master records, how to update records, and whether or not maintenance should be handled centrally, since links to electronic resources are only as good as they current. A well-conceived and efficiently run union catalog should provide excellent access to electronic resources at both the bibliographic and item level, so that patrons can make maximum use of the catalog, regardless of their location. NOTES 1. Rick B. Forsman, “Managing the Electronic Resources Transforming Research Libraries: Challenges in the Dynamic Digital Environment,” Advances in Librarianship, 22 (1998): 1–19. 2. Luise Hoffman and Ronald Michael Schmidt, “The Cataloging of Electronic Serials in the Union Catalog of the North Rhine–Westphalian Library Network,” The Serials Librarian 35, no. 3 (1999): 123–29. 3. Eric Lease Morgan, “Adding Internet Resources to Our OPACs,” Serials Review 21 (Winter 1995): 70–72. 4. Nancy A. Newsome, “Consortial Acquisitions of Shared Electronic Journals. Report of a Session at the 1998 NASIG Conference,” The Serials Librarian 36, no. 1/2 (1999): 133–35. 5. Carmel Bush, William A.Garrison, George Machovec, and Helen I. Reed, “Prospector: A Multivendor, Multitype, and Multistate Western Union Catalog,” Information Technology and Libraries 19, no. 2 (June 2000): 71–83.

VOL. 27, NO. 3/4, 2001

47