- Email: [email protected]
Perspectives on the future of union listing
The Balance Point
Mary Elizabeth Clack, Column Editor
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE OF UNION LISTING Ann C. Schaffner, guest editor with contributions from Betty Landesman, Noelene P. Martin, Jay Schafer, Patricia Erwin, and Bessie K. Hahn
Clack is serial records librarian at Harvard College Library in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE OF UNION LISTING - -
While union listing has generated its fair share of debate over the past few decades, this debate has centered largely on issues such as standards, systems, and the politics of cooperation? The essential usefulness of union lists has rarely been questioned. However, the environment has changed dramatically over the past few years and new developments have even led some to question the need for union lists. Commercial suppliers promise to deliver documents directly to users. Will traditional interlibrary loan continue? If so, will it continue to rely on union lists as we know them? Online catalogs can provide title and detailed holdings information to users over the telephone lines or over the Internet. With the implementation of Z39.50, we are promised seamless, fast access to multiple local bibliographic databases. Do we still need local or regional union lists? Will a new system evolve that will truly present multiple databases to our users so that they look like a single database? Can multiple databases really look like one with all the vagaries of serials cataloging? At the same time, other factors in our environment make union lists more appealing than ever before. Skyrocketing serial prices have put enormous pressures on individual collections and provide added incentives for resource sharing and cooperative collection development and preservation efforts. Can we mount these programs without the data provided by union lists? Abstracting and indexing services and table of contents services can be enhanced by the display of local or
FALL 1993
71
regional holdings. Can we deny the benefits of such services to our patrons? New technologies have revolutionized library processes. Can they offer any help with the burdensome task of creating and maintaining union lists? For this column I have asked a variety of people to address these issues--a library director, a union list administrator, and others. While they may not agree on the future prospects for union lists, they seem to agree on one issue--if union lists do survive, they will undergo profound changes in a new technological environment.
NOTE 1. Marjorie C. Bloss, "And in Hindsight... the Past Ten Years of Union Listing," The Serials Librarian 10 (Fall 1985-Winter 1986): 141-148.
Schaffner is assistant director for the Science Library, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Union List Maintenance, or, How to Keep Up-to-Date in Keeping Up-to-Date Betty Landesman
"Union lists" is the term we have traditionally used for shared access to holdings information. The form varies from paper to microform to CD-ROM to shared mainframe computer, and may be mutating into virtual circuits over the network. The common thread has been a "record" (defined as you will) that is created and updated to reflect a library's actual holdings. Maintenance of union list records has often been the province of cataloging staff. Reporting to the National Union Catalog was part of the bibliographic control process, and reporting of serials holdings was a logical extension. Creation or modification of holdings statements was usually an accompaniment to the serials cataloging process: new titles were acquired; titles changed; titles ceased. For many titles, an open entry indicating the first issue held could be created once and not dealt with again. In today's climate of serials cancellations, this has changed. It has become ever more critical to keep holdings up-to-date so as not to mislead users: the seeker of a 1993 issue may well not find it at a library that is supposed to hold "v. 1- ." At the same time, the sheer volume of record maintenance required to meet this need has grown exponentially. Furthermore, it may well be different 72
SERIALS REVIEW
staff (e.g., acquisitions) who have the updating information as they process the cancellations; but we may not have either the staffing or the opportunity to change workflow. It is likely still to be cataloging staff who are charged with maintaining union list records, probably using an increased paper flow from another department giving them the updating information. Libraries are increasingly functioning in an online environment with an integrated automated system. When we implement such systems, we do so with the expectation of streamlining our workflow and reducing overall keystrokes. Depending on the specific system, however, we often find a multiplicity of "records" used to provide information: MARC bibliographic records, item records, check-in records, "library has" records. This, added to the longstanding necessity to cope with multiple bibliographic records for serials in different physical formats, often increases the level of complexity of our procedures. Since many of our systems cannot talk to each other, maintaining holdings in our local systems and also in a union list often means double or even triple work. At my institution, we successfully used holdings information generated from union list records to create holdings records in our local system via magnetic tape. But once records are created, we must maintain them. For most of us, the capability does not currently exist to do ongoing updates either in the local system or in the union list system and simply transfer them to the other. It almost makes me think back fondly to the days when libraries were typing catalog cards, and all we had to do was make an extra copy and mail it off to list our holdings! At the same time as the steps required to continue our commitment to keep union list holdings up-to-date have increased, our staffing levels have decreased. In cases of conflicting priorities, libraries must give preference to serving their own users. Database maintenance for our local catalogs has to come first, and we may not be able to do both--at least not in the same ways. We are all committed to the principles and the necessity of resource sharing, and accurate union list holdings are more critical than they have ever been. In my experience, technical services staff are generally public-service minded: they want to provide the information that will assist users. They have coped with MARC, successive-entry cataloging, separate records for microfiche, and different holdings standards in different places. But if we do not find new ways of enabling us easily to update all our serial holdings, local or otherwise, we will not be able to continue to provide all the information people need. Union lists of serials can be good sources of holdings data. As mentioned earlier, we used tapes to create holdings statements for our periodicals in our -- ANN C. SCtlAFFNER
local system. We have also used these tapes in the past to have a local printed serials list printed and to match against a table of contents service. So there can be a "s elfish" motive involved in keeping union list holdings current if libraries can derive benefit from them. The burgeoning article delivery and table of contents services offer a reverse spin on the subject--we are in a way using other peoples' union lists to define what we have! Unfortunately, the current services on the market contain bibliographic records for the paper format of the title. So all the work we have done to use separate bibliographic records for different formats and to have the right holdings on the right record is actually coming back to haunt us. Some services do not match against local holdings, either at all or if the library does not use another product by that vendor. Others match only at the title level at this time. While I believe the market will drive changes in this regard, I think it will take a long time for the development work. I do not believe we can afford to continue to maintain union list holdings only for the benefit of others. Will Internet access to online catalogs be the cureall or substitute for local or regional union lists? Guest column editor Ann Schaffner's introduction to this "Balance Point" describes the potential for "seamless, fast access to multiple local bibliographic databases." The current hodgepodge of methods oflnternet access is hardly seamless. Many libraries still do not have ready access to the Internet, although that is clearly changing with many initiatives underway to provide that access for those without the luxury of a campus Internet node. Not all catalogs are available over the Internet. Smaller institutions are likely to be excluded. The currency and completeness of each database are quitevariable--will everyonefinallyhave finished their serials conversion by the time we discuss the next ten years of union listing? And, the access question aside, the necessity to search sequentially through catalog after catalog to see who has the issue you're looking for is even less efficient than the current need to search sequentially through union list after union list to find it. On the other hand, I see a growing trend in networking in formal or semi-formal ways among library systems. The seven universities of the Washington Research Library Consortium, of which the George Washington University is one, have implemented a shared automated system. Since these universities formed the core of our local union list of serials, the catalog has literally become our union list among ourselves. Intersystem linking arrangements are becoming increasingly possible; if desired, one library can put another library's catalog on its own menu. I
PERSPECTIVES ON Tile FUTURE OF UNION LISTING - -
am still a novice at the Internet navigation tools, but I can see possibilities there as well. Would I state that the Internet can and should replace local and regional union lists of serials? I don't think so, at least not in the sense of searching a series of other library catalogs to find serial holdings. But it is simply not affordable to continue keeping the traditional lists up-to-date in the traditional ways. We will have to find another way to share holdings information. The Internet is a growing means of sending and receiving records, and I can see development in this area that would allow us to update information once in our local systems and then send it out to update other systems. Rather than simply routing search queries from catalog to catalog, the Internet may provide a way to create and maintain new integrated databases of holdings information.
Landesman is coordinator, systems planning, Gelman Library, George Washington University, Washington, DC. User Needs Noelene P. Martin
Many librarians working with union lists are concerned more with technical and bibliographic problems than with how and why union lists are used. Keeping any union list current certainly is labor intensive and often is achieved satisfactorily only during periods of support provided by Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), Higher Education Act, Title II-C, or other regional or state resource-sharing grants. At the same time, interlibrary loan personnel depend on union lists on a daily basis in order to match patrons' citations with holdings information. This process, too, is labor intensive, yet often results in an estimated first-hit fill rate of about 60 percent. In the recent 1992 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) white paper, Maximizing Access,
Minimizing Cost: A First Step Toward the Information Access Future, Shirley K. Baker and Mary E. Jackson note in their discussion of current interlibrary loan processes that "Incomplete holdings information in the national databases hinders identification of preferred potential lenders."11nterlibraryloan staffs depend upon current, accurate holdings information in order to satisfy patrons' needs. The ARL white paper does not provide a complete answer to how union lists will be maintained, but it does emphasize that, in the ideal system, resource sharing must be treated as a "central rather than a marginal service,...equal to reference, FALL 1993
73
acquisitions, cataloging--services historically provided at no cost to the patron."2 In interlibrary loan, resource sharing and union listing are interdependent. The old Union List of Serials, the third and latest edition of which was published by H.W. Wilson Co. in 1965, listed pre-1950 titles. It is still used as a location tool in many libraries. Its successor, New Serial Titles, continued to be the chief source for location information through 1980, and interlibrary loan staffs depend upon those volumes even now when they are unable to find titles in the online union lists. In the early 1980s, the OCLC system became the choice for many statewide union lists, replacing earlier local and regional printed lists. OCLC's entry into the ILL and union listing field revolutionized interlibrary loan for journal articles. The capabilities of the OCLC interlibrary loan subsystem, especially the ability to choose a string of five potential lenders, and the interfaces between the subsystem and the union listing component and the Name Address Directory (NAD), have made it our most widely used interlibrary loan tool. The practical importance of this activity is underlined by the facts that 41 percent of interlibrary loan requests on OCLC are for photocopies of articles, and that the fill- rate, achieved by automatically forwarding through the five-institution lender string, is surprisingly high at 87 percent. In spite of these successes this is not a time for complacency. The cost of serials subscriptions continues to rise while library budgets are being slashed. Subscriptions are being canceled, there is less money for collections, and there is less money available for staff. At the same time, the expectations of our users have been raised by the ready availability of bibliographic information and the promise of facsimile transmission (FAX) or even more advanced technology using the Internet. Collection development costs are being balanced against access costs, and interlibrary loan is coming into its own as a key player in providing library services. In tandem with this quickly evolving dependency on interlibrary loan, however, there are new requirements. The old labor-intensive methods of obtaining library materials are no longer acceptable. Accurate location information is more important than ever and access to this information will have to be available in a seamless environment. Union listing may change, but the kind of information provided by union lists will be needed more than ever. Access to separate catalogs via the Internet is an exciting recent development. Interlibrary loan staffs make use of these when all else fails, but most cannot afford to indulge in time-consuming searches of separate catalogs with conflicting entries for serials. Union catalogs and union lists are essential for efficiency. In fact, the ideal situation would be to have one 74
SERIALSREVIEW
national union list as originally envisaged for the CONSER (CONversion of SERials) Project that was launched in 1975. The interlibrary loan use of union lists works best when it is confined to one system (e.g., OCLC) and to a limited number of union lists within the system. Each library has its own special needs and OCLC has worked hard to meet those needs with its separate regional, subject-related, and consortial union lists. OCLC, however, is not the national union catalog and the existence of other utilities and systems leads to inefficiency because of the need to conduct multiple, sequential searches. Larger libraries are better placed to handle this multiplicity of sources; smaller ones often do not have as easy access. There is a tendency, in the drive for efficiency and cost effectiveness, to fall back on such paradigms as the 80/20 rule. If we can fulfill 80 percent of the requests then we are doing well. Such an attitude is actually a devaluation of the other 20 percent, which are just as valid. Commercial or quasi-commercial services will similarly concentrate on "core" journals, which, while they do serve the majority of users, must be commercially viable. Requests for materials that are sparsely held and only occasionally wanted are valid scholarly needs. Nor are they confined to the larger institutions. Individual scholars working in many institutions scattered across the country need, now and again, to have access to articles from the less common serial titles. In order to serve this important group of library users, libraries must have ready access to information about the holdings of all serials titles, whether or not they are in heavy demand. Information about such serial titles is essential and can be provided in an effective and efficient manner only through the mechanism of well-maintained union lists. As distinct from commercial information providers, libraries are responsible for the whole range of bibliographic materials. In this electronic age "universal bibliographic control" has taken on new meanings. Catalogers need to rethink their responsibilities, which are no longer confined to a specific institution. Access to resources becomes meaningless if you cannot find out where these resources are located. We are in the midst of a massive redefinition of library services. As the literary scholars would say, the "signifiers" have changed. Resource sharing is now not a luxury but a necessity, and accurate, current bibliographic and holdings information is the key to its success.
-- ANN C. SC~.FFN~
NOTES
•
A last copy/cancellation tool?
1. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Committee on Access to Information Resources, Maximizing Access, Minimizing Cost: A First Step Toward the Information Access Future, prepared by Shirley K. Baker and Mary E. Jackson (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1992), 7.
*
A tool for statewide access to journal collections?
•
A document delivery tool?
2.
•
Library personnel?
•
Library personnel and users in the library?
Association of Research Libraries, 9.
Martin is head, interlibrary loan, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Resource Sharing Jay Schafer
The union list of serials has been a cornerstone of collection building and resource sharing in both the individual library and consortium environments. Knowing where a title is held can weigh heavily on the decision to purchase or cancel it. Many fragile, and usually non-binding, collection-sharing agreements depend on accurate and current union list information. All too often, the failure to maintain support for a union list project is a harbinger of failure for a cooperative collection project. The importance of union listing for collection development and resource-sharing projects was reinforced recently when a group sponsored by the Colorado State Library began developing a strategic plan for statewide resource sharing. As the conversation turned to sharing serial resources and establishing some sort of last copy program, it became evident that without a statewide union list of serials, determining what titles libraries had to share or keep was difficult and cumbersome, if not impossible. Two options were developed to address the need for union listing: a traditional, OCLC-based GAC (Group Access Catalog) and a statewide database using the UnCover functionality of the CARL (Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries) system. The second possibility, using the UnCover database, presents unique advantages and disadvantages that epitomize the challenges of our rapidly evolving environment with its increasing technological advances and decreasing materials budgets. To judge the appropriateness of these alternatives, we must first consider the objectives of a proposed union list project. Is the primary purpose of the union list to be: •
Also, who is the primary user of a proposed union list:
An interlibrary loan tool? PERSPECTIVESON TIlE~
OF UNIONLISTING--
Library personnel and users in and away from the library? The answers to these questions should determine the essential nature of any union list. The origin of the UnCover database lies in the tables of contents of more than 10,000 journal titles subscribed to by the CARL Alliance members (Auraria Library, Denver Public Library, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State University, University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Denver, and University of Wyoming). These libraries account for most, but not all, of the unique titles held in Colorado. By expanding the coverage of the database to include unique titles held by non-CARL Colorado libraries and by including the owner designation codes for all Colorado libraries participating in the project, the UnCover database could become a dynamic list of all journals currently received in the state. The Colorado State Library is also in the process of developing a program to provide statewide access to library databases using Colorado SuperNet. This will make all electronic library catalogs available through either direct dial-in lines or 800 numbers in outlying parts of the state. Including the UnCover/union list on this network would assure easy access to the database by all libraries in Colorado and by many end-users who have computers and modems in their homes and offices. One advantage of an electronic list is that in addition to displaying individual libraries owning a title, the database could also display holdings by regional library systems. This promotes the use of regional collections and takes the pressure off major research libraries. In this way we may remove one of the most significant stumbling blocks to forming cooperative collection agreements. Instead of overwhelming the few major libraries in the state, borrowing agencies would be aware of closer locations or locations that can provide shorter ILL turn-around time. For example, if a farmer in Eads, Colorado, needs an article on wheat rust recommended by the county extension agent, the Eads Public Library might locate the journal at the University of Southern Colorado, in Pueblo, instead FALL 1993
75
of going directly to Colorado State University:--an obvious first choice because it has the largest agricultural collection in the state. In many ways, using UnCover does not differ greatly from the traditional paper or electronic union list. A significant distinction, however, is the fact that UnCover offers article-level access to journal literature, not just the title level common to traditional union lists. By doing this, the UnCover/union list would provide intellectual access to the contents of journals, not just bibliographic access and location information on a titles level. While the UnCover database is not an index with controlled subject descriptors, there is key word searching of the text of article titles. Without the UnCover/union list, the farmer in Eads wanting additional information on wheat rust would probably need to drive to or telephone a larger library that has Biological and Agricultural Index, or some similar index. If, on the other hand, the farmer goes to the Eads Public Library and with the librarian performs a word search on the UnCover database, they may find several articles. One may be in Farm Journal, which the Eads Public Library owns. Others will need to be requested from the most convenient owner through interlibrary loan. Or, if delivery time is more the issue than money, the farmer could have the article faxed to the library the next day. To continue the scenario further, if this farmer has a personal computer and fax machine (not entirely unlikely) he or she could search the database personally and make the decision to drive to Pueblo today to get the articles or wait for them to be faxed to the farm the next day. This end-user capability, utilizing articlelevel searching and document delivery, is where the UnCover/union list offers substantially greater possibilities for satisfying information needs than does a traditional union list of serials, either paper or electronic. Obviously, the UnCover/union list is not a true union list of serials. As currently configured, only location codes, not holdings, are displayed for each title. It would be possible to add holdings information for titles owned by each library. It is extremely unlikely (although technically feasible) that non-current holdings (dead titles, canceled titles, and so on) would be added to the database. Therefore, if our farmer wanted an article on wheat rust that was published before 1989, the existing reference and interlibrary loan processes would have to be used. Also, most non-journal serials would not be included on the database. A cost comparison of the OCLC-GAC option and the UnCover option has not been undertaken. Because many of the largest libraries in the state already use the CARL system, the cost of initiating and maintaining 76
SER~aZSREVIEW
duplicate records on the OCLC-GAC may be prohibitive. Similarly, those libraries not currently using the CARL system or the UnCover database would encounter some additional costs to participate. As so often happens, this deadlock over costs has stalled (temporarily at least) further discussion of a union list of serials in Colorado. Few tools or processes in our profession have been untouched by rapidly changing technology. It can be argued that even the traditional union list of serials has been greatly impacted by automation. However, the traditional union list of serials, whether paper or electronic, does not maximize the potential of today's (and, more importantly, tomorrow's) technology. Listing only titles and holdings of serials does not provide intellectual access to the vast amount of information held within those titles. Combining article-level access and the union list of serials is one step toward full utilization of shared resources. Without such use, the best laid plans for cooperative collection development may flounder. The suggestion to use the UnCover database in such a manner is rudimentary. It does, however, offer the possibility of adding intellectual access to the powerful bibliographical and location tools we have developed. In the final analysis this may be only an interim solution-until the coming of universal, full- text access to all serial titles.
Schafer is coordinator of CollectionDevelopment Services, Auraria Library, Denver, Colorado. Preservation Data
Patricia Erwin
"We need a nationwide (even worldwide) system which will enable anyone about to decide what to do with a deteriorating item to determine whether another copy of that same item has already been reproduced in accordance with preservation standards. Reaching agreement on the essential data and implementing procedures to achieve that goal have not been simple tasks .... ,,1 Though Nancy Gwinn was speaking about the need for coordination of preservation microfilming efforts, she could easily have been referring to collection development or resource-sharing activities. We traditionally think of union lists as fulfilling our serial hunting and gathering instincts; they can give us an overview of coordinated serials information not easily gleaned from searching untold numbers of individual catalogs.
- - ANN C . SCHAFFNER
It is true that while access to individual institutions' online catalogs has somewhat altered the function of the union list, union lists still can play an important role in providing unique information at the location and piece-specific level. We traditionally think of union lists as the corral for serials holdings from many locations. We may be entering a time when the concept of union lists will extend beyond holdings to cover any information linked directly to any specific item, be it serial, monograph, or other format. As present union list data serve multiple purposes, primarily in the areas of resource-sharing and cooperative collection projects, it is also the logical place to store and display preservation data. The implementation of Z39.50 may make display of holdings from multiple databases easier on the user, but it will put a burden of cooperation directly on individual institutions. Institutions will see the benefit of recording and updating holdings, if for no other reason than to run their circulation systems. What benefits can be derived from recording preservation activities in a format and place accessible online to multiple users? "Preservation is concerned with conserving the intellectual content of the collections and, where appropriate, thephysical format as an artifact .... ,,2 This dual purpose of preservation makes association with union listing both attractive and dangerous to an institution's collection development and management goals. If we are preserving the intellectual content of materials, then the inclusion of preservation data that displays a loanable format of the item in the union list record makes sense for resource-sharing purposes. In many cases we need to consider "the original format to be information of scholarly value comparable to the words and illustrations more typically thought of as information. ,,3 Would union lists then serve any purpose for recording preservation of the artifact? Assuming limited preservation budgets, institutions could more easily set preservation priorities based on how other institutions were handling a similar artifact. A review of the union list could yield such information as who, if anyone, also owns a comparable edition, what that institution is doing to conserve the original format, and accessibility to the original or a facsimile. While individual institutions would probably not want to base their preservation or conservation decisions entirely on what other institutions had done with a particular item, the opportunity to have a broader perspective on national preservation of library collections and individual treatment decisions would be of value. The danger would be in allowing the wealthier institutions also to assume much of the preservation burden. This is analogous to the interlibrary loan inequities that have always existed.
- - P E R S P E C T I V E S ON T H E F U T U R E OF U N I O N L I S T I N G - -
There are, of course, obstacles that must be overcome before inclusion of preservation data in holdings records realizes its full potential. First, we will be confronted with many of the same problems recording preservation data that we met in recording holdings information. What standards will we follow both for recording and for displaying preservation information? One reason union lists work is because union listing groups have rules and standards. On the other hand, direct access to online catalogs will mean that users open themselves up to a barrage of information in many formats, or no information at all. If we were not able to agree on a standard for recording holdings, how might we So do it with preservation information? Finally, there are specific resource-sharing and library user satisfaction incentives for keeping holdings information up-to-date. Because the display of preservation information makes a less direct impact on the library user, the same service incentives may not work for encouraging the updating of preservation activities online. One incentive could be money, in the form of national preservation projects and incentives. Inclusion in and funding of preservation projects could be linked to the institution's willingness to display and keep current online preservation data. The United States Newspaper Program and RLG's Great Collections Microfilming Project (GCMPII) both have elements of national coordination built in. What is lacking is the incentive for keeping current the recorded preservation information. Once a state has completed USNP work it is under no obligation to continue to record preservation data except when they make an impact on the bibliographic or holdings record. The GCMPII project requires that "intent to microfilm" be recorded in the RL1N record. This, o f course, is intended to eliminate duplication of filming at RLG's expense. Once the material has been filmed we then catalog the film version of the book. Most institutions involved in preservation neither record the intent to preserve nor create holdings/item records for noncirculating alternative formats. This discussion has wandered slightly afield of the question of the future of union listing. Many signs point to the demise of union lists as we know them. What we need to focus on now are the questions associated with direct access to multiple institutions' catalogs. We may be technologically able to provide the user with a seamless view into multiple catalogs and holdings, similar to a union list display. However, without the willingness of individual institutions and vendors to enter and present data in a consistent manner, the user will have gained little from this technological advancement. We are at a crucial juncture in providing online preservation data. It would be doing our libraries a FALL 1993
77
disservice to lose this momentum to share preservation data in a debate over the value of union listing. Regardless of whether or not a union listing function is used, preservation data should be recorded online by individual institutions, in a standard manner, and available as part of our resource-sharing efforts.
NOTES 1, Nancy Gwinn, Preservation Microfilming: A Guidefor Librarians and Archivists (Chicago: American Library Association, 1987), xxv. 2. David W.G. Clements, "Problems of Cooperative Microfilming," Collection Management 15, no. 3/4 (1992): 503-507. 3. Barclay Ogden, On the Preservation of Books and Documents (Washington, DC: Commissionon Preservation and Access, October 1989). Erwin is coordinator, New Hampshire Newspaper Project; women's studies bibliographer, Baker Library, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
The Future of Union Lists: A Director's View Bessie K. Hahn
Economics of Union Lists Creating and maintaining a union list of serials can be an expensive proposition. The Boston Library Consortium (BLC),I which has maintained a union list of serials for over a decade, has received a number of federal and state grants, totalling over $500,000, to support its union list at critical points in its development. In addition, the annual maintenance costs of the union list represent the single largest expense in the Consortium's budget. The aggregate costs to individual libraries are more difficult to assess. It is understandable then that the question of whether we need a union list is raised periodically. Now, with the availability of more sophisticated local online catalogs over the Internet, plus the coming of Z39.50, which should allow a user to see external databases as though they were part of a local system, the need for a union list is again being questioned. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
78
SERIALSREVIEW
Z39.50 NISO Z39.50 is a standard that simplifies information retrieval in different computer systems. When Z39.50has been fully implemented, a search command from a local "source" system will be translated into a common syntax, called a Type 1 query, before it is sent to the remote "target" system; the "target" system then translates the Type 1 query into its own search syntax. In the Z39.50 environment, the user only needs to know the search commands of the local system in order to access any other system. At least five library vendor systems are currently represented among the BLC member libraries. Despite optimistic announcements by many vendors that they plan to implement the standard or have successfully demonstrated full Z39.50 interoperability with their test sites, most of us feel that transparent communication among all our disparate systems is still years away. To discontinue the union list based on the promise of future system development would certainly be unwise. Local Online Catalogs Even if all our systems have complied fully with the Z39.50 standard, it is not clear how efficient a search would be when several online catalogs have to be searched sequentially for serials information. Some of the online catalogs may contain only serial summary holdings, thus necessitating the search of yet more separate databases for issue-specific holdings information. Furthermore, given the vagaries of cataloging rules, sometimes it is not easy for a user to distinguish a book title from a serial title or to understand different versions of cataloging for the same serial title. Having a separate unionlist does save time and make life easier for the user. To library administrators who have not done any serials cataloging, the intricacies of serials cataloging can be both baffling and intimidating. The switch from latest to successive entry--and numerous modifications thereafter--has apparently created many inconsistencies, not only between catalogs, but also within one's own catalog. Having transparent access to other catalogs will not help library users disentangle these inconsistencies. With proper quality control and strict adherence to agreed-upon rules and standards, a union list can eliminate most of these difficulties. Economics of Serials There are other, more compelling, reasons for having a union list. The primary function of a union (continued on page 94)
--
ANN C.
SCHAFFNER
--
Mary Elizabeth Clack, Column Editor
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE OF UNION LISTING Ann C. Schaffner, guest editor with contributions from Betty Landesman, Noelene P. Martin, Jay Schafer, Patricia Erwin, and Bessie K. Hahn
Clack is serial records librarian at Harvard College Library in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE OF UNION LISTING - -
While union listing has generated its fair share of debate over the past few decades, this debate has centered largely on issues such as standards, systems, and the politics of cooperation? The essential usefulness of union lists has rarely been questioned. However, the environment has changed dramatically over the past few years and new developments have even led some to question the need for union lists. Commercial suppliers promise to deliver documents directly to users. Will traditional interlibrary loan continue? If so, will it continue to rely on union lists as we know them? Online catalogs can provide title and detailed holdings information to users over the telephone lines or over the Internet. With the implementation of Z39.50, we are promised seamless, fast access to multiple local bibliographic databases. Do we still need local or regional union lists? Will a new system evolve that will truly present multiple databases to our users so that they look like a single database? Can multiple databases really look like one with all the vagaries of serials cataloging? At the same time, other factors in our environment make union lists more appealing than ever before. Skyrocketing serial prices have put enormous pressures on individual collections and provide added incentives for resource sharing and cooperative collection development and preservation efforts. Can we mount these programs without the data provided by union lists? Abstracting and indexing services and table of contents services can be enhanced by the display of local or
FALL 1993
71
regional holdings. Can we deny the benefits of such services to our patrons? New technologies have revolutionized library processes. Can they offer any help with the burdensome task of creating and maintaining union lists? For this column I have asked a variety of people to address these issues--a library director, a union list administrator, and others. While they may not agree on the future prospects for union lists, they seem to agree on one issue--if union lists do survive, they will undergo profound changes in a new technological environment.
NOTE 1. Marjorie C. Bloss, "And in Hindsight... the Past Ten Years of Union Listing," The Serials Librarian 10 (Fall 1985-Winter 1986): 141-148.
Schaffner is assistant director for the Science Library, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Union List Maintenance, or, How to Keep Up-to-Date in Keeping Up-to-Date Betty Landesman
"Union lists" is the term we have traditionally used for shared access to holdings information. The form varies from paper to microform to CD-ROM to shared mainframe computer, and may be mutating into virtual circuits over the network. The common thread has been a "record" (defined as you will) that is created and updated to reflect a library's actual holdings. Maintenance of union list records has often been the province of cataloging staff. Reporting to the National Union Catalog was part of the bibliographic control process, and reporting of serials holdings was a logical extension. Creation or modification of holdings statements was usually an accompaniment to the serials cataloging process: new titles were acquired; titles changed; titles ceased. For many titles, an open entry indicating the first issue held could be created once and not dealt with again. In today's climate of serials cancellations, this has changed. It has become ever more critical to keep holdings up-to-date so as not to mislead users: the seeker of a 1993 issue may well not find it at a library that is supposed to hold "v. 1- ." At the same time, the sheer volume of record maintenance required to meet this need has grown exponentially. Furthermore, it may well be different 72
SERIALS REVIEW
staff (e.g., acquisitions) who have the updating information as they process the cancellations; but we may not have either the staffing or the opportunity to change workflow. It is likely still to be cataloging staff who are charged with maintaining union list records, probably using an increased paper flow from another department giving them the updating information. Libraries are increasingly functioning in an online environment with an integrated automated system. When we implement such systems, we do so with the expectation of streamlining our workflow and reducing overall keystrokes. Depending on the specific system, however, we often find a multiplicity of "records" used to provide information: MARC bibliographic records, item records, check-in records, "library has" records. This, added to the longstanding necessity to cope with multiple bibliographic records for serials in different physical formats, often increases the level of complexity of our procedures. Since many of our systems cannot talk to each other, maintaining holdings in our local systems and also in a union list often means double or even triple work. At my institution, we successfully used holdings information generated from union list records to create holdings records in our local system via magnetic tape. But once records are created, we must maintain them. For most of us, the capability does not currently exist to do ongoing updates either in the local system or in the union list system and simply transfer them to the other. It almost makes me think back fondly to the days when libraries were typing catalog cards, and all we had to do was make an extra copy and mail it off to list our holdings! At the same time as the steps required to continue our commitment to keep union list holdings up-to-date have increased, our staffing levels have decreased. In cases of conflicting priorities, libraries must give preference to serving their own users. Database maintenance for our local catalogs has to come first, and we may not be able to do both--at least not in the same ways. We are all committed to the principles and the necessity of resource sharing, and accurate union list holdings are more critical than they have ever been. In my experience, technical services staff are generally public-service minded: they want to provide the information that will assist users. They have coped with MARC, successive-entry cataloging, separate records for microfiche, and different holdings standards in different places. But if we do not find new ways of enabling us easily to update all our serial holdings, local or otherwise, we will not be able to continue to provide all the information people need. Union lists of serials can be good sources of holdings data. As mentioned earlier, we used tapes to create holdings statements for our periodicals in our -- ANN C. SCtlAFFNER
local system. We have also used these tapes in the past to have a local printed serials list printed and to match against a table of contents service. So there can be a "s elfish" motive involved in keeping union list holdings current if libraries can derive benefit from them. The burgeoning article delivery and table of contents services offer a reverse spin on the subject--we are in a way using other peoples' union lists to define what we have! Unfortunately, the current services on the market contain bibliographic records for the paper format of the title. So all the work we have done to use separate bibliographic records for different formats and to have the right holdings on the right record is actually coming back to haunt us. Some services do not match against local holdings, either at all or if the library does not use another product by that vendor. Others match only at the title level at this time. While I believe the market will drive changes in this regard, I think it will take a long time for the development work. I do not believe we can afford to continue to maintain union list holdings only for the benefit of others. Will Internet access to online catalogs be the cureall or substitute for local or regional union lists? Guest column editor Ann Schaffner's introduction to this "Balance Point" describes the potential for "seamless, fast access to multiple local bibliographic databases." The current hodgepodge of methods oflnternet access is hardly seamless. Many libraries still do not have ready access to the Internet, although that is clearly changing with many initiatives underway to provide that access for those without the luxury of a campus Internet node. Not all catalogs are available over the Internet. Smaller institutions are likely to be excluded. The currency and completeness of each database are quitevariable--will everyonefinallyhave finished their serials conversion by the time we discuss the next ten years of union listing? And, the access question aside, the necessity to search sequentially through catalog after catalog to see who has the issue you're looking for is even less efficient than the current need to search sequentially through union list after union list to find it. On the other hand, I see a growing trend in networking in formal or semi-formal ways among library systems. The seven universities of the Washington Research Library Consortium, of which the George Washington University is one, have implemented a shared automated system. Since these universities formed the core of our local union list of serials, the catalog has literally become our union list among ourselves. Intersystem linking arrangements are becoming increasingly possible; if desired, one library can put another library's catalog on its own menu. I
PERSPECTIVES ON Tile FUTURE OF UNION LISTING - -
am still a novice at the Internet navigation tools, but I can see possibilities there as well. Would I state that the Internet can and should replace local and regional union lists of serials? I don't think so, at least not in the sense of searching a series of other library catalogs to find serial holdings. But it is simply not affordable to continue keeping the traditional lists up-to-date in the traditional ways. We will have to find another way to share holdings information. The Internet is a growing means of sending and receiving records, and I can see development in this area that would allow us to update information once in our local systems and then send it out to update other systems. Rather than simply routing search queries from catalog to catalog, the Internet may provide a way to create and maintain new integrated databases of holdings information.
Landesman is coordinator, systems planning, Gelman Library, George Washington University, Washington, DC. User Needs Noelene P. Martin
Many librarians working with union lists are concerned more with technical and bibliographic problems than with how and why union lists are used. Keeping any union list current certainly is labor intensive and often is achieved satisfactorily only during periods of support provided by Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), Higher Education Act, Title II-C, or other regional or state resource-sharing grants. At the same time, interlibrary loan personnel depend on union lists on a daily basis in order to match patrons' citations with holdings information. This process, too, is labor intensive, yet often results in an estimated first-hit fill rate of about 60 percent. In the recent 1992 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) white paper, Maximizing Access,
Minimizing Cost: A First Step Toward the Information Access Future, Shirley K. Baker and Mary E. Jackson note in their discussion of current interlibrary loan processes that "Incomplete holdings information in the national databases hinders identification of preferred potential lenders."11nterlibraryloan staffs depend upon current, accurate holdings information in order to satisfy patrons' needs. The ARL white paper does not provide a complete answer to how union lists will be maintained, but it does emphasize that, in the ideal system, resource sharing must be treated as a "central rather than a marginal service,...equal to reference, FALL 1993
73
acquisitions, cataloging--services historically provided at no cost to the patron."2 In interlibrary loan, resource sharing and union listing are interdependent. The old Union List of Serials, the third and latest edition of which was published by H.W. Wilson Co. in 1965, listed pre-1950 titles. It is still used as a location tool in many libraries. Its successor, New Serial Titles, continued to be the chief source for location information through 1980, and interlibrary loan staffs depend upon those volumes even now when they are unable to find titles in the online union lists. In the early 1980s, the OCLC system became the choice for many statewide union lists, replacing earlier local and regional printed lists. OCLC's entry into the ILL and union listing field revolutionized interlibrary loan for journal articles. The capabilities of the OCLC interlibrary loan subsystem, especially the ability to choose a string of five potential lenders, and the interfaces between the subsystem and the union listing component and the Name Address Directory (NAD), have made it our most widely used interlibrary loan tool. The practical importance of this activity is underlined by the facts that 41 percent of interlibrary loan requests on OCLC are for photocopies of articles, and that the fill- rate, achieved by automatically forwarding through the five-institution lender string, is surprisingly high at 87 percent. In spite of these successes this is not a time for complacency. The cost of serials subscriptions continues to rise while library budgets are being slashed. Subscriptions are being canceled, there is less money for collections, and there is less money available for staff. At the same time, the expectations of our users have been raised by the ready availability of bibliographic information and the promise of facsimile transmission (FAX) or even more advanced technology using the Internet. Collection development costs are being balanced against access costs, and interlibrary loan is coming into its own as a key player in providing library services. In tandem with this quickly evolving dependency on interlibrary loan, however, there are new requirements. The old labor-intensive methods of obtaining library materials are no longer acceptable. Accurate location information is more important than ever and access to this information will have to be available in a seamless environment. Union listing may change, but the kind of information provided by union lists will be needed more than ever. Access to separate catalogs via the Internet is an exciting recent development. Interlibrary loan staffs make use of these when all else fails, but most cannot afford to indulge in time-consuming searches of separate catalogs with conflicting entries for serials. Union catalogs and union lists are essential for efficiency. In fact, the ideal situation would be to have one 74
SERIALSREVIEW
national union list as originally envisaged for the CONSER (CONversion of SERials) Project that was launched in 1975. The interlibrary loan use of union lists works best when it is confined to one system (e.g., OCLC) and to a limited number of union lists within the system. Each library has its own special needs and OCLC has worked hard to meet those needs with its separate regional, subject-related, and consortial union lists. OCLC, however, is not the national union catalog and the existence of other utilities and systems leads to inefficiency because of the need to conduct multiple, sequential searches. Larger libraries are better placed to handle this multiplicity of sources; smaller ones often do not have as easy access. There is a tendency, in the drive for efficiency and cost effectiveness, to fall back on such paradigms as the 80/20 rule. If we can fulfill 80 percent of the requests then we are doing well. Such an attitude is actually a devaluation of the other 20 percent, which are just as valid. Commercial or quasi-commercial services will similarly concentrate on "core" journals, which, while they do serve the majority of users, must be commercially viable. Requests for materials that are sparsely held and only occasionally wanted are valid scholarly needs. Nor are they confined to the larger institutions. Individual scholars working in many institutions scattered across the country need, now and again, to have access to articles from the less common serial titles. In order to serve this important group of library users, libraries must have ready access to information about the holdings of all serials titles, whether or not they are in heavy demand. Information about such serial titles is essential and can be provided in an effective and efficient manner only through the mechanism of well-maintained union lists. As distinct from commercial information providers, libraries are responsible for the whole range of bibliographic materials. In this electronic age "universal bibliographic control" has taken on new meanings. Catalogers need to rethink their responsibilities, which are no longer confined to a specific institution. Access to resources becomes meaningless if you cannot find out where these resources are located. We are in the midst of a massive redefinition of library services. As the literary scholars would say, the "signifiers" have changed. Resource sharing is now not a luxury but a necessity, and accurate, current bibliographic and holdings information is the key to its success.
-- ANN C. SC~.FFN~
NOTES
•
A last copy/cancellation tool?
1. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Committee on Access to Information Resources, Maximizing Access, Minimizing Cost: A First Step Toward the Information Access Future, prepared by Shirley K. Baker and Mary E. Jackson (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1992), 7.
*
A tool for statewide access to journal collections?
•
A document delivery tool?
2.
•
Library personnel?
•
Library personnel and users in the library?
Association of Research Libraries, 9.
Martin is head, interlibrary loan, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Resource Sharing Jay Schafer
The union list of serials has been a cornerstone of collection building and resource sharing in both the individual library and consortium environments. Knowing where a title is held can weigh heavily on the decision to purchase or cancel it. Many fragile, and usually non-binding, collection-sharing agreements depend on accurate and current union list information. All too often, the failure to maintain support for a union list project is a harbinger of failure for a cooperative collection project. The importance of union listing for collection development and resource-sharing projects was reinforced recently when a group sponsored by the Colorado State Library began developing a strategic plan for statewide resource sharing. As the conversation turned to sharing serial resources and establishing some sort of last copy program, it became evident that without a statewide union list of serials, determining what titles libraries had to share or keep was difficult and cumbersome, if not impossible. Two options were developed to address the need for union listing: a traditional, OCLC-based GAC (Group Access Catalog) and a statewide database using the UnCover functionality of the CARL (Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries) system. The second possibility, using the UnCover database, presents unique advantages and disadvantages that epitomize the challenges of our rapidly evolving environment with its increasing technological advances and decreasing materials budgets. To judge the appropriateness of these alternatives, we must first consider the objectives of a proposed union list project. Is the primary purpose of the union list to be: •
Also, who is the primary user of a proposed union list:
An interlibrary loan tool? PERSPECTIVESON TIlE~
OF UNIONLISTING--
Library personnel and users in and away from the library? The answers to these questions should determine the essential nature of any union list. The origin of the UnCover database lies in the tables of contents of more than 10,000 journal titles subscribed to by the CARL Alliance members (Auraria Library, Denver Public Library, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State University, University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Denver, and University of Wyoming). These libraries account for most, but not all, of the unique titles held in Colorado. By expanding the coverage of the database to include unique titles held by non-CARL Colorado libraries and by including the owner designation codes for all Colorado libraries participating in the project, the UnCover database could become a dynamic list of all journals currently received in the state. The Colorado State Library is also in the process of developing a program to provide statewide access to library databases using Colorado SuperNet. This will make all electronic library catalogs available through either direct dial-in lines or 800 numbers in outlying parts of the state. Including the UnCover/union list on this network would assure easy access to the database by all libraries in Colorado and by many end-users who have computers and modems in their homes and offices. One advantage of an electronic list is that in addition to displaying individual libraries owning a title, the database could also display holdings by regional library systems. This promotes the use of regional collections and takes the pressure off major research libraries. In this way we may remove one of the most significant stumbling blocks to forming cooperative collection agreements. Instead of overwhelming the few major libraries in the state, borrowing agencies would be aware of closer locations or locations that can provide shorter ILL turn-around time. For example, if a farmer in Eads, Colorado, needs an article on wheat rust recommended by the county extension agent, the Eads Public Library might locate the journal at the University of Southern Colorado, in Pueblo, instead FALL 1993
75
of going directly to Colorado State University:--an obvious first choice because it has the largest agricultural collection in the state. In many ways, using UnCover does not differ greatly from the traditional paper or electronic union list. A significant distinction, however, is the fact that UnCover offers article-level access to journal literature, not just the title level common to traditional union lists. By doing this, the UnCover/union list would provide intellectual access to the contents of journals, not just bibliographic access and location information on a titles level. While the UnCover database is not an index with controlled subject descriptors, there is key word searching of the text of article titles. Without the UnCover/union list, the farmer in Eads wanting additional information on wheat rust would probably need to drive to or telephone a larger library that has Biological and Agricultural Index, or some similar index. If, on the other hand, the farmer goes to the Eads Public Library and with the librarian performs a word search on the UnCover database, they may find several articles. One may be in Farm Journal, which the Eads Public Library owns. Others will need to be requested from the most convenient owner through interlibrary loan. Or, if delivery time is more the issue than money, the farmer could have the article faxed to the library the next day. To continue the scenario further, if this farmer has a personal computer and fax machine (not entirely unlikely) he or she could search the database personally and make the decision to drive to Pueblo today to get the articles or wait for them to be faxed to the farm the next day. This end-user capability, utilizing articlelevel searching and document delivery, is where the UnCover/union list offers substantially greater possibilities for satisfying information needs than does a traditional union list of serials, either paper or electronic. Obviously, the UnCover/union list is not a true union list of serials. As currently configured, only location codes, not holdings, are displayed for each title. It would be possible to add holdings information for titles owned by each library. It is extremely unlikely (although technically feasible) that non-current holdings (dead titles, canceled titles, and so on) would be added to the database. Therefore, if our farmer wanted an article on wheat rust that was published before 1989, the existing reference and interlibrary loan processes would have to be used. Also, most non-journal serials would not be included on the database. A cost comparison of the OCLC-GAC option and the UnCover option has not been undertaken. Because many of the largest libraries in the state already use the CARL system, the cost of initiating and maintaining 76
SER~aZSREVIEW
duplicate records on the OCLC-GAC may be prohibitive. Similarly, those libraries not currently using the CARL system or the UnCover database would encounter some additional costs to participate. As so often happens, this deadlock over costs has stalled (temporarily at least) further discussion of a union list of serials in Colorado. Few tools or processes in our profession have been untouched by rapidly changing technology. It can be argued that even the traditional union list of serials has been greatly impacted by automation. However, the traditional union list of serials, whether paper or electronic, does not maximize the potential of today's (and, more importantly, tomorrow's) technology. Listing only titles and holdings of serials does not provide intellectual access to the vast amount of information held within those titles. Combining article-level access and the union list of serials is one step toward full utilization of shared resources. Without such use, the best laid plans for cooperative collection development may flounder. The suggestion to use the UnCover database in such a manner is rudimentary. It does, however, offer the possibility of adding intellectual access to the powerful bibliographical and location tools we have developed. In the final analysis this may be only an interim solution-until the coming of universal, full- text access to all serial titles.
Schafer is coordinator of CollectionDevelopment Services, Auraria Library, Denver, Colorado. Preservation Data
Patricia Erwin
"We need a nationwide (even worldwide) system which will enable anyone about to decide what to do with a deteriorating item to determine whether another copy of that same item has already been reproduced in accordance with preservation standards. Reaching agreement on the essential data and implementing procedures to achieve that goal have not been simple tasks .... ,,1 Though Nancy Gwinn was speaking about the need for coordination of preservation microfilming efforts, she could easily have been referring to collection development or resource-sharing activities. We traditionally think of union lists as fulfilling our serial hunting and gathering instincts; they can give us an overview of coordinated serials information not easily gleaned from searching untold numbers of individual catalogs.
- - ANN C . SCHAFFNER
It is true that while access to individual institutions' online catalogs has somewhat altered the function of the union list, union lists still can play an important role in providing unique information at the location and piece-specific level. We traditionally think of union lists as the corral for serials holdings from many locations. We may be entering a time when the concept of union lists will extend beyond holdings to cover any information linked directly to any specific item, be it serial, monograph, or other format. As present union list data serve multiple purposes, primarily in the areas of resource-sharing and cooperative collection projects, it is also the logical place to store and display preservation data. The implementation of Z39.50 may make display of holdings from multiple databases easier on the user, but it will put a burden of cooperation directly on individual institutions. Institutions will see the benefit of recording and updating holdings, if for no other reason than to run their circulation systems. What benefits can be derived from recording preservation activities in a format and place accessible online to multiple users? "Preservation is concerned with conserving the intellectual content of the collections and, where appropriate, thephysical format as an artifact .... ,,2 This dual purpose of preservation makes association with union listing both attractive and dangerous to an institution's collection development and management goals. If we are preserving the intellectual content of materials, then the inclusion of preservation data that displays a loanable format of the item in the union list record makes sense for resource-sharing purposes. In many cases we need to consider "the original format to be information of scholarly value comparable to the words and illustrations more typically thought of as information. ,,3 Would union lists then serve any purpose for recording preservation of the artifact? Assuming limited preservation budgets, institutions could more easily set preservation priorities based on how other institutions were handling a similar artifact. A review of the union list could yield such information as who, if anyone, also owns a comparable edition, what that institution is doing to conserve the original format, and accessibility to the original or a facsimile. While individual institutions would probably not want to base their preservation or conservation decisions entirely on what other institutions had done with a particular item, the opportunity to have a broader perspective on national preservation of library collections and individual treatment decisions would be of value. The danger would be in allowing the wealthier institutions also to assume much of the preservation burden. This is analogous to the interlibrary loan inequities that have always existed.
- - P E R S P E C T I V E S ON T H E F U T U R E OF U N I O N L I S T I N G - -
There are, of course, obstacles that must be overcome before inclusion of preservation data in holdings records realizes its full potential. First, we will be confronted with many of the same problems recording preservation data that we met in recording holdings information. What standards will we follow both for recording and for displaying preservation information? One reason union lists work is because union listing groups have rules and standards. On the other hand, direct access to online catalogs will mean that users open themselves up to a barrage of information in many formats, or no information at all. If we were not able to agree on a standard for recording holdings, how might we So do it with preservation information? Finally, there are specific resource-sharing and library user satisfaction incentives for keeping holdings information up-to-date. Because the display of preservation information makes a less direct impact on the library user, the same service incentives may not work for encouraging the updating of preservation activities online. One incentive could be money, in the form of national preservation projects and incentives. Inclusion in and funding of preservation projects could be linked to the institution's willingness to display and keep current online preservation data. The United States Newspaper Program and RLG's Great Collections Microfilming Project (GCMPII) both have elements of national coordination built in. What is lacking is the incentive for keeping current the recorded preservation information. Once a state has completed USNP work it is under no obligation to continue to record preservation data except when they make an impact on the bibliographic or holdings record. The GCMPII project requires that "intent to microfilm" be recorded in the RL1N record. This, o f course, is intended to eliminate duplication of filming at RLG's expense. Once the material has been filmed we then catalog the film version of the book. Most institutions involved in preservation neither record the intent to preserve nor create holdings/item records for noncirculating alternative formats. This discussion has wandered slightly afield of the question of the future of union listing. Many signs point to the demise of union lists as we know them. What we need to focus on now are the questions associated with direct access to multiple institutions' catalogs. We may be technologically able to provide the user with a seamless view into multiple catalogs and holdings, similar to a union list display. However, without the willingness of individual institutions and vendors to enter and present data in a consistent manner, the user will have gained little from this technological advancement. We are at a crucial juncture in providing online preservation data. It would be doing our libraries a FALL 1993
77
disservice to lose this momentum to share preservation data in a debate over the value of union listing. Regardless of whether or not a union listing function is used, preservation data should be recorded online by individual institutions, in a standard manner, and available as part of our resource-sharing efforts.
NOTES 1, Nancy Gwinn, Preservation Microfilming: A Guidefor Librarians and Archivists (Chicago: American Library Association, 1987), xxv. 2. David W.G. Clements, "Problems of Cooperative Microfilming," Collection Management 15, no. 3/4 (1992): 503-507. 3. Barclay Ogden, On the Preservation of Books and Documents (Washington, DC: Commissionon Preservation and Access, October 1989). Erwin is coordinator, New Hampshire Newspaper Project; women's studies bibliographer, Baker Library, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
The Future of Union Lists: A Director's View Bessie K. Hahn
Economics of Union Lists Creating and maintaining a union list of serials can be an expensive proposition. The Boston Library Consortium (BLC),I which has maintained a union list of serials for over a decade, has received a number of federal and state grants, totalling over $500,000, to support its union list at critical points in its development. In addition, the annual maintenance costs of the union list represent the single largest expense in the Consortium's budget. The aggregate costs to individual libraries are more difficult to assess. It is understandable then that the question of whether we need a union list is raised periodically. Now, with the availability of more sophisticated local online catalogs over the Internet, plus the coming of Z39.50, which should allow a user to see external databases as though they were part of a local system, the need for a union list is again being questioned. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
78
SERIALSREVIEW
Z39.50 NISO Z39.50 is a standard that simplifies information retrieval in different computer systems. When Z39.50has been fully implemented, a search command from a local "source" system will be translated into a common syntax, called a Type 1 query, before it is sent to the remote "target" system; the "target" system then translates the Type 1 query into its own search syntax. In the Z39.50 environment, the user only needs to know the search commands of the local system in order to access any other system. At least five library vendor systems are currently represented among the BLC member libraries. Despite optimistic announcements by many vendors that they plan to implement the standard or have successfully demonstrated full Z39.50 interoperability with their test sites, most of us feel that transparent communication among all our disparate systems is still years away. To discontinue the union list based on the promise of future system development would certainly be unwise. Local Online Catalogs Even if all our systems have complied fully with the Z39.50 standard, it is not clear how efficient a search would be when several online catalogs have to be searched sequentially for serials information. Some of the online catalogs may contain only serial summary holdings, thus necessitating the search of yet more separate databases for issue-specific holdings information. Furthermore, given the vagaries of cataloging rules, sometimes it is not easy for a user to distinguish a book title from a serial title or to understand different versions of cataloging for the same serial title. Having a separate unionlist does save time and make life easier for the user. To library administrators who have not done any serials cataloging, the intricacies of serials cataloging can be both baffling and intimidating. The switch from latest to successive entry--and numerous modifications thereafter--has apparently created many inconsistencies, not only between catalogs, but also within one's own catalog. Having transparent access to other catalogs will not help library users disentangle these inconsistencies. With proper quality control and strict adherence to agreed-upon rules and standards, a union list can eliminate most of these difficulties. Economics of Serials There are other, more compelling, reasons for having a union list. The primary function of a union (continued on page 94)
--
ANN C.
SCHAFFNER
--