Case Studies in Cataloging E-Monograph Collections

• Records for the database version of each title were located in OCLC.
• Each record was edited to ensure that it contained the following:
  1.) Form (fixed field) =s
  2.) 006 and 007 fields for the electronic aspects of the resource
  3.) 245 |h [electronic resource]
  4.) A 500 note to record the date that the resource was reviewed for cataloging.
  5.) A 520 note in the following format: Searchable database of the material found in: A dictionary of nursing. 4th ed. 2003.
  6.) An 856 with the BC proxy prefix that leads to the search screen for an individual title.
• To facilitate a manageable workflow, we chose not to update the holdings for each title in OCLC. This will make it easier to maintain the collection of records as it changes over time. (Note: Holdings were updated on the single OCLC record that represents the entire Oxford Reference online database.)
• Several records had the edition statement for the print version in the 250. We left the 250 field intact. However, we would prefer that the edition statement for the print appear in the 520 field, not the 250.

• URLs are in the bibliographic record in an 856 field. Due to workflow considerations described below, MARC holdings records were not created.
• Kevin Kidd defined EB (Electronic Book) as a local Aleph record type. This record type causes the URL for the resource to display in QUEST search results screens where information from the holdings record normally displays.

Two options:
1.) wlt=oro
2.) t=oxford reference online (this search also retrieves the record for the database)

• Each title in the collection was cataloged as a computer file on a separate record exported from OCLC. The treatment decision was driven by the desire to adhere to cataloging standards as well as the need to establish an efficient workflow for maintenance of the collection's records.
• Vendor records were available from Oxford. However, the vendor records were for the print version of the resource. They did not have any coding that indicated the record was for an electronic version.
• LCRI 1.11 provides guidelines for cataloging electronic reproductions. The Rule Interpretation outlines a technique in which the catalog record describes the original version. Details of the reproduction are recorded in 533/539 reproduction notes, 245 |h, and the Form fixed field. The LCRI defines a reproduction as follows:
  
  

  A reproduction is a manifestation that replicates an item that is intended to function as a substitute. . . . Cataloger judgment will be required to distinguish electronic reproductions from electronic republications or simultaneous publication in analog and digital format. . . . For example, an electronic reproduction produced using scanning techniques that result in a facsimile reproduction may be easily identified as a reproduction. Other non-facsimile electronic reproductions may also be considered under this LCRI when they purport to be a reproduction of the original and can serve as a surrogate for the original. Other cataloging agencies choosing to follow this LCRI may need to develop their own criteria for distinguishing reproductions from manifestations judged not to be reproductions. In cases of doubt, or in cases where there is inadequate information about the original on which to base a description, do not consider the electronic manifestation to be a reproduction.

  
  The titles in Oxford Reference Online are searchable databases that do not exactly replicate the print version. In the online versions, for example, it is not possible to see the title page or to look up a citation by page number. For these reasons, we decided catalog the Oxford Reference titles as searchable databases, rather than reproductions of the print versions.
• LC's Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources describe a technique for recording the print and electronic versions of a resource on the record for the print (the single record approach). Section B19.4.5.2.1 directs:
  
  

  [for] a remotely accessed electronic resource that is a one-to-one electronic reproduction of another item, employ the single record approach.

  
  The guidelines go on to state that if the remotely access resource does not fit this criterion (or if there is doubt as to whether the resource fits this criterion) that separate records should be used.
• Workflow considerations favor the separate record approach. If the vendor records are improved, the separate records currently in QUEST can be globally deleted and replaced with the updated vendor records. If our subscription to Oxford Reference Online is ever cancelled, it will be easy to globally delete the separate records.
• The library doesn't hold the print version of many of the titles in the collection. This factor makes the separate record approach seem practical.
• To facilitate potential batch deletes/replacements of the Oxford Reference Online records we did not create MARC holdings records. Kevin Kidd defined EB (Electronic Book) as a local Aleph record type. This record type causes the URL for the resource to display where holdings record information normally displays in QUEST search results screens.

• The What's New section indicates that Oxford Reference Online is updated three times a year. The section gives details on what new titles and editions are to be added to the collection. The next update is in January 2004. We will need to update QUEST at that time.
• The portion of Oxford Reference Online discussed in this document is called the Core Collection. A Premium Collection will be released in November 2003. As of November 13, 2003 the libraries do not have any immediate plans to subscribe to the Premium Collection.