CHARGE

1. Describe the various types of journal Web sites and consider which warrant cataloging, taking into consideration the coverage and purpose of the site.

2. For serials that do warrant cataloging, define the characteristics of those that could be appropriately described on a single record (for libraries which have opted to use this approach) and the characteristics of those that
would best be handled by separate records. Again, consider the subject, scope and purpose of the site, its similarity to the original version, etc.

3. Review the CONSER guidelines in the CEG/CCM and recommend any needed changes.

4. Optionally (if time allows), develop a list of pros and cons of the two approaches that could be placed on the CONSER Web site in order to aid libraries in making institutional policy decisions.

[top]

BACKGROUND

CCM Module 31 defines two ways in which an online version of a serial can be described: either by creating separate records or by noting the existence of the online version on the record for the original (single-record approach). Since the development of the CONSER single record standard it has been widely applied by many libraries. At the time that we developed it, knowledge of electronic serial versions was too limited to warrant defining categories for which the standard would be applicable. In recent years, however, a number of institutions have given careful thought to the issue and developed institutional policies. With increased knowledge of the types of electronic versions and the usefulness and drawbacks of the single record approach, it now seems time for CONSER to move beyond the experimental nature of the standard and to define more clearly the situations in which it is best applied.

Note: A large number of online versions are currently available in aggregations from vendors. A separate task force, led by Karen Calhoun, will be looking at ways in which to provide access to such aggregations. The charge of this group is more general and should not be limited to specific situations such as aggregator databases.

[top]

Timeframe

The group should prepare responses to questions 1-2 below for discussion at the CONSER Operations meeting April 22-23. In order to generate broad discussion, the draft policy should be distributed to CONSERLST at least one week, preferably two, before the meeting. At the meeting, it will be decided whether further discussion is needed and how it should be carried out. The Working Group should recommend any next steps and further topics for consideration that it deems desirable.

[top]

[top]

990226vb; 990303rev