Washington Research Library Consortium
  HOME   DIGITAL LIBRARY SYSTEM RESOURCE SHARING OFFSITE STORAGE ABOUT WRLC
Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources
Reciprocal Borrowing
Consortial Licensing
Cooperative Collection Development

(Adopted June, 2000, Amended February 26, 2001)

(This document is under review. For electronic serials see:
Guidelines for Cataloging Serials in Multiple Formats)

Scope

The WRLC policy proposed by the Electronic Resources Access Task Force (ERATF), Guidelines for providing access to electronic resources through ALADIN, outlines two categories of electronic resources for which records should be included in ALADIN OPAC:
  • Those resources which are acquired through subscription (whether paid or free).
  • Digital image databases created from WRLC library special collections.
These Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources are primarily for electronic journals and other resources considered to be serials (See Appendix 2.1).  Additional procedures will be required for non-serial electronic resources and may be added to these Guidelines as they are produced. 

Guidelines

Major issues for consideration in creating and maintaining records for electronic resources are listed below with the Committee's recommendations following.
  • Number of records
The ERCTF recommends that WRLC member libraries follow LC's practice, as outlined in the  CONSER Cataloginig Manual, Module 31, and create separate bibliographic records for the remote access and printed formats of a journal (See Appendix 2.2).  When two records are used, field 776 (Additional Physical Form Entry) and field 530 (Additional Physical Form Available Note) will be used in both records to link them to each other.  Continued affirmation by NSDP (National Serials Data Program) of the policy to issue separate ISSN for separate formats is also an important factor in the decision to use the "two-record approach."  (See Appendix 2.3).

Procedure for using separate records
(CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31, p.14)

In the record for the original:
  • Note the availability of the online version in field 530;
  • Add a 730 title added entry when the title of the online version differs;
  • Link to the online record with field 776, and;
  • Provide the location of the online version in field 856.*

*EXCEPTION: WRLC libraries will  provide the 856 link to the online  version in the Holdings Record (MFHD) instead of the bibliographic record.

In the record for the online version:
  • Describe the digital version using all appropriate fields;
  • Add a 730 title added entry when the title of the original differs;
  • Link to the paper record with field 776, and;
  • Give appropriate 856 fields.
Exception for Government Documents - Because GPO follows the "one-record" approach in its cataloging, and it is assumed that WRLC member libraries are not going to provide original cataloging for every electronic government resource, it is acceptable to use the "one-record" approach when using GPO records.  (See Appendix 2.4).  See also the section below on Holdings for additional procedures related to Government Documents. 

Procedure for single record approach
(CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31, p.14)

In the record for the original:
  • Note the availability of the online version in field 530;
  • Add a 740 title added entry when the title of the online version differs;
  • Identify its electronic location in field 856;
  • If a separate ISSN has been assigned to the online serial but a separate record doesn't exist, add field 776 with subfields |t and |x;
  • Optionally, a computer file 007 field may be added for the online version.
Publisher and Provider versions - In keeping with the policy of using separate cataloging records for different formats, a separate cataloging record should be used for each different provider of an electronic journal title.  In short, each publisher or access provider should be considered as constituting a different format.   For example, the JSTOR cataloging record for SIAM Review will be different than the cataloging record for the current issues of SIAM Review accessed through the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics Web site.  The ERCTF agreed that there may be some variation in this practice among WRLC member libraries.  See the section below on Holdings for more information.
  • 856 field (Electronic Location and Access)
The 856 field contains the information required to locate and retrieve an electronic item.  It includes a subfield for the URL.  The 856 field is contained in the bibliographic record on the national utilities and is imported into Voyager via the bibliographic record.  In the Voyager system the 856 field is supported in both the bibliographic record and the MARC Holdings Record.  The holdings view (Brief) is the default view in WebVoyage.    In the bibliographic record, a note field (|z) overrides the display of the URL.  It is recommended that a public note (|z) be added to the 852 within the holdings record (MFHD).

Exception for Authenticated Electronic Resources - Due to the complexity of the required URL to provide authentication for restricted resources and the resulting lengthy, unaesthetic display, a public note (|z) should be added to the 856 field of the bibliographic record.  The public note should consist of the native URL of the resource, without the leading ALADIN-specific keys.  In addition, each authenticated electronic resource should include a public note (|z) in the 852 field within the Holdings Record to indicate that access to the resource is restricted.

Procedure for updating 856 fields:

If the 856 field in the bibliographic record contains a |z (Public note) then it should be cut and pasted into a |z in the 852 field (Location/Call Number)of the MARC Holdings Record (See Appendix 1.2).

For Authenticated Electronic Resources - The URL in the 856 field of the bibliographic record (|u) should be constructed according to WRLC Technical Support Bulletin (10/04/2000): http://www.libraries.wrlc.org/aladsupport/bulletins/AladinKeys2.html and a public note (|z) should consist of the native URL of the resource, without the leading ALADIN-specific keys (See Appendix 1.3).

Holdings Records for authenticated electronic resources should include a public note (|z) in the 852 field to indicate restricted access (See Appendix 1.3).

To request a new URL for new databases requiring authentification, please refer to: http://www.libraries.wrlc.org/aladsupport/aladindb.html

NOTE: Information entered in subfield |z of the 852 field related to the URL in the 856 field is separated from the URL in the OPAC display by the Status message.  This is related to the problem, noted below in the section on holdings records, of the "No information available" Status note for titles that don't have item records.  Restrictions on access notes may also be entered in Field 506 of the bibliographic record.

  • Location and Call Number
Locations and call numbers are determined locally by each member library.  Electronic resources of various types may have different locations such as Internet Resources, Electronic Journals, etc.  Electronic resources may have Library of Congress or other appropriate call numbers, determined by the local practice of each member library.
Subject access--Use 655 Index Term--Genre Form. 
For electronic journals, use--Electronic Journals.
For electronic books use --Electronic Books
For other Internet Resources use--Electronic Resources.
  • Holdings
The decision of whether to maintain holdings data is determined locally by each member library. At this point it is not considered feasible to maintain detailed holdings data.  It is hoped that, in the future, subscription vendors will develop a means to use electronic data interchange (EDI) to "push" holdings and/or check-in data into a library's ILS.  A related issue of concern to the ERCTF is the Status message "No information available," which displays in OPAC for any title which does not have any attached item records.  This is the case for many types of library materials including microforms, periodicals with limited retention and remote access resources.  The ERCTF considers this a Voyager OPAC display problem rather than a record problem and does not propose any "work-around" at this time. 

Government Documents - For GPO records, when access information for the remote file is added to the bibliographic record for the physical version a new holdings record should also be created.  It should contain the location code for the online version as well as the 856 field and any relevant notes in subfield |z of the 852 field. 

 Holdings for various versions (e.g. JSTOR vs. publisher Web page).  As noted in the section on number of records, it is standard practice to catalog each version of an electronic resource separately.  However, this practice may cause confusion in the OPAC.  It may be desirable to handle this situation by creating multiple MARC Holdings Records, each containing the location, call number and holdings information for the specific iteration of the resource. 

  • URL maintenance
The members of the ERCTF are concerned about URL maintenance.   Voyager does have URL-checking capability.  WRLC expects to be responsible for running URL- checking software on ALADIN and reporting errors to individual libraries for correction.

Appendix 1 - Examples

1.1 - Use of 776 and 530 fields -See: American Imago (MU) 

1.2 - 856 in bib record  -See: Emily Dickinson Journal (MU)

1.3 - 856 in bib record with public note |z for authenticated electronic resources

         Example A:  Project Muse
         American Literature
        Catholic University subscription
         Actual authenticated URL=
         "http://www.aladin.wrlc.org/Z-WEB/Aladin?req=db&key=PROJECTMUSE
                  &url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/al/"
         Display URL (from 856 |z in bib record)=  "http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/al"
         Public note (from 852 |z) = "Access Restricted to Current Catholic University
                  members - Login Required"

         Example B:  NetLibrary Record
         All WRLC Libraries' subscription
         Actual authenticated URL:
         "http://www.aladin.wrlc.org/Z-WEB/Aladin?req=db&key=NETLIBRARY
                  &url=http://www.netlibrary.com/summary.asp?ID=3244"
         Display URL (from 856 |z in bib record)=  "http://www.netlibrary.com"
         Public note (from 852 |z) = Access Restricted to Current WRLC Community
                  Members - Login Required"

Appendix 2 - Background information

2.1 Definition of Remote Access Computer File Serial - CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31, p.8: "A remote access computer file serial is a work issued in designated parts for an indefinite period of time, in computer file format, and accessed "via input/output devices connected electronically to a computer.  This is in contrast to a direct access computer file serial which is issued in a physical carrier, for example, a CD-ROM or floppy disk.  The terms "electronic serial," "online serial," and "remote access serial" are also used for "remote access computer file serial."  For CONSER practice, electronic serials must comprise successive parts bearing numeric or chronological designations.  Electronic resources that are NOT currently considered to be serials include:

  • Online public access catalogs or databases
  • Gopher Servers
  • Discussion lists or their digests
  • World Wide Web home pages without designated parts
  • Online services (e.g. DIALOG)
The transition from print to online format may result in a serial becoming a monograph.  For example, a serial issued in print can be updated continuously online without designated parts, becoming similar to a loose-leaf publication."

 2.2 One record or two?  The CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31: Remote Access Computer File Serials, p.14 (rev. Spr. 1998), states "It is preferable to create separate records for the CONSER database.  However, CONSER members may chose not to catalog the online version separately, but rather to note the existence and electronic location of the online version in the record for the printed serial.  This decision was made in order to allow CONSER members to experiment with a "one-record" approach for versions for which they feel that a separate record is not necessary.  Examples might include reproductions scanned from the original for which the content is identical, online versions whose continued publication is questionable or which are in such a state of flux as to make separate cataloging too difficult, and commercial publications which have the same title and content as the original." 

Notable disadvantages to the "one-record" approach include:

  • It is necessary to determine which format of the title is to be used as the "main" one and, hence, on which to place the holdings.  If the subscription to the main format is canceled, then the bibliographic record has to be revised so that the record will represent the remaining format.  Another question related to choosing a main format is which OCLC record to update.  If only the main format is updated then  access to information would be lost in the OCLC databases.
  • One record is not able to include item-specific information such as physical description or access method for alternate formats.
  • The ability to describe the "item in hand" would be lost.  MARC tags have to be adjusted to be generic enough to fit all the formats, which means many fields have to be deleted and only a 590 will be added for some kinds of public notes like "Items available in various formats."  It would be time consuming to make the changes and one would lose important information in note fields that would have been accurate for one format but not another.  If all the formats were on one record, differentiated only by prefix or call number within the holdings record, one would lose some search capabilities.
  • CD-ROM and electronic versions may or may not be the same as the print version.
  • The two-record approach, on the other hand, would alleviate the problems mentioned above.  Fundamentally, AACR2 assumes that one catalogs by describing the "item in hand" (chapters 1-13, which implement and elaborate upon ISBD specifications) and provides access to its content and relationships (chapter 21-26, which also deal with access to the elements of the description such as title).  USMARC in implementing AACR2 assumes this pattern.  To set out to do anything else is to bend ISBD, AACR2 and USMARC into a different shape.

2.3 ISSN - The following is from the National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress.  For more information see  http://lcweb.loc.gov/issn/e-serials.html

 "Criteria for Assigning ISSN:  The same criteria for determining if a serial is eligible for an ISSN apply to electronic and print publications: an intention to continue publishing indefinitely and being issued in designated parts. In the case of electronic serials--especially those available online, such as on the Internet--the most significant criterion is that the publication must be divided into parts or issues which carry unique, numerical designations by which the individual issues may be identified, checked in, etc. Electronic serials that are issued as individual articles meet this criterion as long as the articles carry a unique designation. Thus, a database issued quarterly on CD-ROM and carrying quarterly date designations would be eligible for an ISSN while the same database as an online service which was being continually and seamlessly updated would not be eligible."

"How Many ISSN?  Another question that arises with serials in electronic form is how many ISSN are needed. Separate ISSN are needed for serials in different physical media (with the exception of reproduction microforms). Thus the print and electronic versions of a serial need separate ISSN. Also, a CD-ROM version and an online version of a serial require different ISSN since two different media are involved. However, the same ISSN can be used for different file formats (ASCII, PostScript, and hypertext) of the same online serial."

2.4 Government Documents - The following is excerpted from the GPO Cataloging Guidelines: Computer Files, No. 1A. (Complete text available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/fdlppubs.html):

F. Use of Physical Form Records to Catalog Remote Files:  GPO does NOT create a new record for a remote file if a catalog record for the physical version (paper, microfiche, CD-ROM,  etc.) of the same or similar publication already exists on the OCLC database or is being added by GPO because a physical version has been received for cataloging. Instead, GPO adds access information for the remote file to the record for the physical version and produces it for the Monthly Catalog. (See Part 6, Section B (page 11) and Section C (page 19) below for instructions.)  However, if there are no records for either physical versions or the remote file version of a publication, GPO creates a new record for the remote file. (See Part 6, Section D, page 20 for instructions.) 

G. Use of Remote File Records to Catalog Physical Forms:  If GPO has already cataloged the remote version of a publication and there are no existing records for the physical version, GPO uses the existing remote file record for copy cataloging rather than creating a record for the physical form. (See Part 6, Section D, page 20 below for detailed instructions.) 

WRLC Electronic Resources Cataloging Task Force 

    Linda Alexander, Gallaudet Univ.
    Meg Brinkhuis, Marymount Univ.
    Claire Dygert, American Univ.
    Suzanne Picken, WRLC
    Chiyono Sata, Catholic Univ.
    Beth Weston, George Washington Univ.
    Ying Yu, Gallaudet Univ.

901 Commerce Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Phone: (301) 390-2000