wiki:cataloguingElectronicBooks/policy

Conifer Project – E-book Records

The arrival of electronic books has created a number of issues around bibliographic control and access which must be addressed. When e-books are obtained through the consortial purchase of large sets, a definitive inventory of individual titles belonging to these sets may not be possible. This situation is compounded by batch loading of the associated MARC records to the Conifer catalogue where, once loaded, the sets of records and the individual titles belonging to these sets become even more problematic to identify. There is already a general agreement on MARC record customization among the Conifer partners but this proposal seeks to extend that agreement to include the use of 506 and 598 for all e-books. The purpose is to enrich the MARC records by consistently recording information on licensee, licensor, and MARC source file information for e-book records. This should allow better identification of titles in shared package purchases and also for purchases that are obtained independently. This proposal begins with a suggested change to the Conifer batch script but it is intended to apply more universally, both to individually catalogued records as well as the large batch loads.

In addition, users do not typically associate electronic access with library catalogues although they continue to rely on them for print material. More naturally, they look to Google for e-content and this preference places limits on what they can find since e-book records loaded into Conifer are not exposed to Google. The proposal seeks to address this issue where possible by creating targets in our resolver (SFX). Once established as a target, library holdings can be crawled by Google and retrieved through Google Scholar. This facilitates access in a way that conforms more closely to user expectations and use.

This proposal is tentative but if accepted would be applied, where possible, to all subsequent e-book loads and, resources permitting, to existing e-book records already loaded. In the meantime, it should cause all of us to think more fully about how our users find their way to our e-books and how we identify e-book titles in Conifer, particularly within package purchases.

Proposal Summary:

  • Proposal 1: In the case of Windsor records only, to modify the link text from To view Windsor's electronic resource click here to Available online.
  • Proposal 2: On a go forward basis, to add a MARC 506 field to each e-book record in Conifer that is subject to licensing restrictions. The field shall be constructed as provided for in Specification 2a and 2b herein and the script utilized in Conifer batch loads shall be modified accordingly.
  • Proposal 3: The 710 field would specify the publisher package associated with an e-book record.
  • Proposal 4: If a target for an ebook can be established in the resolver, a link shall be provided by Conifer. The unique identifier, normally the ISBN for the bibliographic item, shall be determined at the point of load to Conifer and tagged in the 020 field. At point of record display in Conifer, the resolver shall be queried using the unique identifier and, if a valid target exists, a link shall be established dynamically.
  • Proposal 5: Insert a 598 MARC field to record the source file for the record load.

A: The MARC Part (Bibliographic Control)

Section 1. Current Encoding Provided by Script

Presently in batch loaded records, a script developed by Dan Scott at Laurentian is employed to add customized information for each MARC record added to Conifer. That script provides the following

1.1

a) Adds one 856 per institution specified at the command line:
$u (URL) - prepends the institutional proxy and, for ebrary records, changes the institutional code
$y (link text) - sets preferred text of the link to the resource
$z (public note) - sets public note for the resource
Note: No change to this practice is proposed here

b) Adds a 710 field to identify the publisher using the value specified at the command line (Note: 710 is defined as an Added Entry-Corporate Name field and has been used by suppliers of MARC records to specify platforms. (e.g. MyiLibrary? and ebrary)

c) Adds a 590 internal note field using the value specified at the command line.

1.2

In addition, the script imposes local settings on the MARC 856 field for each participating Conifer institution. The current settings are:

a) Algoma

"code": "ALGOMASYS"
"ebrary_code": "algomauca"
"proxy": "http://libproxy.auc.ca/login?url="
"link_text": "Available online"

b) Laurentian

"code": "LUSYS"
"ebrary_code": "jndlu"
"proxy": "https://librweb.laurentian.ca/login?url="
"link_text": "Available online / disponible en ligne"

c) Windsor

"code": "WINDSYS"
"ebrary_code": "oculwindsor"
"proxy": "http://ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/login?url="
"link_text": "To view Windsor's electronic resource click here."

Using a Windsor example, 856 would appear as follows:

Note: In all the following examples, extra spaces around the indicators have been added for readability.

Example 1:

856 4 0 
  $u http://ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/oculwindsor/Doc?id=10134955
  $y To view Windsor’s electronic resource click here.
  $9 WINDSYS

1.3

a) For Windsor records only, the script appends the cataloguing source CaOWA in the 040 field. No change to this practice is proposed here.

Section 2. Modifications and Additions to e-book processing

Proposal 1: In the case of Windsor records only, to modify the link text from To view Windsor's electronic resource click here to Available online.

Windsor has considered its link text message and has concluded, based on accessibility issues and evolving user interface technology, that a change is necessary. The message should now conform to the Laurentian and Algoma messages and become, Available online. The 856 field for Windsor would now look as follows:

Example 2:

856 4 0
  $u http://ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/oculwindsor/Doc?id=10134955
  $y Available online
  $9 WINDSYS

Proposal 2: On a go forward basis, to add a MARC 506 field to each e-book record in Conifer that is subject to licensing restrictions. The field shall be constructed as provided for in Specification 2a and 2b herein and the script utilized in Conifer batch loads shall be modified accordingly.

MARC21 506 Field

Definition and Scope

The field specifies information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials. For published works, this field contains information on limited distribution.

Specification 2a: Indicators

First Indicator - Restriction

1 - Restrictions apply
Field defines access restrictions to some or all of the material described.

Second Indicator - Undefined
Contains a blank (#)

Specification 2b: Subfield Codes

2b(i): $a - Terms governing access

Legal, physical, or procedural restrictions imposed on individuals wishing to see the described materials.

Example 3: Coding 506 $a under this proposal

506 1 # $aAccess restricted to users with a valid University of Windsor ID ;

or

506 1 # $aAccess restricted to users with a valid Laurentian University ID ;

2b(II): $b – Jurisdiction

Name of a person, an institution, or a position or function within the institution, by whom or which the terms governing access are imposed and/or enforced, and to whom the restriction may be appealed.

Example 4: Coding 506 $b under this proposal

506 1 # $bCanadian Research Knowledge Network ;

$b would contain the licensee in a consortia purchase.

Example 5: Coding 506 $b under this proposal

506 1 # $bUniversity of Windsor ;

$b would contain the licensee in an independent purchase.

2b(III): $e Authorization

Source of authority for the restriction

Example 6: Coding 506 $e under this proposal

506 1 # $eIngram Digital (Firm)

$e would contain the licensor in a consortia purchase as in the CRKN/Ingram Digital deal involving Taylor & Francis, Oxford UP and Cambridge UP. For coding purposes in this example, a period is not utilized to terminate the field because of the closing parenthesis. This is a Windsor cataloguing convention.

Example 7: Coding 506 $e under this proposal

506 1 # $eReadex Microprint Corporation.

$e would contain the licensor in an independent purchase as in the University of Windsor’s acquisition of Early American Imprints, Series I. Evans (1639-1800) from Readex. In coding this field, use of corporate names should accord with an appropriate authority validator.

This product was produced in conjunction with the American Antiquarian Society so this example is non trivial. Readex is the nominal publisher as well as the licensor.

Proposal 3: The 710 field would specify the publisher package associated with an e-book record.

In this proposal, Windsor is re-confirming the current use of the 710 field in order to insure that it reflects the publisher package associated with the e-book record. This is important when identifying titles within packages associated with a nominal publisher which may differ from the publisher of record for the bibliographic item.

Example 8: coding 710 under this proposal

710 2 # $aTaylor & Francis.$4pbl

The $4 pbl is a relator code which is used to specify a person or organization that makes printed matter, often text, but also printed music, artwork, etc. available to the public.

MARC records provided in e-book purchases may also use 710 for other added entry corporate names and to specify the native platform on which the full text content resides. In such cases, the existing 710 field(s) would be left unaltered and the script would add a 710 for the publisher associated package.

B: The Resolver Part (Access)

Over the past 2 months, Windsor has been active in batch loading CRKN records to the SFX resolver. Of the 20,126 titles currently identified in the CRKN/ Ingram Digital MARC, 19,499 are now turned on (T&F = 11,722 , CUP + OUP = 7,777). Effectively, this exposes these titles to Google and users may now follow this access point to the full text content we provide. The remaining 627 titles are part of a small clean up project and we expect to have these turned on in the near future.

To complete this initiative, we are proposing that for the Conifer load of these records, a target be established in the resolver in order to facilitate user access to content.

Proposal 4: If a target for an ebook can be established in the resolver, a link shall be provided by Conifer. The unique identifier, normally the ISBN for the bibliographic item, shall be determined at the point of load to Conifer and tagged in the 020 field. At point of record display in Conifer, the resolver shall be queried using the unique identifier and, if a valid target exists, a link shall be established dynamically.

In formulating this proposal, we are assured that an ISBN check at the point of batch load is both possible and feasible. The primary ISBN would then be indicated in the 020 field tagged with “$9SFX”.

Resolution of the link would be to the native platform target (for CRKN that would be MyILibrary) or to any other target specified by the local institution. This link need not be hard coded in the MARC record but would be dynamically established in the following manner. At the time of record display in Conifer, the resolver would be queried for holdings based on the $9 tagged ISBN. If the query result was positive, Conifer would display the description plus a direct link to the content. If the query failed or the resolver did not respond, the contents of a hard coded 856 field would display. The hard coded 856 would follow the existing practice for this field.

Example 9: coding 020 under this proposal

020 # # $a0521660157$9SFX

The use of a resolver has advantages beyond allowing for more open access. Clearly, the resolver can be utilized in an administrative capacity to manage e-book links and to control access authorization. In addition, we know that proxy services, links, and e-book platforms are not static so the ability to manage them with a tool external to Conifer is seen to offer substantial efficiencies.

The argument for retaining the existing 856 practice is as follows. When a Conifer e-book record is to be displayed, the resolver is queried for an active link to the document. If the resolver does not respond, or responds and says there is no target then the contents of the legacy 856 MARC field would be displayed. This approach has the advantage of providing a fallback mechanism if the resolver is unavailable or some other error or malfunction prevents access. In other words, it offers a greater probability a user would gain access.

Proposal 5: Insert a 598 MARC field to record the source file for the record load.

This proposal is intended to assist system managers in tracking the packages associated with particular e- book records. The 598 field is a local notes field and has been seldom used in the Conifer database so there is virtually no potential for conflicts over field usage. Subfield $a would specify the exact name of the MARC record source file that was processed. The $b subfield would specify the date the file was processed for Conifer load. The $c subfield would specify the record number by position within the source file. This should help avoid cases where there are two records with the same ISBN, for example, appearing within the same source file of MARC records. It would also allow for rapid retrieval of specific MARC records within the source file itself.

Coding in this way would allow queries to be run against the database for all records that contain particular source file names and would facilitate our ability to reprocess them quickly should this become necessary.

Example 10: coding 598 under this proposal

598 # # $aCRKN_T&F_2010_11.mrc$b2011-07-15$c35

Further Examples under the proposal for MARC coding

1: Suggested coding for a CRKN/Ingram Digital record.

020 # # $a0521660157$9SFX
020 # # $a0521669650
.
.
.
As many 020 fields as required
Note: When a record is displayed, a link based on the $9SFX coded ISBN would be established dynamically.

040 # # $dCaOWA

506 1 # $aAccess restricted to users with a valid University of Windsor ID ; $b
Canadian Research Knowledge Network ; $eIngram Digital (Firm)
$9OWA

506 1 # $aAccess restricted to users with a valid Laurentian ID ; $b
Canadian Research Knowledge Network ; $eIngram Digital (Firm)
$9OSUL

598 # # $aCRKN_T&F_2010_11.mrc$b2011-07-15

710 2 # $aTaylor & Francis.$4pbl

856 4 0 $uhttps://librweb.laurentian.ca/login?url=http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=
60157$yAvailable Online / disponible en ligne$9LUSYS

856 4 0 $uhttp://ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/login?url=http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=60157
$yAvailable Online$9WINDSYS

Note: This coding anticipates one 856 field for each institution participating in a consortia purchase. The coding in this field would provide local proxy links to native e-book platforms as per the existing script.

2: Suggested record coding for University of Windsor/Readex?.

040 # # 
  $d CaOWA
506 1 #
  $a Access restricted to users with a valid University of Windsor ID ;
  $b University of Windsor, Leddy Library ;
  $e Readex Microprint Corporation.
  $9 OWA
598 # #
  $a AAS20081227.mrc
  $b 2011-07-15
710 2 #
  $a American Antiquarian Society.
  $4 pbl
856 4 0
  $u http://ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/login?url=http://opac.newsbank.com/select/evans/24761
  $y Available Online
  $9 WINDSYS

Although Readex Newsbank has multiple targets in SFX, there is currently no target for Early American Imprints so the proxy is employed.

Remarks:

The choice of the 506 field was based on an assessment of the MARC 21 format and a desire to stay in conformity with MARC usage and the intended purpose of the field. The 590 field already employed in the script was also considered but its usage is specified for “local notes” and so was assessed as not suitable. The proposed use of 506 is not only consistent with its defined purpose but its subfields properly accommodate the licensee/licensor information to be recorded.

The 598 field was selected to hold source MARC file formations since it has had very limited use and presented the smallest potential for field conflict.

Once coded in the manner proposed, MARC records should then become easier to associate with consortial purchases. But this coding should also place us in a much better position to manage the different packages within consortial arrangements, right down to the publisher level. This would constitute a very positive step forward in the control of e-books which at the moment remain stubbornly resistant to such control. Still, there is remedial work to be done. MARC records for e-books have been loaded in a variety of ways over time so the possibilities of this proposal can only be realized if there is some significant clean up of existing records.

Within the next few weeks, Windsor wishes to apply the proposed coding to recently acquired CRKN/Ingram Digital MARC which has not yet been loaded. However, Laurentian has already loaded a number of such records based on MARC sourced from Ebrary and Scholars Portal. Since this MARC does not contain records for the complete CRKN/Ingram package and since we believe the proposal offers several other advantages on access and control, it is arguably in Laurentian’s interest to withdraw any existing Conifer records from this package and reload the complete Ingram MARC modified to the proposed standard.

The longer term goal would be, where possible, to revise all e-book MARC records so they conform to this proposal.

Respectfully submitted,

Guoying Liu
Art Rhyno
Graham Staffen
Shuzhen Zhao
University of Windsor
Dan ScottLaurentian University
Last modified 8 years ago Last modified on Jan 11, 2012, 11:51:59 AM