Archive USMARC, file dp69.doc. Part 1/1, total size 31794 bytes: DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 69 DATE: April 30, 1993 DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 69: ACCOMMODATING ONLINE SYSTEMS AND SERVICES IN USMARC 1. BACKGROUND Discussion Paper No. 49 (Dictionary of Data Elements for Online Information Resources) and Discussion Paper No. 54 (Providing Access to Online Information Resources) discussed the efforts to provide descriptive and access information to online information resources within the context of USMARC. The latter paper discussed issues to consider in terms of the scope of such efforts and identified data elements for the description of online information resources. A mapping to USMARC fields in the bibliographic format (computer files) was included with the incorporation of some holdings and community information format fields. The discussion by the USMARC Advisory Group of Discussion Paper No. 54 in January 1992 concluded that MARBI should continue to work on accommodating those online information resources that are amenable to bibliographic description (those called "electronic data resources") using AACR2 computer files cataloging rules and the USMARC bibliographic format, but more discussion was needed on online systems and services. Proposal 93-4 (Changes to the USMARC Bibliographic Format (Computer Files) to Accommodate Online Information Resources) attempted to accommodate one category of online information resources in the USMARC format for computer files, electronic data resources. This category includes software, electronic text and data files, bibliographic databases, etc. It proposed adding codes and changing some definitions in 008/26 (Type of computer file) to better identify these items; broadening the use of field 256 (File Characteristics) to include more specific descriptors; making field 516 (Type of File or Data Note) obsolete; and 4) adding a new field 856 to the Holdings/Bibliographic formats for electronic location and access information. It did not cover online systems and services (e.g. campus wide information systems, Telnet sites, bulletin boards, etc.), although some data elements in the new field 856 might be applicable to them. The MARBI discussion resulted in the approval of changing the 008/26 with some amendments, deferring the changes to 256 and 516 pending discussion by the Cataloging and Control: Description and Access Committee (CC:DA), and approval of the addition of field 856 (with some amendments) as a provisional field. pending experimentation on its use. Proposal 93-4 was partially a result of a cataloging experiment conducted by OCLC and overseen by an advisory committee consisting of representatives from OCLC, MARBI, Library of Congress, and OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers), referred to here as the Internet Resources Cataloging Experiment Advisory Committee. As part of its Internet Resources Project, OCLC had been investigating the nature of electronic information available via the Internet. The cataloging experiment was intended to test and verify the applicability of the cataloging rules and the USMARC format for computer files, and provide sufficient data to determine what changes need to be made to AACR2 and USMARC to accommodate these materials. Field 856 includes location and access information for data elements that a user needs to know to make a connection, locate an electronic document, and retrieve it (in the case of files). In the case of library catalogs or other databases, the information needed to connect is given, although only site-specific information about the server to which one is connecting (information that everyone would need to know) is included. Information that might be needed about the client (i.e., the system from which the connection is made) is not given, and must be dealt with locally. Data elements are parsed and transportable between systems and formats. In the development of this field, the Advisory Committee felt that location data in the USMARC format properly belongs in a holdings and locations field (85X block), which according to the standard can be embedded in a bibliographic record. (Thus the choice of 856.) The content of the field was developed with Internet resources specifically in mind, as an outgrowth of the OCLC Internet Resources Project cataloging experiment. It is expected that the field can be extended to non-Internet resources (e.g., BBS's, dial-up access to Compuserve, etc.). Field 856 has the following structure: 856 ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS Indicators First Access method 0 Email 1 FTP 2 Remote login (Telnet) 7 Source specified in subfield $2 Second Undefined Subfield Codes $a Host name (R) $b IP address (NR) $c Compression information (R) $d Path (R) $f Electronic name (R) $h Processor of request (NR) $i Instruction (R) $k Password (NR) $l Logon/login (NR) $m Contact for access assistance (R) $n Name of location of host in $a (NR) $o Operating system (NR) $p Port (NR) $q File transfer mode (NR) $s File size (R) $t Terminal emulation (R) $x Non-public note (R) $z Public note (R) $2 Source of access (NR) This field is repeated when the location data elements vary (subfields $a, $b, $d) and when more than one access method may be used. It is also repeated whenever the filenames vary, except for the situation when a single intellectual item is divided into different parts for online storage or retrieval. 2. WHY RECORDS FOR ONLINE SYSTEMS AND SERVICES? With the development of tools such as Gopher, WAIS, Archie, etc. on the Internet to locate online information resources, one might question the need for describing these resources in USMARC. There are a number of directory services now accessible on the Internet as well. Available Internet tools are not always efficient for pointing to the resource. However, many do not give you any indication of which servers they actually searched and which were unavailable for one reason or another. They do not discriminate between various versions of data in terms of usefulness or completeness. They are poor at locating known items, as opposed to possibly relevant things. In addition, the subject analysis available in USMARC records is lacking in these other tools. Library users are not all familiar with (nor should they be expected to) tools like Gopher. Such tools could complement rather than replace USMARC records as a source for locating online objects. Creating records within USMARC for online services would provide not only access, but also organization. Our knowledge of online resources can be used to provide, within our catalogs, pointers to Internet services and resources. In addition, we can select the online services that we deem important to include in our catalogs, just as we select books. Discriminating between online resources that might be useful to the library user rather than forcing him to select from the overwhelming number of sources available on the Internet is a service that libraries should provide. Making this type of directory information for online systems and services accessible in the USMARC environment would allow for such information to be available within the same systems as other records. For instance, a user may wish to conduct a subject search on a topic and retrieve both citations for books and journals and citations to electonic databases and computer forums. Libraries may thus want to integrate records for online resources into the USMARC system used for other types of materials. 3. SCOPE As mentioned above, Proposal 93-4 attempted to accommodate the category of "electronic data resources" because they were more amenable to bibliographic description. The scope of the present discussion paper includes online systems and services. In some cases, an online information resource will not neatly fall into one or the other category. As a result, it is desirable to treat the two subsets under "networked information resources" in similar ways. The following is a list of possible types of resources to be included under "online systems and services". Online Public Access Catalogs (93-4 attempted to cover bibliographic databases, although more thought may need to be given to this, since they may also be considered an online service) Bulletin Boards Mailing List Servers Computer Discussion Groups and Forums (these are not easy to categorize; could be considered in either category and perhaps serial in nature) White Pages (e.g. WHOIS) Network Information Centers FTP sites (It is questionable whether these should be controlled bibliographically, since they are so rapidly changing and there are so many of them) General Online Services (e.g. Prodigy, Compuserve) Campus Wide Information Systems Distributed File Servers (Gopher, WAIS, WorldWideWeb) Free-Nets This is NOT a closed list, but an indication of types of resources to be included in the scope of this paper. 4. FORMAT Online systems and services may fit into the Community Information Format (CIF), which was established to describe non- bibliographic resources (e.g. programs, services, organizations, agencies, events, individuals) to which people in a particular community might want access. Because they are not primarily bibliographic in nature, a non-bibliographic format is a viable alternative for record creation. Of concern is the use of a hybrid record incorporating fields of both formats and perhaps compromising one or the other. Following are advantages and disadvantages to using either format for online systems and services. Advantages in using CIF: 1. These items are services, and not bibliographic in nature. 2. It may seem artificial to separate electronic services from services available by postal mail or telephone. Should access method determine where these records would reside? 3. Some applicable fields are defined (with the same tags) in both Bibliographic and Community Information Formats and could be appropriately used for online resources. Disadvantages in using CIF: 1. Since it is likely that CIF records may reside in a file apart from bibliographic records, having records for online systems and services in the CIF may restrict access to the information. 2. It is not clear how CIF records will be integrated into bibiographic files, including questions of authority control. 3. The 008 (Fixed Field Data Elements) in CIF has no relevance to online systems and services. 4. For those resources that are not strictly in the category "electronic data resource" or "online system or service", it may become difficult to predict in which file the record should reside; electronic data resources are described as bibliographic records. 5. If a link is placed in the electronic data resource record to the online system (so that access information need not be repeated) it may be difficult to link the two records if in different formats and/or databases. 6. There may be difficulties in indexing and display of records if the CIF is used. 7. Many fields from the bibliographic format would need to be added for full description (including a holdings field, 856) Advantages in using Bibliographic Format 1. Many of the data elements needed are defined in fields of the USMARC Bibliographic Format; only a few from CIF would need to be added. 2. Although the items are not bibliographic in nature, it would be easier to implement access to these records if the bibliographic format is used. 3. The 008 (Fixed Field Data Elements) in Bibliographic contains more useful data elements than that in the CIF. 4. When it is not clear cut whether the item is an electronic data resource or online service, the records will reside in the same file and format, so the decision concerning what to call them is unimportant. 5. Bibliographic-type control could be achieved over these items, 6. Using the Bibliographic format allows us to use rules that exist (AACR2); rules are totally lacking for the CIF. Disadvantages in using the Bibliographic Format 1. It may be difficult to impose fields on these items when not meant for resources that are non-bibliographic in nature. 2. Some institutions may feel that these records do not belong alongside bibliographic records. 5. DATA ELEMENTS Following is a list of data elements that have been identified for online systems and services. Many of these were listed in Discussion Paper No. 54. A mapping to USMARC fields has been suggested. In cases where the two formats are mentioned, the tag is defined in both. (For CIF, the tag may have a slightly different name than in the Bibliographic.) In addition, any other note fields from bibliographic could be used if applicable. Asterisks indicate that the field only exists in the CIF. Format Integration is assumed in any redefinitions of fields. Data Element USMARC Field Name of the Resource Bib./CIF 245 (Title) Acronym/Initialism Bib. 246 (Varying Form of Title: Format Integration) Producer Bib. 260 or 245 $c (Statement of responsibility) Distributor of Bib./Hold. 856 (Electronic Location and the Resource Access) Location Bib./Hold. 856 $n (Name of host) Contact Name 856 $m and Address Network Address(es) Bib./Hold. 856 $a (Host name) *Hours of Service CIF 301 $a (Hours, etc.) *Telephone CIF 270 $k (Telephone number) or $j (Specialized telephone number) *Fax CIF 270 $l (Fax) Network Access Bib./Hold. 856 Instructions Terminal Emulation Bib./Hold. 856 $t Supported Logon/Subscription Bib./Hold. 856 $l, $z (Logon/login or Instructions Public note) Logoff/Unsubscribe Bib./Hold. 856 $z (Public note) Instructions Type of the Resource Add data element for online service in 008/26 for computer files (suggest i) Bib. 516 for specific type (e.g. Online Public Access Catalog, Computer Forum, Bulletin Board, etc.) Size of Resource Bib./Hold. 856 $s (File size-- it need to be considered whether this is appropriate for systems/services?) Frequency of Update Bib. 310 (Current Frequency) Language of Resource Bib./CIF 546 (Language Note) Profile of Resource Bib./CIF 520 (Summary, Abstract) Audience Bib./CIF 521 (Target Audience) Restrictions on Access Bib. 506 (Restrictions on Access) Authorization Bib. 506 $e (Authorization) Source Machine Bib. 538 (Technical Details) *Cost for Use CIF 531 $b (Fees) Coverage Bib. 513 (Type of Report and Period Covered) Indexing Terms Bib./CIF 6XX (Subject added entries) Databases Available Bib./CIF 505 (Contents) Other Providers of Bib. 775 (Other Edition Entry) Database Documentation Available Bib. 556 (Information about Documentation Note Responsibility for 040 (Cataloging Source) Record Maintenance Date/Time of Last Update 005 (Date and Time of Last of Directory Information of Last Transaction) Local Access Information Bib./Hold. 856 $z and Guidelines 6. LINKING BETWEEN DATA RESOURCES AND ONLINE SERVICES Electronic data resources (databases, etc.) are often available through various online systems. For example, the database "BIOSYS previews" could be mounted on the University of California system under GLADIS or on the Harvard University system under HOLLIS. According to Proposal 93-4, the record for BIOSYS previews would contain two 856 fields for each location from which it is accessible. It has been acknowledged in the development of the previous proposal that keeping the information in this field current is a problem of major concern, which may be addressed by solutions currently being proposed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or by other approaches still forthcoming. However, at this time field 856 is the only method for providing such information on accessing online information resources. It would be preferable to include records for online systems and services that provide access information, rather than repeating it in each record for the data resource. Field 856 is provided for the data resource itself if a record does not exist for the service or if it is not desirable to create one (perhaps, for example, for an FTP site). It may also be used for access to the online system or service. One might see the relationship between the electronic data resource record and the online system or service record as a component part/host item type relationship. In early discussions of this issue, the Internet Resources Cataloging Experiment Advisory Committee considered adding a subfield $w for Record control number to field 856, which would link to the record for the online system. However, upon further reflection, it seems that the linking entry fields are an appropriate place for this information. For example, in the case of an electronic object which is accessible via a system, a record might exist for both a citation database and one for its OPAC. This collection/subunit relationship would be represented by the presence of a 773 field in the record for the subunit. EXAMPLE: LDR -----nmd 22----- ar4500 001 notisAJL1335 003 MnU 245 00 $aCompendex plus$hcomputer file 773 01 $t Dialog $w (MnU)notisXYZ123456 LDR -----nmc 22----- a 4500 001 notisXYZ123456 003 MnU 245 00 $a Dialog $h computer file When the IETF completes the development of standards for online information resources (Universal Resource Number, or URN, and Universal Resource Locator, or URL, this data will likely require either a new subfield for the 856 or an entire field within the 02X block (Universal resource number). The structure of the universal resource locator would either replace subfields within the 856 or, again, require a new field or subfield. 7. RECORD CREATION In a networked environment where access to items is constantly changing, it is desirable to have the originator of the online system create and maintain the record (or data to be converted to a USMARC record) for its system. As further work is done on directory services, it may be possible to establish a mechanism for using existing directory services to keep USMARC records up-to- date. For example, the InterNIC Information Services in San Diego provides a template for systems to fill in and thus be registered in the directory service. For these reasons, it is important that the USMARC effort be coordinated with other groups working on identifying and providing access to online information resources. Data elements and their definitions need to be agreed upon so that successful conversion from one format to another is possible. The Coalition for Networked Information sponsored a meeting held in Denver in January (just prior to ALA) to discuss issues of mutual concern to representatives from the IETF, the TopNode project (also creating a directory of networked information resources), Z39.50 Implementor's Group, MARBI, OCLC, and LC, among others. At that meeting a smaller group was formed, which includes a representative from LC, to construct a "simple resource schema" with identified data elements and their agreed-upon definitions. Thus, work is continuing in this area to tackle the various issues concerning identifying and accessing networked information resources. 8. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION 1. Should USMARC accommodate online systems and services records? 2. Which USMARC format should be used? What fields need to be added to either Bibliographic or Community Information Format? 3. How might institutions incorporate these records into existing systems? 4. Are the mappings to USMARC fields in part 5 appropriate? Are there data elements that need to be added? (Note that existing note fields may also be used.) 5. Is the linking technique suggested above something to be further pursued or should another technique be considered? See Attachment A for examples of records for online systems and services. RELATED USMARC PROPOSAL/DISCUSSION PAPERS Discussion Paper No. 49 Dictionary of Data Elements for Online Information Resources Discussion Paper No. 54 Providing Access to Online Information Resources Proposal No. 93-4 Changes to the USMARC Bibliographic Format (Computer Files) to Accommodate Online Information Resources ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT A EXAMPLES [$ represents subfield code; # represents blank or undefined] These examples combine fields from the Bibliographic and Community Information Formats. EXAMPLE 1: InterNIC Information Services 008 yymmddnnnnn####caun#######i######## 245 $a InterNIC Information Services Info Source $c InterNIC Information Services 246 $b InterNIC 260 $a San Diego, Calif. : $b InterNIC Information Services 270 $k 800.444.4345 $k 619.455.4600 $l 619.455.3900 310 $a Biweekly 500 $a Title from the opening menu 516 $a Network Information Center 520 $a Info Source is a collection of information about Internet and all the services offered by InterNIC Information Services. 521 $a Network users 538 $a Access through computer network 856 0 $a is.internic.net $h mailserv $i send help 856 0 $a is.internic.net $h mailserv $i Index 856 1 $a is.internic.net $k your email address $l anonymous 856 2 $a is.internic.net $l gopher $t vt100 856 8 $a is.internic.net $2 WAIS client $2 internic-infosource 856 8 $a is.internic.net $2 Gopher client EXAMPLE 2: CARL 008 yymmddnnnnn####coun#######i######## 245 $a CARL 246 $a Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries 260 $a Denver, CO $bCARL Systems Inc. 270 $k 303.758.3030 $l303.785.0606 301 $a 24 hours 310 $a Updated daily 500 $a 40 subscribers, 1500 dedicated terminals, 5,948,644 records 505 $a ERIC, Choice, UnCover, CONSER, Magazine Index, Business Index 506 $a Public access to catalog 506 $e No password required for public access 513 Holdings vary according to individual library owners 516 $a Online Public Access Catalog 520 $a Public access catalog covering holdings of most academic, public, and special libraries in Colorado as well as other libraries throughout the United States. Also provides access to several specialized databases 521 $a Students, researchers, faculty, public 531 $a No cost to users except for UnCover document delivery service and certain specialized databases funded by individual library owners 546 $a English 556 $a Documentation available for Circulation, Database Maintenance, Public Access Catalog (PAC), Reserve and Serials systems 653 $a Library catalogs 653 $a Online catalogs 653 $a Citation indexes 653 $a Data bases 856 2 $a pac.carl.org $b 192.54.81.128 $m CARL Situation Room $m help@CARL.org $nCARL Systems Inc., Denver, CO EXAMPLE 3: MEDLINE 008 yymmddnnnnn####dcun#######e######## 245 00 $a Medline $h computer file $c National Library of Medicine. 260 $a Washington, D.C. : $b U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Library of Medicine. 270 $k 800-638-8480 $l 301-496-0822 301 24 hours/day, 7 days/week 310 Monthly 500 $a Includes 5,000,000 articles citations, with 20,000 to 25,000 record added monthly. 505 0# $a Medline (1990-93) -- backfiles (1966-89) -- SDILINE (current month). 506 $a Need user id and password. 513 $a Citation of journal articles from 1966 to date. 516 $a Online Public Access Catalog. 520 $a Includes citations of articles from approximately 3,200 biomedical journals published in the U.S. and abroad, covering the fields of medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and the preclinical sciences. 521 $a Medical personal and health researchers. 530 $a Also available in printed formats: Index Medicus, International Nursing Index, and, Index to Dental Literature. 531 $aCharge cost varies; check with MEDLARS Management Section, National Library of Medicine. 538 $a Online access through computer network. 546 $a Text in English. 556 $a Online service reference manual. 856 2# $a medlars.nlm.nih.gov $b 130.14.10.200 $f medline $f backfiles (titles vary) $f SDILINE $m MEDLARS Management Section, National Library of Medicine $n National Library of Medicine $o IBM 3090 MVS $p vt102 $t tn3270 $z user id and password required $z consult Online service reference manual EXAMPLE 4: Global Land Information System 008 yymmddnnnnn####sdun#######i######## 245 00 $a Global Land Information System 246 10 $a GLIS 260 $a Sioux Falls, SD : $b EROS Data Center 270 $a 800-252-4547 271 $a 605-594-6589 500 $a "A centralized, interactive source of land information for use in earth science research and global change studies." 505 2 $a 1:100,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs -- USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data -- 1-degree USGS Digital Elevation Models -- 1:2,000,000 Digital Line Graph -- 1:2,000,000- Scale Hydrologic Unit Maps -- 30 Arc Second DEM Data Set -- Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer -- Black Hills GIS Data Set -- Digital Chart of the World - DOS -- Omernik Ecoregions Data Set -- 5 Minute Gridded Earth Topography Data -- Federally Owned Landsat Data -- Global Hydrographic Data -- Global Experimental Bi-Weekly ND. 516 $a Bulletin board 710 20 EROS Data Center. 856 2 $a glis.cr.usgs.gov $b 152.61.192.54 $n EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls SD $t VT100, 10 other types $z Telnet; No logon, No password 856 7 $a Global Land Information System $n EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls SD $t VT100, 10 other types $2 Direct dial: 800-252-4547 $z Direct dial; No logon/No password