This document addresses maintenance policies for bibliographic records for e-resources created in Orbis by original and copy catalogers. Bibliographic records for online resources provided by vendors or other external sources are maintained and deleted through batch programming when possible.
If it is necessary to maintain batchloaded records manually, different policies may be applied. For bibliographic records for e-resources loaded through batch processing, no record is retained in Orbis for withdrawn titles. Batchloading policies are not addressed in this document.
1. If a record has been created by a YUL cataloger and the online resource is no longer available, follow these guidelines:
1.1. If the bibliographic record is linked to an order record, annotate the MFHD & suppress the bibliographic record.
1.2. If the bibliographic record is not linked to an order record, delete both the bibliographic and holdings records.
<CPDC comment: note that this is not consistent with the policy for tangible resources, where the record for the withdrawn item is retained, but it would be consistent with practice for batchloaded records noted above. 1.2 would also apply to situations where there are individual series analytic records but only the series record is linked to an order record.>
2. Maintenance of bibliographic records created for online resources by YUL catalogers.
2.1. Do not recycle Orbis bibliographic records for online resources. For example, if an e-book is replaced by a later edition, create a new Orbis record and apply 1.1. or 1.2 above as appropriate to the record for the earlier edition if it is no longer available. Each distinct edition should have a separate Orbis ID.
2.2. If the URL changes but the e-resource content remains the same (same edition), continue to use the same bibliographic record and update the 856 link.
2.3. Multiple links. If a bibliographic record is created with a link to a resource maintained by vendor A., and YUL later purchases rights to a collection from vendor B. that includes access to the same resource, make an additional 856 link to vendor B.'s URL for the resource. Do not create a new bibliographic record for the e-book controlled by vendor B. If at a later time, YUL no longer retains the rights to an online resource controlled by a vendor, delete the appropriate 856 field from the record. If no 856 fields remain, apply 1.1 or 1.2 as appropriate.
2.4. For title changes to integrating resources, generally the original record is updated. A new record (new Orbis ID) is not created.
2.5. If an online resource cataloged as a serial has a title change, change the Leader Bibliographic Level from s (Serial) to i (Integrating Resource) and make the necessary updates to the original Orbis record. A new record (new Orbis ID) is not created.
3. Interim access. If a vendor cannot supply bibliographic records for an e-resource collection within a reasonable amount of time, and access via Orbis is requested for the interim period, apply one of these options only if there is a request for specific titles from the selector:
3.1. Create preliminary records at EL 5 level. The number of titles requested at preliminary level for a given collection should not exceed <25> & the 856 link must send the user to the specific resource, not to the vendor portal. These records may be created by acquistions staff, Catalog Management staff, or students. WorldCat can be used to supply matching copy, or the Orbis copy command can be used to create a variant edition record from the record for the print version.
<CPDC, CatMgt: Problem: when the full records are later provided by the vendor, there will be no match point, so duplicate records will appear in Orbis. Second, there is no systematic means of notifying CatMgt which duplicate titles need to be deleted. Third, vendor schedules for providing the bibliographic record may not be and is often inconsistent; when is an interim period long enough to warrant creation of a preliminary record? What if the interim period is indefinite (either as stated by the vendor or in practice)? Should we drop this as an option?>
3.1a. ALTERNATIVE. Add an 856 link to the bibliographic records for the print version:
856 41 $u <URL> $y Also available to members of the Yale community as an online book <journal, etc.>.
<Comment: PRO: link will apply both before and after the vendor bibliographic record becomes available (if ever), and will not be dependent on the vendor supplying the record within a given time period. CON: no effective way identified for establishing which bibliographic records need to have the 856 deleted if the e-resource is withdrawn. (But this is no different from the preliminary record maintenance problem). Not standard website policy at present--default is always to create a separate record--but the policy does allow for flexibility under certain circumstances.
<Question: if the bib record for the print version has an 856 added for the e-version, does a 006 also need to be added to the record for keyword limiting? If this is for an interim period, the limitation would be resolved when the vendor record is eventually loaded.
<Question: would maintenance be simpler if the link was added to a separate MFHD? Would adding a searchable text note in $x facilitate maintenance if the record is withdrawn?>
3.2. If the individual titles can only be accessed through a vendor portal, separate records should not be created (preliminary or permanent). Instead, the portal site should be cataloged (or updated) with tracings for each title. The number of access points added to the record for the portal should not exceed <25>.
3.2.1. Problem: A search on the 740 analytic title retrieves a brief view of the collection record that may be confusing to the user, since the added entries will not display in the default Brief view. Even if the cataloger created a contents note, the contents note would not display in the Brief view. Suggestion: modify the link text to something like:
856 40 $u <URL> $y Website. Click here to view titles in this collection.
3.2a. ALTERNATIVE. If the individual titles can only be accessed through a vendor portal, add an 856 link to the individual bibliographic records for the print version:
856 41 $u <URL>$y Also available to members of the Yale community as an online book <journal, etc.>. Access from vendor <publisher?> website.
<Problem. Same as 3.1a ALTERNATIVE>
4. Permanent access . If it is known that the vendor cannot or will not supply bibliographic records for the collection at a future date, and the individual titles can be accessed directly through separate URLs, the selector can request permanent (core level) records for up to <25> titles per collection from <CMS>. <Other cataloging units can determine their own limits based on available staff.> If a bib record for the e-resource can be found in WorldCat, use the WorldCat record. If no matching record is available, create a variant edition record for the e-resource from the record for the printed version. To facilitate maintenance, when creating a permanent record:
4.1. Do not trace the vendor/distributor as an added entry
4.2. Do not use the vendor/distributor as the publisher
4.3. Do not create a 300 field unless an e-book reproduces the pagination of the printed book
4.4. Do not base the source of title note on the vendor/distributor page
4.5. If cataloging copy is used, edit the record following the above guidelines.
5. If the vendor cannot supply bibliographic records for a collection at a future date, and the number of records needed is over <25>, or if the number of preliminary records or access points needed for the collection or portal exceeds <25>,
5.1. Acquisitions staff should arrange to have the vendor supply an Excel spread sheet listing: Author, Title, an the URL for each title.
5.2. Catalog Management staff will process the data from the sperad sheet through MARCEDIT to create MARC records and load them into Orbis.
5.3. The editing process (or template) should
6.3a. Add gmd [electronic resource]
6.3b. Select Form of Item s in 008
6.3c. Trace the name of the vendor.
6.3d. Validate access points
<4, & 5. The problem identified here has to do with the difficulty of determining with certainty whether a vendor is not going to supply records. The policy would need to be modified if the decision is to eliminate creation of separate preliminary records into Orbis for e-resources and simply add a link to the print version. If the decision is to create separate records for the e-resources, & there is a large number of records (100? 1000?), does this assume we would search WorldCat first and export any bibliographic matches into Orbis before requesting a spread sheet from the vendor? In each case, who makes the decision that the vendor is not going to provide cataloging? If a reasonable number can be agreed to, perhaps 5. can be dropped. >
5a. ALTERNATIVE. If the vendor cannot supply bibliographic records for a collection at a future date, and the number of permanent records needed is over <25>, or access points needed for the portal exceeds <25>, and there are already records in Orbis for the print versions, add to the bibliographic record for the print version
856 40 $u <URL> $y Also available to members of the Yale community as an online book <journal, etc.>
856 40 $u <URL> $y Also available to members of the Yale community as an online book <journal, etc.>. Access from vendor <publisher?> website.
Only apply the 5a. alternative if permanent records are needed. Do not use for preliminary records. <Or follow the alternatives 3.1a/3.2a>
856 Fields in Original, Copy, and Batch-Loaded Records for Tangible Resources
General Website Cataloging Policies & Procedures
Linking Text Subfields in 856