Wiley Project Update and use of the Online Library in IUCAT

Background Documents:

1. “Memorandum From the 856/956 Style Guide Task Force’s “856/956 notes in IUCAT records: Cataloging Guidelines and Style Guide Examples” (June 5, 2002) (Found linked to the Agenda for the May 16, 2002 IOCC meeting at http://www.indiana.edu/~catcong/agenda/20020516.agenda.html.)
2. “Virtual Library – Issues for Discussion on October 5 (2001) (Revised)” (Found linked to the Agenda for October 5, 2001 IOCC meeting at http://www.indiana.edu/~catcong/agenda/20011005.agenda.html.)

Background:

In 2001, as part of a CIC deal, Indiana University entered into a contract with Wiley Interscience for electronic access to almost 400 of its titles, which would be provided to all campuses. The present agreement is good through 2003.

Since access is for all campuses, Bloomington and IUPUI decided that the online records for Wiley titles should be entered into the new Online Library. Bloomington’s Cataloging Unit entered all the “online” records into IUCAT and IUPUI’s Cataloging Team added the Online call/copy records for each record. These two processes were not accomplished at the same time because the Online library was not available when the records were loaded into IUCAT.

When IUPUI went to add the call/copy record for the Online library to each bibliographic record, it was discovered that Fort Wayne had entered their call/copy record and their campus name in the subfield |a of the 856 tag in each record. This was in contrast to Section 4.1 of Document 1 above which states, “When all libraries have access to a Web-based resource, subfield |a will not be used.” and seemingly in contrast to the “spirit” of the Online Library.

IUPUI contacted Fort Wayne for permission to remove the campus name. Ultimately, Fort Wayne gave this permission, but voiced some concerns about the process.

Specifically, Fort Wayne’s concerns were:

a. they thought the rules surrounding this process concerned only “freely-available” resources that are universally accessible by all campuses.

b. they were concerned about the effect of the resource becoming NOT universally accessible (e.g. given the situation where a campus would drop out of the agreement)

c. they recall that during the very long discussion on a virtual library at the joint IOCC and OPAC Advisory Group on Oct 5th the final decision was that no paid subscriptions would be added to the Online library even if all campuses had access. Unfortunately, there is are no official minutes from this portion of the IOCC meeting for that day. The 856 Cataloging Guidelines specifically Section 4.1 did not get updated after this meeting - not sure whose responsibility this was. Fort Wayne thought the phrase you are quoting "When all libraries have access to a Web-based resource, subfield |a will not be used" did not apply after what was decided at IOCC.

d. who would be responsible for the deletion of the Online Library call/copy record?

e. who would add the call/copy record for all the other libraries whose access to the resource remained intact?

f. who would add the campus/library names in the subfield |a to the 856 in the event this happened?

Questions:

1. Questions b and c above were mentioned in Document 2 above exactly one year ago. Were these answered?

2. Is this an isolated situation because a library had already added their call/copy records and campus name in the 856 to these records and feared having to go back and spend the time to re-enter these if a campus removed itself from the license?

3. Or does there need to be a procedure set in a case where a campus/library does drop out of a system-wide license agreement such as Wiley?