Joe, you may remember that we did discuss this problem during our program in
San Antonio. You may also remember that one of my last comments was that
somebody care to change the questions but did not notice that there was a
set of definitions for the librarians to answer the questions .A simple
solutions, just drop the phrase about excluding electronic titles on the
question.
At the end of the meeting there were 3 main recommendations: Revise the
definitions, address the issue of multiple versions vs. multiple titles and
work on a definition of electronic resources.
As you know I volunteer to work in a subcommittee with Carol Nicholson to
make recommendation regarding the statistics. We had a conference call last
week but most of the time they were discussing other questions, including
the idea of Project Counter which I still cannot understand, and not the
problem of the definition. I asked Carol if she wanted the representatives
from the serials committee to start working on a proposed change but she
suggested to wait.
I agree with you that this is illogical. Why all of the sudden after
reporting for so many years the total number of titles represented in our
catalog, regardless of the physical format we are now asked no to include
electronic resources. Why should a library like ours with emphasis in
electronic resources and with a great investment on purchasing bibliographic
records so our users can have access to the resources be penalized and not
allow to report all titles in our catalog.
Would you mind if I forward your message to Carol asking her to give
priority to this issue? I don't know if you remember but I mentioned that I
had volunteered you in absence to be part of the TS SIS Serials Committee
group to continue working on this. I also mentioned that Norma may also be
interested in working with us.
Paula Tejeda
Associate Law Librarian
Charleston School of Law
Sol Blatt, Jr. Library
81 Mary Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 377-2152
Fax: (843) 329-0491
E-mail: ptejeda@charlestonlaw.org
-----Original Message-----
From: "Joseph Hinger" <hingerj@stjohns.edu>
To: <law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
Cc: "Linda Ryan" <ryanl@stjohns.edu>, <ptejeda@charlestonlaw.org>,
<feld@ymail.yu.edu>, <james.mumm@marquette.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:26:41 -0400
Subject: ABA questionnaire
In filling out the recent 2004/2005 ABA Annual Questionnaire, I was quite
surprised at some of the changes in this year’s questions, specifically
relating to electronic and web-based titles. It appears as if electronic
and/or web-based titles or products are NOT counted anywhere in the title
count, however, we ARE permitted to count them as a serial subscription (if
they are serials) if they are cataloged separately in the library’s catalog.
These questions and definitions seem a bit illogical to me. Historically,
at least in my 15 years of working Law Library Technical Services, emphasis
has been put more and more each year on the phrase “if you have it cataloged
in your system on a record, then it can be counted.” In many libraries,
micro titles are NOT cataloged to title level contained within the package,
therefore, no counting should take place. If libraries do have the
financial resources and manpower to catalog such packages at the title
level, and you have records in your system for these titles, then by all
means they can be counted. Over the past 10 to 15 years, libraries have
spent great financial resources in cataloging such packages, as well as
purchasing cataloging for these packages from outside vendors; thus,
allowing us to count such titles.
What makes the online world so different? If I catalog something online,
whether it is a serial subscription, or a monograph, or a map, etc., I
should be permitted to count it, as I have a record in my catalog.
The way I see the questionnaire this year, NOT being able to count
electronic and/or web-based titles or products, whether I have a
bibliographic/cataloging record for it or not, leads me to believe that the
overall direction of the questionnaire could change from year to year. I
personally believe, that in alignment with the past questionnaires, that
libraries should be able to count whatever they want, as long as there is a
bibliographic/cataloging record for it in your library system. In my
library, we have spent great amounts of financial resources, time, manpower,
etc., to catalog our retrospective microform titles AND our online
resources, as we tended to believe that “if we cataloged it, we could count
it.” Now we are being told differently, regarding web-based/electronic
titles. I hope to see this disparity corrected in future ABA
Questionnaires.
A recommendation that I have is for us to be alerted at least a year in
advance what the questions will be in the coming year. Receiving the
questionnaire after the timeframe for which the statistics are requested has
caused me major manipulation of the information in my online system. Had I
known what they would be asking a year ago, I could have “recoded” my
system to recount these statistics well in advance of receiving the
questionnaire.
This past year at the AALL meeting, there were several sessions on
statistics and counting, that were very interesting and thought provoking.
I’m sure any discussion about this topic would be appreciated by the
Statistics Committee of AALL, as well as the Subcommittee on Serials
Statistics, which is a subcommittee of the the Serials Committee of the
Technical Services SIS.
I would love to hear others feelings about this ABA Questionnaire situation,
and how others are approaching these changed questions.
Joseph Hinger
Associate Librarian for Technical Services
St. John’s University
Rittenberg Law Library
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11439
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:46:09 PST