---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 09:58:27 -0500
From: "Sam A. Khosh-khui" <SK03@ADMIN.SWT.EDU>
Subject: Serials Holdings Access Survey Results
SERIALS HOLDINGS ACCESS SURVEY RESULTS
Many thanks to those who responded to our "Serials Holdings
Access Survey". The following is a summary of the results.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the respondents indicated that they
either maintain a separate serial database or they are in the
process of creating one. Forty-five percent (45%) indicated that
they do not have a separate serials database or have no plans to
have a separate serials database.
Forty percent (40%) of those who have separate serials databases
indicated that the changes in the main database automatically
reflected in the serials database. Another method being
mentioned to update the serials database is that every record
created or changed in the main database is added to a queue, then
a tape is produced from the records in the queue and loaded
off-line into the separate serials database. Other libraries
indicated that they update the serial database once a week, every
other week, and once a month.
COMMENTS FOR HAVING A SEPARATE SERIALS DATABASE:
Some of those who have separate serials databases commented that
they do not have their periodicals listed in OPACs since they are
not cataloged but are housed in a separate section of the Library
and filed alphabetically by title.
Having a separate database would allow linking to "our
Abstracting and Indexing databases without worrying about
different record types, ISBN's vs. ISSN's for linking, etc.; that
we avoid 'contaminating' the title index in our monographs file
with the numerous high-frequency words that appear in journal
titles; that we provide serials-specific access points and have
different combinations of indexes".
For some it was too early to say whether or not their users are
better served with having a separate serials database, partly
because most of their users haven't used the alternative approach
to accessing their serials list. The feeling is that there are
some real challenges to extracting serials holdings information
from the DRA system via Report Writer. Some others libraries have
already done so and have extracted serial records through DRA
Report Writer and made them available through the Gopher Server.
Using such methods, the users are better served because once the
information is available through gopher, people can use a
WAIS-like search of the serials list and see a summary of the
holdings.
Those libraries who have created a separate serials database for
their serials indicated that they have no regret over their
decisions. In response to the question "Would you do it
differently if you had to do it all over again?" These comments
were mentioned:
-Absolutely! It has given us excellent control of the
collection ... and provides up-to-date information to the
patron.
-Our users are better served by the separate system only because
it has more functionality. We have separate monographs and
serials databases ... and this causes problem to our users who
have to search 2 databases to verify our holdings, especially
for conferences records which could be in either of them.
-Users are mostly interested in the continuance of the Serials
List and some improvement in its sophistication. They are also
very pleased with one place to look (OPAC) for both serials and
monographs!
One problem being mentioned is the difficulty many students have
with the display of retrieved serials titles information in the
OPAC. The library, however commented that they do not have a
fully automated Serials Module. Therefore, holdings are not
displayed in the OPAC, only displayed in the Serials List and
this may be part of the reason.
Even among those who do not have separate serials database for
serials some of the above advantages were mentioned but it was
indicated that they need the ability to add some intelligence to
the OPAC to guide users to the serials file at appropriate points
in their search".
COMMENTS FOR NOT HAVING A SEPARATE SERIALS DATABASE:
Those who did not have a separate database indicated that double
databases are a disaster. It takes a lot of time energy to make
sure things keep both database up-to-date the way you want them
to. Not many patrons differentiate between serials and non
serials when they search. When having two separate databases,
"you have to assume that your patrons know in advance that
something is a serial in order to know where to look. That is
not always true".
"Users are not likely to look for encyclopedias, yearbooks or
things like Physician's Desk Reference in the serials file, but
these items are coded as serials in the MARC record. As a matter
of fact, since we are a union catalog, some of our libraries
don't agree on the definition of "serial", so there are some
titles that are represented in both files. "
"Another difficulty is the issue of non-book serials (and this
can only get worse with Format Integration). If most users think
of serials as "magazines", you can be sure that they will not
search for sound recordings in the serials database, though some
sound recording series may be treated as serials by the library."
Most patrons prefer a single place to look and enjoy the benefits
of an integrated system. "It seems to me that what you are
wanting is a different *view* of the same database ... not
separate views. If so, you should be lobbying/working-for a
different presentation appropriate to serials and/or a different
search mechanism." Most of the time, having everything in one
single database has worked well for most people and is too early
to tell if this method will be a major inconvenience or not.
Two libraries pointed out that previously they had separate
databases for serials. However, after realizing that "it was too
much work to be updating holdings in two separate files and it
appeared that their students were _not_ willing to search for
serials in a separate lookup", they decided to combine the
serials database with the main one. Doing so has eliminated
patrons frustration. It was also easier for people in the ILL
Dept.
The additional cost of keeping two parallel systems and system
support for local database was mentioned as another reason for
not having separate serials database. "The amount of duplicate
effort required is enormous".
Finally, some libraries indicated that they have plans for
enhancing their automated systems and once it is a reality, they
will re-evaluate the need for separate serials databases.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
* Sam A. Khosh-khui, Ph. D. BITNET: SK03@SWTEXAS *
* Serials Cataloging Librarian INTERNET: SK03@ACADEMIA.SWT.EDU *
* Albert B. Alkek Library PHONE: 512/245-2288 *
* Southwest Texas State University FAX: 512/245-3002 *
* San Marcos, Texas 78666-4604 *
* *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
