UDC 025.32:65.11.56

Eremenko T.V.

Internet resource cataloging
(US Libraries Experience)

Internet resource cataloging discussions
in American Library Printing

Today, no specialist working in the field of information services can ignore the rapid growth electronic resources and, in particular, accessible through global computer networks. W. Sha writes: "The Internet is a treasure trove. However, its rich resources cannot be used efficiently in their current disorganized state" [ 1 , with. 467].

There is an urgent need to find, identify and provide access to Internet resources. Various approaches are being developed to their organization in order to facilitate the search activity of Internet users. Search engines are widely used, automatically indexing the content of websites and providing a search for any word from the text of the site, such as Alta Vista, Google, Excite and other Internet directories Yahoo, LookSmart, About and others present an approach that involves the involvement of human intelligence in the selection and annotation of websites.

Another trend is to apply traditional cataloging principles to describe Internet materials and make them available through online library catalogs. This trend has been developing in US libraries in recent years, and many libraries are initiating and actively participating in interesting projects in this new area of ​​cataloging.

Speaking about the cataloging of Internet resources, it should immediately be noted that this is far from the only approach to organizing online resources used by American libraries. Many libraries or groups of libraries offer on their websites thematic guides to the Internet of various levels of coverage and description. Typically, such guidebooks enjoy credibility with users as sources of really well-selected and well-described information.

To what end, then, do libraries add to these well-tried and well-deserved forms the labor-intensive and inevitably problematic cataloging of Internet resources?

A number of authors try to answer the question of why the Internet should be catalogued by giving different arguments. J. Hill writes about the expectations of modern users: "Library users are increasingly waiting to gain access to these resources, and thus the idea of ​​leaving them undescribed and excluded from the catalog becomes unforgivable" [ 2 , with. 6].

K. Gerhard gives two reasons for including Internet resources in online library catalogs along with other documents. The first, in her opinion, is to create a situation where users who do not access the Internet will encounter it in the course of a normal directory search and, as a result, will gain insight into valuable new resources. The second reason is the hope that the inclusion of Internet resources in online catalogs of libraries will contribute to the relevance and usefulness of these catalogs [ 3 , with. 125–126].

Judging by some materials in the American library press, the use of online catalogs is indeed becoming a problem. "Over the past 25 years, Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) have been at the center of the library world," writes R. Weibel. "That time has passed. Ask any user how often he uses OPAC during the week and how many times he accesses Internet search engines The answer to such a question will be frightening for us" [ 4 , with. 63].

AUTOCAT, the mailing list for American catalogers, presents a variety of perspectives on the subject of cataloging Internet resources. In particular, G. Atkinson writes: "We do not have any obvious evidence that these directory entries (descriptions of websites) helped someone. When people search for a website, they turn to the website" [ 5 ]. C. Murphy-Walters expresses the opposite view: "The main reason why we want to have Internet resources in our directories is because we want our users to be able to find all relevant sources in one place, using the same search strategies. As for the users who think that the directory is for everything but not for Internet resources, I think they will quickly grasp the idea of shopping in one place, namely in our catalog" [ 5 ].

W. Sha writes about three main reasons why traditional cataloging methods should be applied to the organization of the Internet. These are the advantages of the MARC format, the possibility of integrating all types of information resources into a single library catalog and guaranteeing public access to the Internet. [ 1 ].

Comparing search results through OPAC and one of the search engines, M. Gorman shows how different they can be. He argues that, in contrast to the large amount of information noise that comes from working with a search engine, "the result of careful cataloging is that the user finds the desired information very quickly and is confident that the search has brought him a sufficient amount of relevant materials" [ 6 , with. eleven]. M. Dillon also writes about the merits of applying the library cataloging model to Internet resources, emphasizing that none of the search tools available to Internet users today can "be considered a replacement for the library catalog" [ 7 , with. 216]. According to M. Dillon and D. Blair, full-text and keyword searches are not yet a convincing replacement for structured record field searches, and no Internet index has yet replaced the cataloging description architecture [ 7 ; 8 ].

It is interesting to note that in the center of discussions about the cataloging of Internet resources, along with professional issues of description, a number of organizational and managerial problems arise. Like any new business, the cataloging of Internet resources requires management decisions and, as E. Steinagen and S. Moynahan write, it is time for catalogers to start being better managers and take a more active role in managing their own affairs and the affairs of the library as a whole [ 9 ]. K. Gerhard emphasizes that the problems associated with cataloging Internet resources "go far beyond cataloging departments and require an extensive consultative approach" [ 3 , with. 126]. She sees the need for participation in the cataloging process of employees of cataloging departments, automated systems and bibliographers; in cases of paid subscription to electronic publications, the opinion of the pickers is also important. A number of authors point to the need to create special rules and instructions for cataloging Internet resources.

As the above analysis shows, there are a number of compelling arguments for a positive answer to the question of why cataloging Internet resources. It is natural to ask the following question: can a modern library provide such access to Internet resources through its OPAC, which will be equal in quality to access to other information resources of the library?

"Preparing to catalog Internet resources can be too time-consuming," writes C. Gerhard [ 3 , with. 123]. K. Schneider adds: "Increasing cataloging quality requirements, changing URLs, and conflicting, changing cataloging standards make many of us wary of cataloging Internet resources" [ 10 , with. 177].

Obviously, the current state of cataloging Internet resources is characterized by a number of unresolved issues. They can be reduced to major problem complexes:

identification and selection of Internet resources for cataloging,

presentation and maintenance of bibliographic records of OPAC Internet resources,

applying existing cataloging standards to this new resource type.

Reflection of Internet resources in online catalogs of libraries.
Cooperative Internet Cataloging Projects

Before cataloging any objects, one should be armed with a clear understanding of what they are and how they can be identified. Terms like Internet resources, online information resources, websites, electronic resources, are widely used in modern US professional library printing. According to P. Kaplan, the main difference that determines the specifics of Internet resources should be remote access [11 ]. M. Dillon believes that the term Internet resources very convenient as it "denotes any electronic information resources available through a wide coverage network" [ 7 , with. 198]. Internet resources are very diverse. M. Dillon, for example, lists such types of Internet resources as audio files, databases, electronic magazines, electronic texts, newsgroups, video files, websites, etc. [ 7 ].

This diversity makes it difficult to select objects for cataloging. R. Brisson asks a whole list of questions in his article: "What exactly should libraries organize and control? A private collection (collections) of electronic texts? A database of electronic journal materials? Web resources that will be individually selected by staff of the acquisition department?" and etc. [ 12 , with. 12]. The Iowa State University Library has made a decision to "catalog resources that are identified as important by acquisitors" [ 3 , with. 127]. In the same library, it is decided that mailing lists will not be catalogued, as they should be considered as a process and not as a stable object for description. However, mailing list archives are intended to be included in cataloging objects. It was decided to catalog gopher sites very selectively.

As practice shows, some libraries create special recommendations governing the selection of Internet resources. According to a small survey conducted by N. Woufen-Sterling on the AUTOCAT mailing list, "nearly every responding library has either a formally established selection mechanism, or such formalization is an actual goal" [ 5 ]. In the light of discussions about the difficulties of selecting Internet resources, M. Dillon's idea seems reasonable that libraries have never completed everything in a row, and, accordingly, the principles and rules of selection developed by them can be quite successfully adapted to sources of network information [ 7 ].

An analysis of contemporary publications on the cataloging of Internet resources shows that libraries encounter problems in presenting records of these resources in online catalogs. Thus, bibliographers at the Iowa State University Library express concern that users may not recognize the nature of the information source they have found, and begin to look for it on the library shelves [ 3 ]. To avoid this, instead of the source storage cipher, library catalogers began to place words in the structure of the bibliographic record electronic resource, enter a message in the "Status" column see URL above and do URLC(Internet address of the resource) in the directory entry structure of the working link [ 3 ].

S. Shadl describes a variety of strategies used by libraries to identify and provide access through online catalogs to electronic journals. He names techniques such as including location codes with the words Internet, Online; using a uniform title attribute Online to highlight the names of sources of remote access; relevant notes in the notes field; placing the Internet address of the journals in the fields 856, 530 or 538 [ 13 ].

Maintaining records of Internet resources is another area of ​​concern for American librarians. Among the problems that catalogers of Internet resources face, J. Brugger lists "Virtual reality mutability, location changes, smoothed authorship, updating to adapt to the latest platforms", etc. [ 14 ]. The rapidly changing nature of websites means that information about them can quickly become outdated. Iowa State University Library has special program Mom Spider to check the library website three times a week. However, this is not the best solution, and catalogers would like to have a standard method for controlling the operation of Internet addresses [ 3 , with. 134].

There are already some tools to help solve this kind of problem. One of them is the so-called PURL ( Persistent Uniform Resource Locator). It allows the Internet address in the bibliographic record structure to remain the same even if the file has changed its location on the Internet [ 10 ]. M. Dillon thinks that the resources selected for cataloging are "more stable due to their content and the obligations of the information provider." He believes that the interaction of libraries, information providers and computer centers "will bring some degree of stability to selected resources, and changes can be managed" [ 7 , with. 226].

Speaking about the work of cataloging Internet resources, many authors refer to the idea of ​​cooperation. W. Sha writes about library cooperation, arguing that "individual libraries cannot afford to catalog all Internet resources alone due to budget and staff constraints" [ 1 , with. 470]. Agreeing with this point of view, R. Brisson adds that "traditional cataloging for library online catalogs is resource-intensive and the cataloging department staff is already overloaded with the work of describing the current flows of books and documents in other formats" [ 12 , with. thirteen].

The two OCLC projects provide examples of collaborative efforts by libraries in the field of cataloging Internet resources. From 1991 to 1996, under the auspices of the OCLC, the InterCAT project was carried out, which investigated the issues of cataloging websites in WorldCAT, a union catalog maintained by the efforts of OCLC members. More than a thousand libraries have expressed their desire to take part in it [ 15 ; 16 ]. One of the participating librarians, Sh. Harken, writes that the teams of project participants usually included representatives from the departments of acquisition, cataloging, bibliography and automated library systems, since almost all of today's library functions are affected by electronic resources [ 17 ]. As a result, through the efforts of volunteer libraries, an experimental database of web resources was created, which included approximately 50,000 entries. As part of this project, the Library of Congress and the OCLC established a special field in MARC format to capture the Internet address of a resource and directly access that resource. The InterCAT database is currently part of the OCLC catalog [ 16 ].

Since January 1999, OCLC has been running a new pilot project called CORC [18 ]. Its purpose is to research and develop the cooperative description of web resources. The idea of ​​CORC is a continuation of the work started in the InterCAT project, so the CORC project is also called InterCAT2. Based on modern web technologies, the project contributes to the ordering and organization of Internet resources and provides participating libraries with free access to a large and growing CORC database, which contains high-quality descriptions of web resources selected by libraries [ 15 ]. The main difference from the previous project is that CORC integrates cataloging using the MARC format with the latest initiatives in the field of creating metadata for Internet resources, namely with the developments of the project Dublin Core. When working with CORC, the user can view both the MARC Internet resource record, more specifically USMARC (now MARC 21), and the Dublin Core description. CORC is considered the most significant of the projects being implemented in the field of Internet cataloging.

Application of existing standards
for cataloging Internet resources

The next group of problems is related to the application of existing cataloging standards for describing Internet resources. In general, American librarians are quite confident that these standards can be effectively used for a new type of information source. "It is possible to catalog electronic resources in such a way," points out M. Gorman, "that the records as a result can be fully integrated into library catalogs" [ 6 , with. fourteen]. He supports his statement with the following evidence: the existence of a new international standard for the bibliographic description of electronic resources [ 19 ], which will form the basis of the revision of the ninth chapter of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2R); availability of names and creators of electronic resources providing standard search features for access; the ability to express the content of these resources in classification indices and subject headings [ 6 ].

V. Sha believes that MARC is a format that allows you to describe different information levels of Internet resources and provide many features for their search [ 1 ]. She also states that "when Internet resources are cataloged in existing MARC library formats, the data will be stored in national and international centralized databases and can be used in local library OPACs" [ 1 , with. 468].

Describing a six month project CATRIONA (CATaloging and Retrieval of Information Over Networks Applications), funded by the British Library, D. Nicholson and M. Steel argue that the MARC format has a number of advantages for cataloging electronic resources (electronic texts and magazines, images, sound files, etc.). "It is compatible with existing infrastructure and practice; MARC records are transmitted over Z39.50; by extending the capabilities of MARC records, in particular through field 856, MARC is able not only to describe, but also to open access to a wide range of electronic resources" [ 20 , with. 135].

Characteristically, a number of authors mention the new MARC 856 field, introduced to indicate the location and provide access to electronic resources, as a major improvement in the MARC format, which opens the way to cataloging Internet resources. P. Kaplan regards the creation of this field as the largest change in the existing bibliographic format, adapting it to the description of electronic resources available via the Internet [ 11 ]. Field 856 is now part of the MARC 21 format. M. Dillon characterizes field 856 as "an important step in changing the relationship between bibliographic records and their subjects" [ 7 , with. 222].

One of the urgent problems concerning the cataloging of certain types of Internet resources is the cataloging of electronic journals. S. Shadl believes that it is necessary to develop a more rigorous vocabulary that could be used in describing these truly unique forms of information [ 13 ]. He is convinced that ezines can be successfully described using AACR2R and MARC 21. "The MARC record is an incredibly rich source of data, and we are just beginning to take advantage of the benefits of this record," writes S. Schadl [ 13 , with. 105].

Another problem is the cataloging of websites, which consist mainly of links to other Internet resources. J. Bill recommends that libraries establish a bibliographic level to which such resources should be cataloged. In his opinion, it is necessary to make a decision regarding the cataloging of links to independent resources and links to pages included in the structure of this site. Among the means of describing links, he names notes, headings of additional descriptions, subject headings with such subheadings as Bibliography, Database, Information Services [21 ].

Along with the use of the MARC and AACR2R format, other projects are being developed to describe electronic resources. The most famous is the Dublin Core project, developed by OCLC and named after the city that hosts OCLC - Dublin ( Dublin, OH). In March 1995, 52 people—librarians, archivists, and scholars—met at an OCLC-sponsored workshop to reach agreement on a set of fields, or elements, for describing Internet resources. It was originally proposed to use 13 elements; later their number increased to 15:

subject and keywords

resource description,

publisher,

other responsible

resource type,

• resource ID,

  source,

  relationship,

• rights management [ 4 ].

R. Chepswick is confident that the flexibility of this format "will allow special groups to adapt it to their needs" [ 4 , with. 62]. Hallmann thinks that Dublin Core will not replace MARC, but will evolve and coexist with it [ 4 ]. S. Gradman has his own special point of view on this issue, believing that Dublin Core is an example of metadata, and metadata is fundamentally different from a cataloging description [ 22 ].

Based on the definition of T. Bernes-Lee " metadata- This machine-readable information regarding web resources on the Internet", S. Gradman believes that "the use of metadata is different from the use of library catalogs; to create them, you do not need to involve professional cataloguers; it takes significantly less time to create a metarecord than a bibliographic record; metadata refers to a specific type of material - electronic resources; . intended for a different use and technologically more closely related to the original than the catalog descriptions" [ 22 , with. 125–127].

Obviously, existing standards and rules for describing documents can and will be used to describe and provide access to such a new type of information sources as Internet resources. However, the ever-increasing number of these sources clearly exceeds the capabilities of traditional cataloging practice. What can be used in the future to solve this problem?

Experts write, in particular, about the so-called computer cataloging [ 7 ], on the intensification of corporate efforts [ 1 ], on the division of electronic resources into four groups according to their value and applying to each its own level of description: (1) full cataloging, (2) a detailed set of Dublin Core elements, (3) a minimum set of Dublin Core elements, (4) the ability to search by full texts given by common search engines [ 6 ]. What remains unchanged is the growing interest of American librarians in this problem and the understanding that this line of work means both interesting prospects and many additional difficulties for libraries.

Online Library Guides to Internet Resources

Cataloging Internet resources, as mentioned earlier, is not the only area of ​​work for American librarians to streamline the huge amount of information displayed on global computer networks, which are sometimes called information dump. Librarians do not leave their users alone with this mass of unorganized, unsystematized sources. Under these conditions, as in the case of working with printed documents, they select the most valuable and reliable network resources and recommend them to their users. Modern technologies also determine the form of such a recommendation: usually, library websites host guides to Internet resources created and maintained by librarians. Access to them is almost always free, and users can work with such guides from any computer connected to the Internet. Online guides on the Internet are universal in content, as Librarians" Index [23 ], Infomine [24 ], Digital Librarian [25 ], or topic-focused, like guides to the legal resources of the Rutgers University and Indiana University Libraries Research Guide to Law Resources and WWW Virtual Library – Law [26 ; 27 ], the Education Internet Resource Index at the Harvard Graduate School of Education Library, and many other projects developed by groups of librarians or individual librarians-enthusiasts.

The online library guide to Internet resources is usually divided into sections, and each resource recommended in it receives a short but informative summary. The most detailed, with a deep systematization of the material, guides use descriptors to describe resources. Under descriptor refers to a term, notation, or other set of symbols used to denote the subject matter of a work [ 28 ].

Good online guides made by librarians are widely used. Often colleagues from other libraries use them when making references or recommend them to their readers. The form of online guides organically continues the tradition of recommendatory bibliography, but with new objects of description and a new channel for accessing information.

One of the largest and most interesting works of US libraries in the field of creating online guides on the Internet is the project INFOMINE [24 ]. This is a great example of the cooperative efforts of over 30 librarians. The project is led by librarians from the University of California. The creators of INFOMINE set themselves the task of presenting web resources that are important for students, teachers, university-level researchers.

INFOMINE includes descriptions of databases, e-journals, e-books, mailing lists and newsgroups, online library catalogs, articles, indexes, and many other types of electronic resources. In May 2000, 24,386 resources are described in INFOMINE; of which 28% were electronic periodicals, 19% - databases, 14% - online indexes, 12% - sites of educational and methodological content, 11% - virtual libraries, 11% - online maps, 10% - online directories, 2% - Internet search engines [ 29 ]. The guide is universal. All the resources described in it are organized into ten main sections. Of these, five have a sectoral focus: biological, agricultural, medical sciences; government information; physical sciences, engineering, computers and mathematics; social and human sciences; spatial and performing arts. Two sections are devoted to educational and methodological resources of school and higher education, the remaining three are Internet search tools, maps and electronic journals.

The creators of INFOMINE characterize the methodological principles on which they base the descriptions of sources in this guide: "We are a virtual library created by librarians, and therefore our goal in describing and indexing is to impartially describe resources (as any physically existing library does) more than rather than reviewing them.Using a modern approach (Dublin Core), we focus our metadata creation on indexing rather than cataloging resources.This allows us to use the time saved to provide more comprehensive coverage and take advantage of the interactive nature of the web, in which users can easily and quickly find and check the details of an Internet resource" [ 29 ].

A large place in the descriptions of resources in INFOMINE is occupied by the characteristic of the type of information source. A record about a resource, in addition to its name, abstract and Internet address, includes subject headings and keywords, the number of which is quite large. A list of subject headings used in INFOMINE can be obtained by using a working RELATED SUBJECTS link as part of a separate entry.

An example of an Internet resource description in INFOMINE

Guide to Philosophy on the Internet

Related Items:

PHILOSOPHERS
PHILOSOPHY

Related keywords:

EARLHAM COLLEGE
ELECTRONIC TEXTS
ETEXTS
FULL TEXT
REFERENCE RESOURCES
SUBER, PETER
VIRTUAL LIBRARIES
VIRTUAL LIBRARY
WEB

Related Title Words:

GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY ON THE INTERNET

Related Authors:

Abstract:

Very comprehensive guide maintained by Peter Suber at Earlham College. The Guide is particularly strong in links to electronic journals and sources of texts. Carefully done with commendable additional information about e-journals (whether text, abstarcts or only table of contents are includes), and notes on whether other sites include complete citations to works or quotations .

The subject headings and keywords in the "Related Subjects" and "Related Keywords" fields in this description are working links, which is very convenient for continuing the search directly from the post structure.

The INFOMINE guide can be searched in both simple and advanced modes. The widest range of possibilities is provided by advanced search ( advanced search). In this mode, the words that make up the query can be searched at the user's choice in one or more fields, such as "Keywords", "Author", "Resource Name". The user can choose between a short and full description of the resource, determine the number of links displayed on the screen and how they are grouped. For more accurate results, the search can be focused on specific sections of the guide.

Thematic guides to Internet resources are being actively developed by many university libraries. For example, the Rutgers University Libraries offer on their website a whole range of guidebooks on various industries and topics, ranging from art, business and medicine to mathematics and social sciences [ 30 ].

Others include a guide to legal and legal online resources Research Guide: Law, created and maintained by P. Axel-Lüth, Associate Director of Library Acquisition, Rutgers University School of Law. It is searched by selecting from a carefully crafted menu. In addition to the eight main sections of the guide dedicated to individual branches of legislation, there is a section that offers a detailed thematic grouping of legal sources. There is no additional search function like INFOMINE has in this guide. This is probably due to the relatively small coverage of resources and their belonging to the same subject area [ 26 ].

Together with projects in the field of cataloging Internet resources using the standards of the MARC family, online library guides of resources solve the problem of organizing the presentation of the Internet in the form of its best, most informative and reliable sources. The main goal of all projects of this kind is to help users in information retrieval activities.

Bibliography

1. Sha. V.T. Cataloging Internet Resources: the Library Approach// The Electronic Library. 1995 Vol. 13, No. 5. P. 467–475.

2. Hill J.S. The Elephant in the Catalog: Cataloging Animals You Can "t See or Touch / / The Serials Librarian. 1996. Vol. 23, No. 1. P. 6–7.

3. Gerhard K.H. Cataloging Internet Resources: Practical Issues and Concerns// Serials Librarian. 1997 Vol. 32, no. 1/2. P. 123–137.

4. Chepeswick R. Organizing the Internet: the "Core" of the Challenge of the Challenge// American Libraries. 1999 Vol. 30, No. 1. P. 60–63.

5. AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU – Archives.
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/autocat.html

6. Gorman M. Metadata or Cataloging? A Final Choice // Journal of Internet Cataloging. 1999 Vol. 2, No. 1. P. 5–22.

7. Dillion M. Cataloging Internet Resources: the Convergence of Libraries and Internet Resources// Cataloging and Classification Quarterly. 1996 Vol. 22, no. 3/4. P. 197–238.

8. Blair D.C. Language and Representation in Information Retrieval. Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.

9. Steinhagen E., Moynahan S. Cataloguers Must Change!: Surviving Between the Rock and the Hard Place// Cataloging& Classification Quarterly. 1998 Vol. 26, No. 3. P. 3–20.

10. Schneider K.G. Cataloging Internet Resources: Concerns and Caveats// American Libraries. 1997 Vol. 28, No. 3. P. 77.

11. Caplan P. Cataloging Internet Resources// The Public-Access Computer Systems Review. 1993 Vol. 4, No. 2. P. 61–66.
http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v4/n2/caplan.4n2

12. Brisson R. The World Discovers Cataloguing: a Conceptual Introduction to igital Libraries, Metadata and the Implications for Library Administrations// Journal of Internet Cataloging. 1999 Vol. 1, No. 4. P. 3–30.

13. Shadle S. Identification of Electronic Journals in the Online Catalog// Serials Review. 1998 Vol. 24, No. 2. P. 104–107.

14. Brugger J.M. Cataloging the Internet.
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/Internet/brugger.html

15. Cooperative Online Resource Catalog. Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.oclc.org/oclc/research/projects/corc/about/fag.html

17. Harken S.E. Trails to Electronic Goldmines: Cataloging Web Sites.
http://und.nodak.edu/dept/library/department/abc/intercat.htm

19. ISBD(ER): International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources. Munchen: K.G. Sauer, 1997.

20. Nicholson D., Steele M. CATRIONA: a Distributed, Locally-oriented, Z 39.50 OPAC-based Approach to Cataloging the Internet// Cataloging and Classification Quarterly. 1996 Vol. 22, no. 3/4. P. 127–141.

21. Beall J. Cataloging World Wide Web Sites Consisting Mainly of Links// Journal of Internet Cataloging. 1997 Vol. 1, No. 1. P. 83–92.

22. Gradman S. Cataloging or metadata: old wine in new bottles? // Nauch. and tech. b-ki. 2000. No. 1. S. 122–130.

28. Lancaster F.W. Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. Champain, IL: University of Illinois, 1991. P. 328.