Virtual Library – Issues for Discussion on October 5 (Revised)

What is a Virtual Library?

Many institutions use the concept of a virtual library in their integrated library systems as a means of collocating electronic resources. This collocation may be either complete or partial. If all of a library’s e-resources were cataloged to the Virtual Library, the collocation would be comprehensive. When users initiated a search limited to this “library” they would search across all of the library’s electronic resources on all campuses. A comprehensive Virtual Library in the IU Libraries system would include all electronic resources, whether or not users on a particular campus had access to them.

Alternatively, a library may decide to catalog only a portion of the e-resources to the Virtual Library and catalog others to individual libraries, such as Kokomo or the Bloomington-Music Library. Users would need to be aware of this distinction and appropriately direct or limit their searches.

The proposal below is an example of a plan to catalog only a portion of the e-resources to the Virtual Library—those that are available to all users in all locations. Materials only available to users in selected locations would only be cataloged for those locations. To relieve users of the need to understand this distinction and thus to direct or limit their searches appropriately, the proposal seeks to use the newly available search groupings (aliases) that allow a group to include multiple libraries to put the Virtual Library into each campus’ search.

Proposal

The OPAC Working Group believes the only definition of the Virtual Library that will be of substantial value to users is the one that presents materials available to all IU-affiliated users. The group recommends this as the only option to be discussed at the joint OPAC Advisory/IO Cataloging Congress meeting.

I. Characteristics of the Virtual Library:

Contents: The Virtual Library includes ONLY resources that are 1) available via the World Wide Web or similar system wide technologies, and 2) available to all members of the Indiana University community statewide. This will include both materials that are purchased on subscription/require IU affiliation for remote access and materials that are freely available to everyone.

Access:

  • Access to Virtual Library materials would be transparent to the user if the library used as its default library search limit its alias grouping that included the Virtual Library. The new geographic alias groupings would have an alias group for each campus that included the physical library and the Virtual Library.
  • Materials that use the same bibliographic record for both paper and electronic formats would have two or more copy/call records—one for the library or libraries holding the paper copy and one for the Virtual Library.
  • The best chance for user access in all libraries is for every library to participate in creating records for the Virtual Library. PLEASE NOTE: Libraries, even if they participate in generating Virtual Library records, may choose which default library to use for searching on the machines in their libraries. They may choose to search only that physical library, without the Virtual Library contents. In that case, their users would need to be taught the distinction between the Virtual Library and the physical library, and what electronic resources they could expect to find in each.
  • Catalog records would include one 856 field with no ownership specified, based on standards adopted in July 2001.

Advantages:

  • Users would be able to access all resources to which they had access, whether or not their libraries had added a copy/call record, while still retaining the value of the library limit.
  • Allows all libraries in the system to share cataloging of electronic resources.
  • IU-affiliated users would not, in a standard search limited to a default library or geographic alias grouping, see resources for which they have no access.

Disadvantages:

  • Creates additional work for libraries that catalog large numbers of electronic resources.
  • The holdings library on the record and in the list view would be the Virtual Library. That may be confusing to users.
  • Users of small collections may find that their search results for broader or popular topics are larger than they are comfortable using.
  • If a library were to choose for its computers a default library search limit that did not include the Virtual Library, users could become confused because the connection between the physical and Virtual libraries would no longer be transparent. It may, in that case, be necessary to create additional alias libraries for Indianapolis and Bloomington. Similarly, if we make the Virtual Library searchable as a separate library, the user who searches this library will gain access only to those items that are available system wide, but the search results would exclude electronic resources available to only selected libraries. Users will not easily understand such distinctions.

II. Decisions to be made on October 5:

Is the proposed plan and definition for the Virtual Library both manageable and a service to users? Are the benefits of this plan better than the other possible options: a) creating a Virtual Library that contains all electronic materials, including those available only in selected libraries, or b) not creating a Virtual Library at all?

Exactly what additional work will be necessary to create the Virtual Library prospectively? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Ideally, all libraries must participate for users to see the benefits. Will all libraries agree to participate?

Should we include the Virtual Library on the pull down menus as a library one can search specifically?

Who is responsible for cataloging materials in the Virtual Library?

 Who is responsible for making changes/corrections?

III. If we agree to move forward on the Virtual Library, we will make a recommendation to CHL for their October 12 meeting asking them to:

Approve the new definition of the Virtual Library.

Agree that all libraries will participate.

Appoint a small task force of participants from acquisitions, cataloging, and public services to resolve implementation issues by the end of November. These include:

Name of the virtual library.

Do we want to create additional alias groupings for individual libraries at Bloomington and Indianapolis that include the physical library and the virtual library. How would these be displayed in the web catalog?

How will we handle retrospective cleanup? What priorities shall we set?

What changes need to be made to the MARCIVE profile to facilitate the Virtual Library?

Procedures for inputting records into the Virtual Library and for making corrections and changes to records.

Procedures for handling broken links.

Whether or not we need a copy record for Virtual Library items that are only electronic.

What additional questions should the task force consider?

Setting up the Virtual Library will necessitate several steps. This work would need to begin immediately. Tasks include the following:

Name the Virtual Library.

Determine the alias groupings and the default library search limit for each library on each campus. Create new pull-down menus for the catalog. (This work has to be done in conjunction with the version 2001 upgrade anyway.)

Create procedures and policies for cataloging materials in the Virtual Library.

Train technical services staff.

Train public services staff and create/revise instructional materials for public users.

Make decisions on the implementation issues described in Section III of this document.

Rev 10-03-01

1