Subject: Re: Cataloging of Multimedia E-Journals
Mark Leggott (m.leggott@uwinnipeg.ca)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:41:37 -0500
Message-Id: <199908191841.NAA02256@io.uwinnipeg.ca> From: "Mark Leggott" <m.leggott@uwinnipeg.ca> To: arl-ejournal@arl.org Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:41:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Cataloging of Multimedia E-Journals In-Reply-To: <s7bab359.048@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu>
A few comments:
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Gerry Mckiernan <gmckiern@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu> wrote:
>
> _Cataloging of Multimedia E-Journals_
>
> I recently searched the OCLC database for bibliographic records for
> each of the titles in my registry of multimedia electronic journals,
> M-Bed(sm). M-Bed(sm) is available at:
>
> http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/M-Bed.htm
>
> Of the 41 titles currently listed, 34 had records. Of these, only
> five (5) -- less than 15% of those with records -- had a mention of
> the availability of a multimedia component in the record!! To say
> the least I was surprised and quite perplexed that a major component
> of such journals has been completely ignored in a vast majority of
> cases.
>
> I am further perplexed that while a number of records make note
> of the need for the Acrobat plug-in there is no mention of the other
> plug-ins required for using the associated multimedia.
I'm not sure noting the exact nature of the content is wise. Since
any given journal/author may choose to incorporate a wide range of
multimedia types (QTVR, MOV, Flash, etc.) in an individual article
or an "issue" of articles, you may be trying to pin-point a moving
target. You may have 2 different media media types in one issue, 7
in the next and 1 after that. How do you deal with that in a note?
I suspect many mention Acrobat since the articles themselves are
stored in this format, and any additional multimedia components
would be incorporated into this "metafile". How would you describe
Java-based multimedia components? Do you need to? What about
journals that use the SMIL standard and are able to provide more
intelligent media handling?
Maybe a statement referring to the existence of multimedia content
would suffice? Most current browsers are able to recognize
standard media types and point to the appropriate plugin for
downloading at viewing time.
> From this brief survey, I've concluded that catalogers in general
> are not aware of the multimedia dimensions of such journals and that
> journals such as these would be difficult to identify due to the lack
> of standard and uniform description of the multimedia.
I suspect many workstations used for creating these records would
be incapable of viewing/testing the multimedia content even if
they knew it was there. I also suspect that many cataloguers (and
librarians in general) are unaware of some of these advanced media
extensions because of the general lack of appropriate hardware
and software and time to play...
> This raises several issues, namely the current status of standard
> terminology within the cataloging community for such multimedia, the
> appropriate location with the catalog record (the five records which
> mentioned multimedia did so in the 516, 520, 538 MARC fields) and the
> appropriate General Material Designation (GMD) for such 'publications'
> In this case, all had 'Computer file' as the GMD. Would it be more
> appropriate to use 'Interactive Media' as the GMD for multimedia
> e-journals? [This approach would be an extension of the _Guidelines
> for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Media_ published by the
> American Library Association in 1994 and authored by the Interactive
> Multimedia Guidelines Review Task Force chaired by Laurel Jizba, now
> of Portland State University]
I think the change in GMD would be a useful approach at this point,
as it deals with the need for some identification, but avoids the
pitfalls of a higher level of specificity as per the above comments.
I think it also points out the short-comings of the MARC record as a
descriptor for digital resources, and the need for movement on
integrating emerging metadata standards into library systems (and
building new library systems).
The ultimate goal should be for the bib record to describe the
"container" (e.g. the journal) and its location(s), the "data"
(e.g. the journal article) to describe itself, and "viewer"
(e.g. a web-based opac interface) to use this to render the display.
That way the bib record does not have to be everything to everyone.
In order to do this effectively we need to step out of the MARC
black box we have sealed ourselves in and jump into the Web/Metadata
sandbox, or we will fail to deliver these new resources to our users.
Mark Leggott - University Librarian
University of Winnipeg
m.leggott@uwinnipeg.ca
204-786-9801 783-8910 (FAX)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Mon Dec 20 1999 - 18:02:15 EST