Subject: Re: Cataloging of Multimedia E-Journals
Gerry Mckiernan (GMCKIERN@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:25:59 -0500
Message-Id: <s7bd3b6a.048@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:25:59 -0500 From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <GMCKIERN@gwgate.lib.iastate.edu> To: arl-ejournal@arl.org Subject: Re: Cataloging of Multimedia E-Journals
Hi Mark
On 08/19/99, Mark Leggott <m.leggott@uwinnipeg.ca> wrote:
>
> A few comments:
>
> On 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 raise an interesting point here, However, it seems that at
present from my superficial review of the _M-Bed(sm)_ multimedia
journals that individual journals limit the multimedia that can be
used.
> you may be trying to pin-point a moving target. You may have 2
> different media types in one issue, 7 in the next and 1 after that.
> How do you deal with that in a note?
This raises a host of related issues and possible solutions. Would
a link to the appropriate page of a given e-journal to its multimedia
types and required plug-ins be possible within the bibliographic
record? Would it unreasonable, impractical, unrealistic to lobby
publishers to create such a standard page? It seems to me that it
would help to promote a fuller use of their publication.
> I suspect many mention Acrobat since the articles themselves are
> stored in this format,
Acrobat is *one* of two (or three options) in many cases in these
journals. HTML and HTML with augmented multimedia are typically
the others, although PostsScript seems to be common as well.
My personal conclusion about the choice of noting Acrobat is that
we still have a 'print/paper' mind set and unconsciously see only
the paper analog version [Is this an unreasonable conclusion?]
> and any additional multimedia components would be incorporated into
> this "metafile".
This does raise *the* basic issue: What is to described and how should
we describe it? It also raises the issue of the multiple roles that
a bibliographic/surrogate record has taken on, e.g. information about
preservation.
> How would you describe Java-based multimedia components?
Good question, but some of the bib records for the multimedia e-journals
note for example that the journal exists in HTML format and that it is
available via the World Wide Web. Is this necessary? Is it necessary
to note the Java requirement? I would say 'Yes' to both questions.
> Do you need to? What about journals that use the SMIL standard and
> are able to provide more intelligent media handling?
I just became aware of SMIL ('smile') two weeks ago and am glad you
mention it. To me, SMIL -- the Synchronized Multimedia Integration
Language -- holds great potential for multimedia presentation
[Readers may wish to review the W3C site for details about SMIL at
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/ ]
> Maybe a statement referring to the existence of multimedia content
> would suffice?
This is *the* question! *Is* it sufficient? Here again, it depends
on what role the record should play.
> Most current browsers are able to recognize standard media types and
> point to the appropriate plugin for downloading at viewing time.
Yes, true, but ...
Does/ Can / Should a library allow its users to download and install
any and all plug-ins? Or, should the library have a policy. The
IUPUI University Library Policy on the Deployment of Internet
Plug-ins for Library Scholar's Workstations at
<http://andretti.iupui.edu/toolbox/scholarplug.html>
could serve as a model for other library's
> > 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 am *so* glad you raise this point. Yes, indeed, if the cataloger's
workstation is not fully configured they will be unable to do so.
This is a significant issue that will certainly need to be addressed.
> 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...
Another good point and a sad one at the same time. As librarians I
believe we have the responsibility to be aware of these developments
and to provide leadership and opportunities for our users. This *is*
the Information Age, isn't it? And we are Information Specialists,
aren't we? Why should we limit our professional knowledge to
text-based phenomena?
> > 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.
The actual recommendation is the GMD 'interactive multimedia' [Please
excuse the typo]
> 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).
Yes. Your point does raise other issues, e.g. how do we integrate
two different systems in one OPAC?
> 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.
I like your last point here and its implications: Let the
hardware/system handle the multimedia seamlessly
> That way the bib record does not have to be everything to everyone.
Another point of view would be that the bib record becomes more than
just a describer but takes on other roles, e.g. link to full-text
[e.g., 856].
> 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.
Yes. We do need to re-think MARC in light of the multimedia issues
and the like.
Thanks again for your interest, your thoughtful observations and
remarks, and your time.
Regards,
/Gerry McKiernan
Science and Technology Librarian and Bibliographer
Iowa State University Library
Ames IA 50011
gerrymck@iastate.edu
cc: arl-ejournal@arl.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Mon Dec 20 1999 - 18:02:15 EST