Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for E-Resources - Results and Observations (Japanese) - Mieko Mazza Stanford University Workshop on Electronic Resources Standards and Best Practices CEAL Annual Meeting Pre-Conference Workshop 25 March 2014, PA

Library Responses 14 responses received 13 respondents from academic and research libraries, 1 from national library 11 respondents are in Japan, 3 in the United States Mainly manage Japanese-language materials More than half of respondents agree very few Japanese providers/publishers have interaction with link resolution services (Q8a)

Q1a. What type of library do you work for? Public library00% National library17% Academic and research library 1387% School library00% Corporate library00% Private non-profit library00% Special library17% Other00%

Q1b. Your library location Mainland China00% Hong Kong00% Macau00% Taiwan00% Japan1179% Korea00% Mongolia00% Other Asian areas00% United States321% Canada00% Central/South America00% Europe00% Australia00% Africa00% Other00%

Q1c. i. How many Chinese electronic packages/databases, complete set or selected resources, has your library acquired? 0750% % % % % % % 41+00% Not applicable (Please check here if you do not manage Chinese e- resources.) 321%

Q1c.ii. How many Japanese electronic packages/databases has your library acquired?

Q1c.iii. How many Korean electronic packages/databases has your library acquired or subscribed to? 0857% % % % % % % 31+00% Not applicable (Please check here if you do not manage Korean e- resources.) 321%

Q1g. Types of the resources you primarily manage or serve

Q1h. Languages of the resources you primarily manage Chinese14% Japanese1454% Korean14% English1038% Tibetan00% Manchu00% Mongolian00% Other00%

Q2a. For non-index (non-bibliographic) and non-reference packages/databases of e- books, e-journals, streaming media, maps, etc., what metadata services do you CURRENTLY obtain from the providers? Title lists of current resources only, excluding the withdrawn titles721% Comprehensive title lists labeled with material status, such as withdrawn, ceased, etc. 412% Comprehensive title lists plus separate title lists/sheets for new titles and withdrawn titles 515% Free brief MARC records515% Fee-based brief MARC records13% Free full-level descriptive MARC records (include at least title, parallel title, other title info, author and contributor, edition, type of publication, first place of publication, first publishers, date(s) of publication, identifier (e.g., ISBN), series information, d notes if applicable). Does not include subject headings, such as LCSH, and/or classification, such as Library of Congress classification (LCC). 515% Fee-based full-level descriptive MARC records39% Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service13% URL checking service13% An automatic error report mechanism that facilitates easy online instant report and instant fix on access and metadata problems 13% Other00%

Q2b. What metadata services WOULD YOU LIKE the providers to supply? Comprehensive title lists labeled with material status, such as withdrawn, ceased, etc. 516% Comprehensive title lists plus separate title lists/sheets for new titles and withdrawn titles 516% Free brief MARC records13% Full-level descriptive MARC records from vendors (free or with minimum charge) 723% Full-level descriptive MARC records from cataloging utilities (fee-based) 310% Full-level bibliographic records in other metadata schemes for special types of e-resources 13% Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service 310% URL checking service310% An automatic error report mechanism that facilitates easy online instant report and instant fix on access and metadata problems 26% Other13%

Q3a. What metadata do you CURRENTLY receive from your vendors/publishers besides current title and URL?

Q3b. What metadata WOULD YOU LIKE to have besides current title and URL? Author/Issuing organization77% ISBN/ISSN/ISRC or other standard number99% Other identifier information44% Other titles, including earlier title(s) and later title(s)88% Edition information99% Place of publication66% Publisher(s)77% Date of publication77% Page and volume information44% Series title77% System requirements33% Summary77% Table of Contents77% Romanization (such as Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Modern-Hepburn, Korean McCune-Reischauer Romanization, etc.), please specify in the blank under "other" below 22% Holdings and restrictions info (year coverage, moving wall, etc.)55% Persistent links other than native URL (DOI, etc.)77% Date added to the package/database11% Other00%

Q7. How does your library use the metadata in knowledge bases (KBs) created by link resolution services (Serials Solutions, Ex Libris, OCLC, etc.) for cataloging at title-level? We buy records from link resolution services 640% We convert the metadata in KBs to brief records 427% We do not catalog the resources at title-level and do not use the metadata for cataloging purposes 213% None of the above320% Other00%

Library responses (continued) Q8. How challenging are the following CJK-related issues in the KBs of major link resolutions services? h) Link resolution service providers’ lacking expertise to manage CJK resources

Library responses (continued) Q9. Are you aware that there are established national and international standards and best practices for describing electronic resources (or for providing bibliographic data)?

Library responses (continued) 76% expressed the most challenging issue when promoting metadata standards and best practices to vendors/publishers is the fact that vendors are unaware of the standards (Q11a)

Vendor responses 7 responses received Many provide multiple services: Publisher/Vendor/Provider/Aggregator/Platfor m provider/Identifier registry provider 4 of 7 respondents have 11+ years each in the electronic resources industry All 7 respondents are located in Japan

Q1a. Business type Publisher542% Vendor/Provider/Aggregat or 433% Platform provider325% Identifier registry provider (e.g., DOI registration agency) 00% Other00%

Q1d. Types of E-resources primarily provided E-books431% E-journals18% Online news sources323% Other full-text databases (journal articles, proceedings, dissertations, etc.) 215% References/Indexes Databases 323% Maps/GIS00% Streaming media00% Other00%

Vendor responses (continued) Q1e. Languages of the e-resources primarily provided

Q2. For non-index (non-bibliographic) and non-reference packages/databases of e- books, e-journals, streaming media, maps, etc., what metadata services do you provide? Title lists of current resources only, excluding the withdrawn titles240% Comprehensive title lists labeled with material status, such as withdrawn, ceased, etc. 00% Comprehensive title lists plus separate title lists/sheets for new titles and withdrawn titles 00% Free brief MARC records120% Fee-based brief MARC records00% Free full-level MARC records (include at least title, parallel title, other title info, author and contributor, edition, type of publication, first place of publication, first publishers, date(s) of publication, identifier (e.g., ISBN), series information, and notes if applicable) 240% Fee-based full-level MARC records00% Subject headings and classification numbers assigning service00% URL checking service00% An automatic mechanism that facilitates easy online error report and instant fix on access and metadata problems 00% Other00%

Q3. What metadata do you provide besides current title and URL? Author/Issuing organization414% ISBN/ISSN/ISRC or other standard number310% Other identifier information00% Other titles, including earlier title(s) and later title(s)00% Edition information414% Place(s) of publication310% Publisher(s)414% Date(s) of publication414% Page and volume information27% Series title27% System requirements00% Summary13% Table of Contents13% Romanization (such as Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Modern-Hepburn, Korean McCune-Reischauer Romanization, etc.), please specify in the blank under "other" below 13% Holdings and restrictions info (year coverage, moving wall, etc.)00% Persistent links other than native URL (DOI, etc.)00% Date added to the package/database00% Other00%

Q4. For subscription based resources and continuing resources such as journals and magazines, how often do you supply metadata (title list, MARC records, etc.) to customers?

Q5. For subscription based resources and continuing resources such as journals and magazines, what tracking metadata do you provide in response to changes in titles, publication patterns, and relationships between parties? Newly added titles00% Withdrawn/discontinued/ceased titles 00% Separate entries/records of earlier title(s) 00% Earlier title info recorded under the entry of its current title 150% Later title(s)00% Other related titles info such as part titles, common titles, etc. 00% Brief title history00% Current titles for the provided resources only without any title info listed above 150% Other00%

Q6. How do you distribute the metadata of your e-content (title list, MARC records, etc.) to customers? automatically120% upon request240% Posted online irregularly with notification 00% Posted online irregularly w/o notification 00% Posted online regularly with notification 240% Posted online regularly w/o notification 00% FTP pickup00% Other00%

Vendor responses (continued) 4 respondents have never interacted with link resolution services but are considering doing so, while 3 have been proactively providing them with title lists/MARC records (Q7) Only 1 respondent is aware of the existence of national and international standards and best practices for describing electronic resources for providing bibliographic data, while 4 respondents wish to get more information about them (Q9)

Vendor responses (continued) Only 2 responded on current use of metadata and both use MARC21 (Q10a) 4 respondents showed interest in OpenURL and some interests in DOI, ONIX, ONIX-PL (Q10b) Reasons for not complying varied. Except for cost, all answers were selected (Q11)

Vendor responses (continued) Q11. Why does your company choose not to comply with some or all of the standards and best practices?

Observations Both librarians and vendors expressed concerns for the current metadata standards Both librarians and vendors expressed a strong desire to establish simple yet comprehensible metadata standards Strong expectations for ERMB task force to take a leading role and provide active communication between library professionals and vendors