1. Highlights of the Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for Chinese E-Resources Susan Xue, UC Berkeley March 25, 2014

2. Background  CEAL established the Task Force on Metadata Standard and Best Practice (CEAL ERMB) in November 2013 to tackle issues related to discovering and accessing CJK e- resources  The ERMB conducted a survey between January 24 – February 21, 2014  Vendor/Publisher version of the Survey was sent to 33 vendors in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the U.S., 10 responses received  Library version of the survey was sent via CEAL and CALA and other listserv, 54 responses (Chinese studies) received

3. Findings in four areas  Metadata provided by vendors and wish to receive by librarians, for non-index databases and continuing databases  Vendors and librarians’ view on relationship between metadata and link resolution services  What standards and best practices followed by vendors and what standards and best practices librarians wish them to follow  Difficulties in promoting metadata standards and best practices

4. Findings – metadata services provided and received  Most vendors provide basic metadata, such as current title list, author, data and place of publication, and publisher for non-index databases; and newly added titles for continuing databases  Few vendors provide either “Free brief Marc” or “Fee-based Marc” records  For non-index databases, librarians’ top 5 in wish-list is different from what vendors provided: full-level Marc records, automatic error report mechanism, subject headings and URL checking services  For metadata other than current title list and URL, librarians’ wish list is almost the same with what vendors provided but in different order  For continuing resources, there is a large distance between what tracking metadata vendors have provided and what tracking metadata librarians wish to receive

5. Highlights of vendors’ responses – metadata services provided What metadata services provided for e-books, e-journals, etc? Title list of current resources only7 (70%) Comprehensive list labeled with materials status5 (50%) Free brief MARC records4 (40%) Fee-based brief MARC records2 (20%) Subject headings and classification numbers3 (30%) URL checking3 (30%) Free Full-level MARC records1 (10%) Fee-based full-level MARC records2 (20%) Automatic online error report and instant fix0 What metadata provided besides current title and URL? Author/Issuing organization10 (100%) Place(s) of publication8 (80%) Date(s) of publication8 (80%) Publisher7 (70%) Page and volume info7 (70%) Summary6 (60%) ISBN/ISSN/ISRC or other standard number5 (50%) Edition info5 (50%) Romanization4 (40%) Persistent links other than native URL (DOI, etc)2 (20%) Date added to the package/database2 (20%) What tracking metadata provided for continuing resources? Newly added titles7 (70%) Earlier title info recorded under its current title5 (50%) Withdrawn/discontinued/ceased titles3 (30%) Separate entries/records of earlier titles4 (40%) Other related title info4 (40%) Brief title history3 (30%) Later title(s)1 (10%)

6. Librarians’ responses – metadata received and wish to receive What metadata services do you currently obtain from vendors for e- books, e-journals, etc Free brief MARC records34 (63%) Title lists of current resources only30 (56%) Free full-level descriptive MARC records20 (37%) Comprehensive title lists labeled with materials status18 (33%) Fee-based full-level descriptive MARC records10 (18%) Comprehensive title lists plus separate title list for new titles and withdrawn titles 8 (15%) Fee-based brief records6 (11%) Subject headings and classification numbers4 (7%) URL checking service4 (7%) Automatic error report mechanism4 (7%) What metadata services would you like to be supplied for e-books, e- journals, etc.? Full-level descriptive MARC records from vendors (free or with minimum charge) 35 (67%) Automatic error report mechanism31 (57%) Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service 31 (57%) Comprehensive title lists plus separate title list for new titles and withdrawn titles 29 (54%) URL checking service28 (52%) Comprehensive title lists labeled with materials status25 (46%) Full-level bibliographic records in other metadata schemes for specific types of e-resources 22 (41%) Free brief MARC records17 (31%) Fee-based full-level descriptive MARC records15 (28%) Top 5

7. Librarians’ responses – metadata other than current titles and URL received and wish to receive What metadata do you currently receive besides current titles and URL? ISBN/ISSN/ISRC or other standard number39 (72%) Publisher39 (72%) Date(s) of publication38 (70%) Author/Issuing organization35 (65%) Edition info35 (65%) Place(s) of publication33 (61%) Series title26 (48%) Other identifier info25 (46%) Page and volume info25 (46%) Other titles, including clear indication of earlier title(s) and later title(s) 23 (42%) Holdings and restrictions info20 (37%) Summary19 (35%) Persistent links other than native URL (DOI, etc)14 (26%) Romanization11 (20%) System requirements9 (17%) Date added to the package/database7 (13%) What metadata would you like to have besides current titles and URL? Other titles, including clear indication of earlier title(s) and later title(s) 39 (72%) ISBN/ISSN/ISRC or other standard number38 (70%) Publisher35 (65%) Date(s) of publication34 (63%) Author/Issuing organization33 (61%) Series title33 (61%) Edition info32 (59%) Place(s) of publication32 (59%) Summary32 (59%) Table of contents32 (59%) Holdings and restrictions info31 (57%) Page and volume info29 (54%) Persistent links other than native URL (DOI, etc)28 (52%) System requirements27 (50%) Other identifier info25 (46%) Date added to the package/database23 (43%) Top 10

8. Librarians’ responses – tracking metadata received and wish to receive What tracking metadata for continuing resources are currently supplied by vendors? Newly added titles28 (52%) Withdrawn/discontinued/ceased titles24 (44%) Separate entries/records of earlier titles9 (17%) Later title(s)8 (15%) Earlier title info recorded under its current title7 (13%) Other related title info7 (13%) Brief title history6 (11%) What tracking metadata would you like to be supplied by providers? Newly added titles41 (76%) Withdrawn/discontinued/ceased titles41 (76%) Separate entries/records of earlier titles31 (57%) Earlier title info recorded under its current title30 (55%) Later title(s)30 (55%) Brief title history27 (50%) Other related title info26 (48%)

9. Findings – relationship between metadata and link resolution services  It seems a new area to both vendors and librarians. 50% of the vendors never interacted with such services; 40% of librarians have not used or not clear about such service  When knowing the services, vendors are willing to provide metadata at some level either free or with a fee  44% of librarians surveyed used records created by such services, which seems not widely used Relationship with link resolution services (such as Serials Solution and OCLC)? Provide them with title lists with or without a fee3 (30%) Metadata available upon request3 (30%) Never interacted, have no plan of doing so3 (30%) Never interacted, in consideration of doing so2 (20%) Provide them with MARC records with or without a fee2 (20%) Metadata freely downloadable from website2 (20%)

10. Findings – what standards to follow  Some of the standards that vendors are following was ranked low in librarians list, such as AACR2, and other classification (Chinese classification scheme?)  There is discrepancy between what standards vendors followed and what standards librarians thought vendors followed  RDA is a new standard implemented in North America that vendors may be not aware of  Library of Congress Subject heading is a standard that is important to librarians but ranked low in vendors list Top 5 standards and best practices vendors are following Top 5 standards that vendors are following in librarians point of view Top 5 standards that librarians thought would improve user access MARC 21OpenURL Other classificationMARC 21ISSN, ISBN, ISRC… RDA PIE-JDOILCSH AACR2DOI

11. Highlights of vendors’ responses – standards followed & are interested in following What standards and best practices you currently follow? MARC 217 (70%) Other classification5 (50%) ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifier5 (50%) Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J)4 (40%) Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)4 (40%) Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART)3 (30%) Open URL3 (30%) Digital Object Identifier (DOI)3 (30%) AACR23 (30%) RDA3 (30%) Dewey Decimal Classification3 (30%) LC Classification2 (20%) Name authority headings2 (20%) Other subject headings1 (10%) Online Information eXchange (ONIX)1 (10%) PCC guidelines of standards1 (10%) What standards and best practice would you be interested in following? DOI5 (50%) MARC 214 (40%) ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifier4 (40%) KBART4 (40%) OpenURL4 (40%) PIE-J3 (30%) LCSH3 (30%) Dewey3 (30%) AACR22 (20%) RDA2 (20%) LC Classification2 (20%) Name authority headings2 (20%) Other classification2 (20%) Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc)2 (20%) PCC guidelines of standards1 (10%) Top 5

12. Librarians responses – standards followed and hope vendors to follow What standards and best practices your providers currently follow? OpenURL28 (52%) MARC 2124 (44%) ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifier19 (35%) DOI16 (30%) AACR216 (30%) LCSH16 (30%) LC Classification15 (28%) PIE-J13 (24%) KBART8 (15%) Dewey8 (15%) RDA7 (13%) Other classification6 (11%) Other subject headings4 (7%) Name authority headings4 (7%) Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc)1 (2%) What standards and best practices do you think would improve user experience and are worth promoting? OpenURL32 (59%) ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifier31 (57%) RDA30 (55%) LCSH28 (52%) DOI27 (50%) MARC 2125 (46%) LC Classification25 (46%) Name authority headings24 (44%) KBART21 (39%) PIE-J20 (37%) Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc)18 (33%) PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N R-resources15 (28%) AACR213 (24%) Other subject headings8 (15%) Dewey8 (15%) Other classification5 (9%) Top 5

13. Findings – difficulties in promoting metadata standards  Both vendors (50%) and librarians (65%) agree that complying with standards will increase product cost  Both vendors (30%) and librarians (55%) thought that vendors have no metadata expertise to provide certain metadata or follow the standards  Majority (59%) of librarians and 1/3 vendors surveyed thought it would be more feasible to comply with standards for future products, not for existing ones  About half the librarians (48%) and vendors (40%) surveyed thought such metadata don’t accommodate the needs of CJK resources/scripts  Many librarians (42%) and 1/3 vendor surveyed thought such metadata don’t necessarily eliminate problems  Majority of the librarians (63%) surveyed agree that it is tough to communicate with CJK vendors in making changes

14. Vendors and librarians’ responses – reasons not to follow standards Vendors: Are you aware there are established standards? Yes7 (70%) No, but wish to get information on this3 (30%) Vendors: Why does your company choose not to comply with some or all of the standards/best practices Complying with standards increases product cost5 (50%) Such metadata don’t accommodate the needs of CJK resources/scripts4 (40%) Such metadata don’t necessarily eliminate problems3 (30%) Consider complying with standards for future products, not for existing ones3 (30%) Lack metadata expertise to provide certain metadata3 (30%) Unaware of the standards1 (10%) Librarians: What would be the least or most challenging issues anticipated in promoting metadata standards and best practices? (total of 6, 7 and 8) Complying with standards increases product cost35 (65%) It is tough to communicate with CJK vendors in making changes34 (63%) Unawareness of the standards34 (63%) It is more feasible to require vendors to comply with standards for future products 32 (59%) Standards are too complicated to understand31 (57%) Vendors have no metadata expertise to provide certain metadata30 (55%) Such metadata don’t accommodate CJK resources/scripts26 (48%) Such metadata don’t necessarily eliminate problems23 (42%)