The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I
Identifieur interne : 000317 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000316; suivant : 000318The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I
Auteurs : Ingrid Hsiehyee ; Michael SmithSource :
- OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives [ 1065-075X ] ; 2001-09-01.
Abstract
This survey, conducted in late 1999, found that CORC founding libraries shared a strong interest in controlling Internet resources and finding ways to catalog such resources quickly. Many cataloged in MARC. Although only a small number of them experimented with Dublin Core, many of them wanted to explore its potential for organizing Internet resources. Other metadata schemes were also used by some libraries. Overall, the founding libraries considered their CORC experience positive, but had several concerns. Their experience suggests that more work is needed to make fast, automated cataloging a reality. Since the findings of this study reflect experience with CORC at the developmental stage, the researchers proposed that CORC usage be monitored to identify trends in organizing Internet resources. A survey of CORC subscribers could be conducted to understand usage patterns and guide CORCs development and improvement.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000005818
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title><author><name sortKey="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" sort="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" uniqKey="Hsiehyee I" first="Ingrid" last="Hsiehyee">Ingrid Hsiehyee</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Smith, Michael" sort="Smith, Michael" uniqKey="Smith M" first="Michael" last="Smith">Michael Smith</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Cataloging Librarian, Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5</idno><date when="2001" year="2001">2001</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/EUM0000000005818</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000317</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title><author><name sortKey="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" sort="Hsiehyee, Ingrid" uniqKey="Hsiehyee I" first="Ingrid" last="Hsiehyee">Ingrid Hsiehyee</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Smith, Michael" sort="Smith, Michael" uniqKey="Smith M" first="Michael" last="Smith">Michael Smith</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Cataloging Librarian, Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title><idno type="ISSN">1065-075X</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2001-09-01">2001-09-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">17</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="133">133</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="141">141</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1065-075X</idno></series><idno type="istex">4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/EUM0000000005818</idno><idno type="filenameID">1640170304</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1640170304.pdf</idno><idno type="href">eum0000000005818.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1065-075X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This survey, conducted in late 1999, found that CORC founding libraries shared a strong interest in controlling Internet resources and finding ways to catalog such resources quickly. Many cataloged in MARC. Although only a small number of them experimented with Dublin Core, many of them wanted to explore its potential for organizing Internet resources. Other metadata schemes were also used by some libraries. Overall, the founding libraries considered their CORC experience positive, but had several concerns. Their experience suggests that more work is needed to make fast, automated cataloging a reality. Since the findings of this study reflect experience with CORC at the developmental stage, the researchers proposed that CORC usage be monitored to identify trends in organizing Internet resources. A survey of CORC subscribers could be conducted to understand usage patterns and guide CORCs development and improvement.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Ingrid HsiehYee</name><affiliations><json:string>Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Michael Smith</name><affiliations><json:string>Cataloging Librarian, Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Cataloguing</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Computer languages</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Libraries</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>User studies</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Internet</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This survey, conducted in late 1999, found that CORC founding libraries shared a strong interest in controlling Internet resources and finding ways to catalog such resources quickly. Many cataloged in MARC. Although only a small number of them experimented with Dublin Core, many of them wanted to explore its potential for organizing Internet resources. Other metadata schemes were also used by some libraries. Overall, the founding libraries considered their CORC experience positive, but had several concerns. Their experience suggests that more work is needed to make fast, automated cataloging a reality. Since the findings of this study reflect experience with CORC at the developmental stage, the researchers proposed that CORC usage be monitored to identify trends in organizing Internet resources. A survey of CORC subscribers could be conducted to understand usage patterns and guide CORCs development and improvement.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.722</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>610 x 789 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>928</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>4066</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>27027</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>138</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>17</volume><publisherId><json:string>oclc</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>141</last><first>133</first></pages><issn><json:string>1065-075X</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><subject><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Librarianship/library management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Records management & preservation</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library technology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information repositories</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/oclc</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2001</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/EUM0000000005818</json:string></doi><id>4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5</id><score>0.17135896</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><availability><p>EMERALD</p></availability><date>2001</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Ingrid</forename><surname>HsiehYee</surname></persName><affiliation>Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">Michael</forename><surname>Smith</surname></persName><affiliation>Cataloging Librarian, Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title><idno type="pISSN">1065-075X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/oclc</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2001-09-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">17</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="133">133</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="141">141</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/EUM0000000005818</idno><idno type="filenameID">1640170304</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1640170304.pdf</idno><idno type="href">eum0000000005818.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2001</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This survey, conducted in late 1999, found that CORC founding libraries shared a strong interest in controlling Internet resources and finding ways to catalog such resources quickly. Many cataloged in MARC. Although only a small number of them experimented with Dublin Core, many of them wanted to explore its potential for organizing Internet resources. Other metadata schemes were also used by some libraries. Overall, the founding libraries considered their CORC experience positive, but had several concerns. Their experience suggests that more work is needed to make fast, automated cataloging a reality. Since the findings of this study reflect experience with CORC at the developmental stage, the researchers proposed that CORC usage be monitored to identify trends in organizing Internet resources. A survey of CORC subscribers could be conducted to understand usage patterns and guide CORCs development and improvement.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Cataloguing</term></item><item><term>Computer languages</term></item><item><term>Libraries</term></item><item><term>User studies</term></item><item><term>Internet</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-LLM</label><item><term>Librarianship/library management</term></item><label>cat-RMP</label><item><term>Records management & preservation</term></item><label>cat-LTC</label><item><term>Library technology</term></item><label>cat-IREP</label><item><term>Information repositories</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2001-09-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">oclc</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/oclc</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1065-075X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>MCB UP Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/EUM0000000005818</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">1640170304.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">1640170304</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LLM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Librarianship/library management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LTC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library technology</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-RMP</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Records management & preservation</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IREP</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information repositories</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>The CORC experience: survey of founding libraries. Part I </article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Ingrid</given-names> <surname>Hsieh‐Yee</surname></string-name><aff>Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Michael</given-names> <surname>Smith</surname></string-name><aff>Cataloging Librarian, Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>01</day><month>09</month><year>2001</year></pub-date><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>133</fpage><lpage>141</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© MCB UP Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2001</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="eum0000000005818.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><p>This survey, conducted in late 1999, found that CORC founding libraries shared a strong interest in controlling Internet resources and finding ways to catalog such resources quickly. Many cataloged in MARC. Although only a small number of them experimented with Dublin Core, many of them wanted to explore its potential for organizing Internet resources. Other metadata schemes were also used by some libraries. Overall, the founding libraries considered their CORC experience positive, but had several concerns. Their experience suggests that more work is needed to make fast, automated cataloging a reality. Since the findings of this study reflect experience with CORC at the developmental stage, the researchers proposed that CORC usage be monitored to identify trends in organizing Internet resources. A survey of CORC subscribers could be conducted to understand usage patterns and guide CORC’s development and improvement.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cataloguing</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Computer languages</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Libraries</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>User studies</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Internet</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>About this survey</title><p>This article reports on a survey of CORC founding libraries in late 1999. The purpose of the survey was to understand these libraries’ reasons for participating in the CORC project and their experience with the CORC system. Part I of this report covers the background and features of CORC, the debate on controlling Internet resources, available literature on CORC, and the founding libraries’ reasons for joining CORC. Part II covers these libraries’ use of CORC features and their experiences with the CORC project. The survey questions relevant to each part are included. For a complete copy of the survey questionnaire, please contact Ingrid Hsieh‐Yee at hsiehyee@cua.edu</p></sec><sec><title>Part I: Introduction, reasons, and concerns</title><p>Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) began as a research project at OCLC in 1998. The goal of the project is to create a centralized database of Web resources through large‐scale cooperation among libraries. It extends library techniques and procedures, supports emerging metadata standards such as Dublin Core and AACR, implements other standards such as Unicode and RDF, is international in scope, and offers tools for creation and sharing of metadata records and pathfinders (Hickey, 2000). When the prototype service became available in 1999, many libraries began collaborating with the CORC research team in testing the prototype and guiding the development of the service. These libraries are recognized by OCLC as the CORC founding libraries (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/founding.shtm">http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/founding.shtm</ext-link>). In July, 2000, CORC became a full OCLC service. In the early phase of CORC, the database was seeded with records from InterCat and NetFirst. With contributions from founding members and subscribing libraries, it has grown dramatically and contains 446,769 records as of April, 2001.</p><p>The CORC system is built on the Mantis toolkit (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:6464/">http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:6464/</ext-link>), which was designed for building Web‐based cataloging systems and can be considered “a generalized XML editing system, driven in large part by XML templates” (Hickey, 2000, p. 50). It uses Kilroy (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:7080/">http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:7080/</ext-link>) to harvest text documents, generate metadata and check links, and relies on Scorpion (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:6109/">http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:6109/</ext-link>) to extract information from resources and automatically assign DDC class numbers. It can also extract subject words or phrases through WordSmith (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:5061/">http://orc.rsch.oclc.org:5061/</ext-link>), which uses sophisticated extraction routines to identify key phrases in documents. CORC members can search, browse, and create bibliographic records in MARC and Dublin Core formats and choose to maintain, import and export records in MARC, DC RDF, and DC HTML formats. Members also have access to authority files, and authorized headings in CORC records are hyperlinked to the corresponding authority files. In addition, members can search, create and share pathfinders. Details of CORC features and subscriptions can be found at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/featuresandinthe">http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/features and in the</ext-link> “CORC Frequently Asked Questions” (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/oclc/corc/faq/htm">http://www.oclc.org/oclc/corc/faq/htm</ext-link>).</p></sec><sec><title>Cataloging Internet resources</title><p>The large number of resources on the World Wide Web has spurred efforts to organize them. Oder (1998) surveyed tools designed to control Web resources and found room for librarians to contribute. He described the proposals by Gorman and Dillon to control Web resources at four levels and characterized the search for fast, automated cataloging as the Holy Grail. Chepesiuk (1999) described the movement to organize Web resources and the librarian’s role in cataloging Web resources with MARC and Dublin Core. He also presented diverse views on the wisdom of cataloging Internet materials in MARC and underscored concerns over how to effectively and efficiently control information resources that are dynamic and enormous in volume. Many librarians and researchers endorsed the cataloging approach and believed that carefully selected Web resources ought to be cataloged and integrated into library catalogs (e.g., Hillmann, 1996; Jul, 1997; Morgan, 1996; Olson, 1997; Vellucci, 1996). Weber (1999) discussed the challenges in selecting and cataloging Internet resources, and Veatch (1999) described how the Nashville State Technical Library included Internet resources in its online catalog, and the effects of those resources on users. But critics like Tennant (1998) found the cataloging approach limiting and costly. Oder (2000) described the growth and the potential of CORC and other projects and reiterated that the critical task in describing resources remained to be determining “how much time and to what level of detail” (p. 51). Mason <italic>et al.</italic> (2000) used INFOMINE records to illustrate how they struck a balance between cataloging and minimal indexing to provide adequate descriptions of resources for virtual libraries.</p></sec><sec><title>CORC literature</title><p>The idea of automated cataloging of Web resources came closer to reality in CORC. Hickey described the project at the research stage (1998). In its founders’ phase, the research team delivered several presentations at ALA mid‐year and annual conferences, and several founding libraries also gave presentations on their experience. For example, Karen Calhoun, Dan Foley, and Duncan D.T. Irvine shared their experiences with CORC at the 1999 ALA Conference (2000), and Senecal (2000) described Dickinson College Library’s experience with CORC. The CORC site includes case studies of how seven libraries used CORC (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/casestudies/">http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/casestudies/</ext-link>). When CORC became a full service, the <italic>OCLC Newsletter</italic> (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/corc/news/">http://www.oclc.org/corc/news/</ext-link>) devoted its July/August, 2000, issue to CORC, describing increased awareness of CORC, CORC features, CORC‐related presentations, and how CORC had been used. The <italic>Journal of Internet Cataloging</italic> also devoted a full issue, volume 4, nos. 1‐2, to CORC. That special issue provides background information on how WordSmith has been implemented in CORC (Godby and Reighart, 2001), how the Dewey Decimal Classification system has been enriched for CORC users (Vizine‐Goetz, 2001), and how the crosswalk between MARC and Dublin Core has been supported (Childress, 2001). It also presents the experiences of several libraries using CORC to organize biomedical Web sites, serials, digital art and digital map images. </p><p>CORC has been both praised for its qualities and potential, and criticized for its implementation problems. Heery (2000) identified CORC as an example of cooperative metadata creation. Considering its potential, Medeiros observed that, “At its least, CORC could become the WorldCat for Internet resources. At best, it could compete with existing search services” (1999, p. 60). Reflecting on their CORC experience, Edmunds and Brisson (2001) pointed out that slowness and system bugs were problematic and the system has yet to implement many important improvements recommended by participants. Cornell University experienced similar problems, expressed concern for the lack of collection development standards for the CORC database and offered recommendations for improving CORC features (CORC at Cornell page, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ivy.mannlib.cornell.edu/corc/">http://ivy.mannlib.cornell.edu/corc/</ext-link>). Ohio State University experimented with the workflow issue by involving Collection Managers in initial CORC record creation (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/tsweb/corcrept.htm">http://www.lib.ohio‐state.edu/tsweb/corcrept.htm</ext-link>). They found that CORC was often down and usually slow, and that the harvester software needed refinement. The National Library of Australia experimented with CORC pathfinder and experienced difficulties with importing pathfinders, formatting subject guides, checking links, using frames, and using the limited pathfinder documentation. They concluded that the CORC pathfinder service at the time “does not conveniently replace or enhance the Library’s subject guides” (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/rmissingham1.html">http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/rmissingham1.html</ext-link>). CORC members have actively encouraged OCLC to improve CORC. The medical library community conducted a survey to determine how desirable it was to place MeSH authority files in CORC. The response was overwhelmingly supportive of such an effort (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.tulane.edu/~matas/HSOCLCUG/resultswchart.html">http://www.tulane.edu/∼matas/HSOCLCUG/resultswchart.html</ext-link>)</p><p>The literature reviewed so far shows that librarians believe cataloging Internet resources is a reasonable way to integrate such resources into the online catalog. CORC has demonstrated the idea of automated cataloging, although with mixed success. While there are articles describing the features and functions of CORC and reports on individual libraries’ experiments with CORC, there has been no major study on CORC participants’ experiences. The study reported in this paper will shed light in this area.</p></sec><sec><title>Goals of this study</title><p>The purpose of this study was to survey libraries that participated in the founders’ phase of the CORC project. The intent was to understand why these early participants chose to join CORC, how they used the system, and how they viewed their experiences with the project.</p></sec><sec><title>Methodology</title><p>The study began in September, 1999. Because the group of participants numbered fewer than 100 at the time, the researchers decided to include the entire group for the study, excluding bibliographic services, library and information science programs, and OCLC’s local network offices. A total of 71 libraries around the world were identified for the study. Since the US Army libraries and several federal libraries joined CORC as participant groups, 12 members from these groups were added to the final list of survey subjects.</p><p>In September, the lead investigator designed a survey instrument and pretested it on five librarians who had taken part in CORC. The instrument was also sent to OCLC for input. The purpose of the pretest was to identify ambiguous statements, test the appropriateness of the questions and the response options, and discover questions that may pose problems to potential respondents. Rapid feedback from pretest subjects enabled the investigator to remove ambiguity from statements and revise the survey instrument quickly. The final product was a three‐page, double‐sided questionnaire containing 51 questions, which was mailed to 83 funding libraries in October, 1999 (see Appendix).</p><p>The researchers sent out a second mailing in early November to encourage response. Survey subjects were also contacted by e‐mail, and OCLC also sent out a message to the CORC listserv to encourage participation in the study.</p></sec><sec><title>Results and analyses</title><p>By January of 2000, 61 libraries had responded, with three libraries promising to send in their survey forms later, four libraries explaining that they did not do enough with CORC to provide credible answers to the survey questions, and 54 providing completed questionnaires. Unfortunately, the three libraries did not send in their forms as promised, but the other four libraries agreed to answer why they chose to take part in CORC. Counting these four answers, the study had a response rate of 70 percent; excluding them, the response rate was 65 percent. Survey responses were coded and entered into StatView, a statistical program, for analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and so on) were calculated, and written comments transcribed for content analysis.</p><sec><title>Reasons for participating in CORC</title><p>The researchers presented a list of 11 reasons for participating in CORC, from which founding libraries were to indicate their top three. Respondents used the value “1” to identify the most important reason, the value “2” for the second most important reason, and the value “3” for the third most important reason. To identify these libraries’ top three reasons, the researchers assigned a score of 3 to the value “1”, 2 to “2”, 1 to “3”, and 0 to reasons not selected by participants. Seven respondents checked off reasons without indicating their importance, so the researchers decided to give those responses the score of 2. Scores assigned to each reason were added up to calculate a total score, and the reason with the highest total score was deemed the most important one to members. The top five reasons for participation (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640170304001">Table I</xref>) revealed that controlling Internet resources was these libraries’ number one reason for joining CORC. Since most survey participants worked in technical services or cataloging units, many of them considered cataloging a reasonable method for controlling Internet resources and expressed a strong interest in finding “ways to catalog such resources quickly” (second top reason). Their background or experience in cataloging probably also contributed to the belief that “catalogers need to work together to control Internet resources” (third top reason). It is worth noting that as catalogers pondered the future of cataloging and the control of Internet resources, many of them showed an interest in exploring the use of Dublin Core (fourth top reason). To some participants, the interest in shaping the future of cataloging was another good reason for joining CORC (fifth top reason).</p></sec><sec><title>Features not of top concern to early CORC founding libraries</title><p>The CORC Pathfinder database was designed to facilitate the creation and sharing of pathfinders. Data show that 50 percent of the survey participants have used the Pathfinder database, but very few respondents selected reasons related to pathfinders as their main reasons for joining CORC. This could be because most participants were more concerned about the cataloging of Internet resources than about the creation of pathfinders, which could be done with HTML editors. CORC Pathfinder offers features not supported by HTML editors and enables pathfinder creators to draw on records for electronic resources from the CORC Resource Catalog to build pathfinders. The use of these features will be discussed later in the pathfinder section.</p><p>CORC users have the option to produce their bibliographic records in Resource Description Framework (RDF) format, and it is interesting that only four libraries mentioned this feature as their reason for participation. RDF provides a framework for resources description and is designed to facilitate the exchange of metadata on the Web. Specifically, RDF supports “a variety of Web‐based metadata activities including sitemaps, content ratings, stream channel definitions, search engine data collection (Web crawling), digital library collections, and distributed authoring, using Extensible Markup Language (XML) as an interchange syntax (Semantic Web Activity: Resource Description Framework (RDF), <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/RDF/">http://www.w3.org/RDF/</ext-link>). Several authors have discussed the roles and value of RDF for controlling Internet resources (Heery, 1998; Medeiros, 2000; Miller, 1998; Powell, 1998). DC‐dot (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot/">http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot/</ext-link>), a Dublin Core metadata editor provided by the UK Office for Library and Information Networking (UKOLN), supports record output in RDF format. OCLC also has implemented RDF in XML and used them extensively in CORC in anticipation of future needs for knowledge exchange on the Web (RDF, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/rdf.shtm">http://www.oclc.org/corc/about/rdf.shtm</ext-link>). According to OCLC, some libraries are building systems that will accept metadata in RDF. But by late 1999, RDF had not yet been widely implemented in libraries.</p><p>CORC also has an ambitious goal of supporting various metadata schemes, in addition to Dublin Core. But only five libraries selected this as a major reason for joining CORC. This could be because many libraries were at an early stage in controlling Internet resources and few of them had collections encoded in schemes such as Text Encoding Initiative or Encoded Archival Description. This situation could change as more digital resources are created and more digital collections are developed.</p></sec><sec><title>Use of Dublin Core, RDF, and other metadata schemes</title><p>Respondents’ use of Dublin Core, RDF, and other metadata schemes suggests that the use of metadata schemes was limited in libraries by the end of 1999. Results show that most libraries (93 percent) did not use Dublin Core to organize regular collections. Sixty percent of respondents did not use Dublin Core to organize special materials such as media, but 17 percent did and 22 percent planned to do so later. Only 9 percent of respondents had a search system based on Dublin Core elements, 19 percent planned to have such systems later, and 72 percent had no plans to have such systems. The use of the RDF format showed a similar pattern, with 76 percent of respondents not using it, 4 percent using it, and 20 percent planning to use it later. Similarly, 62 percent of respondent reported not using any metadata schemes beyond Dublin Core to organize their resources. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640170304002">Table II</xref> presents a summary of these results.</p><p>Of the respondents, 38 percent reported using metadata schemes other than Dublin Core to organize their resources, and a large number of schemes were reported. They are listed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640170304003">Table III</xref>. Thirty‐two percent of the respondents indicated that catalogers were involved in using these metadata schemes, 45 percent said the schemes were used in special projects and catalogers were not involved, and 23 percent said they expected catalogers to be involved later. Participants also named several metadata schemes of potential value to them, including TEI, EAD, VRA Core, GILS (Government Information Locator Service), GEM (Gateway to Educational Materials), IMS (Instructional Management System), and FGDC. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_1640170304004">Table AI</xref></p></sec></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640170304001"><label><bold>Table I<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Top five reasons for participating in CORC</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640170304001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640170304002"><label><bold>Table II<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Use of DC, RDF, and other metadata schemes</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640170304002.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640170304003"><label><bold>Table III<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Other metadata schemes used by participants</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640170304003.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_1640170304004"><label><bold>Table AI<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Questionnaire</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1640170304004.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chepesiuk</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Organizing the Internet: the ‘core’ of the challenge</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>60</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Childress</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Crosswalking metadata in the OCLC CORC service</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Internet Cataloging</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>4</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue>, pp. <fpage>81</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation>”<article-title><italic>CORC – Cooperative Online Resource Catalog: report of a session at the 1999 ALA Conference</italic></article-title>” (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>295</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Edmunds</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brisson</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging in CORC: a work in progress</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Internet Cataloging</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>4</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue>, pp. <fpage>89</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>109</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Godby</surname>, <given-names>C.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Reighart</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Terminology identification in a collection of Web resources</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Internet Cataloging</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>4</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue>, pp. <fpage>49</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>65</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Heery</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>What is … RDF? Resource Description Framework</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Ariadne</italic></source>, No. <volume>14</volume>, <issue>March</issue>, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue14/what-is/">http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue14/what‐is/</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Heery</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information gateways: collaboration on content</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>40</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hickey</surname>, <given-names>T.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>CORC – Cooperative Online Resource Catalog</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Annual Review of OCLC Research</italic></source>, 1998, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/oclc/research/publications/review98/hickey/corc.htm">http://www.oclc.org/oclc/research/publications/review98/hickey/corc.htm</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hickey</surname>, <given-names>T.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>CORC: a system for gateway creation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>49</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>53</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hillmann</surname>, <given-names>D.I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>Parallel universes’ of meaningful relationships: envisioning a future for the OPAC and the net</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>97</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>103</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jul</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging Internet resources: survey and prospectus</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>6</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mason</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mitchell</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mooney</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Reasoner</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rodriguez</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>INFOMINE: promising directions in virtual library development</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>First Monday</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>5</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, June, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_6/mason/index.html">http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_6/mason/index.html</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Medeiros</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Making room for MARC in a Dublin core world</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>. Also available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag">http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Medeiros</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>XML and the resource description frameowkr: the great Web hope</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>37</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>40</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>An introduction to the resource description framework</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, <volume>May</volume>, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may98/miller/05miller.html">http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may98/miller/05miller.html</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Morgan</surname>, <given-names>E.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>Possible solutions for incorporating digital information mediums into traditional library cataloging services</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>143</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>70</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Oder</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging the Net: can we do it?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>123</volume> No. <issue>16</issue>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Oder</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging the Net: two years later</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>125</volume> No. <issue>16</issue>, pp. <fpage>50</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>1</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Olson</surname>, <given-names>N.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.) (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Cataloging Internet Resources: A Manual and Practical Guide</italic></source>. <edition>2nd ed,</edition> <publisher-name>OCLC</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Dublin, OH</publisher-loc>. Also available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.htm">http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.htm</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Powell</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Metadata for the Web, RDF and the Dublin Core</italic></article-title>”, available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/ukolug98/">http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/ukolug98/</ext-link> (accessed: 2001, April 2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Senecal</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>The twofold promise of the CORC project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Systems & Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>84</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>90</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tennant</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>The art and science of digital bibliography</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>123</volume> No. <issue>17</issue>, pp. <fpage>28</fpage><x>, </x><lpage>30</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Veatch</surname>, <given-names>J.R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Insourcing the Web</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>64</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vellucci</surname>, <given-names>S.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>Herding cats: options for organizing electronic resources</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Internet Reference Services Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>9</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>30</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vizine‐Goetz</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Dewey in CORC: classification in metadata and pathfinders</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Internet Cataloging</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>4</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue>, pp. <fpage>67</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>80</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Weber</surname>, <given-names>M.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Factors to be considered in the selection and cataloging of Internet resources</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>17</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>298</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>303</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app><title>Appendix</title><sec><title>Implications for practitioners</title><p>This summary has been provided to allow a rapid appreciation of the significance of the content of this article. Browsers may then choose to read the article in toto, to derive full benefit from the authors’ work.</p><p>The Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) has come a long way from its beginnings as a research project. That is how it started in 1998, and it has expanded rapidly while extending library procedures and supporting such metadata standards as Dublin Core.</p><p>In April CORC contained 446,769 records, and the resource has brought the idea of automated cataloging of Web resources close to reality.</p><p>There has, inevitably, been much debate about the extent to which CORC has succeeded. Users have admired its qualities and potential while expressing concern over implementation problems. Literature on the subject supports the view that cataloging Internet resources is a reasonable way to integrate them into the online catalog. Plenty has been written, too, on CORC’s features and functions as well as on individual libraries’ experiments. Now, for the first time, a study has taken an over‐view of CORC participants’ experiences.</p><p>The survey sought to discover why early participants chose to join CORC, how they used it and how they viewed their experiences. Seventy‐one libraries around the world were identified for the study which started with a pretest on five librarians, to test appropriateness of questions and alert compilers to any potential ambiguities.</p><p>The final product, with 51 questions, was mailed to 83 funding libraries in October 1999. The final response rate was around two‐thirds. A complex scoring system was devised in which founding libraries had to indicate their top three (from11) reasons for participating in CORC.</p><p>Top came the belief that controlling Internet resources for users was paramount. Second came the desire to find ways to catalog these resources quickly – an unsurprising response as most survey participants worked in technical services or cataloging units. Participants also expressed the view, in third place, that ’catalogers need to work together to control Internet resources’.</p><p>CORC supports emerging metadata standards such as Dublin Core and, interestingly, many catalogers wanted – the fourth reason – to explore further its use. The fifth top reason, linked to this, was the concern some professionals expressed to shape the future of cataloging.</p><p>Of equal interest are those features which early CORC founding libraries did not find to be of top concern. While 50 percent of survey participants had used the Pathfinder database, few selected reasons related to pathfinders for joining CORC. Perhaps this is because cataloging of Internet resources is more important; creating of pathfinders can be achieved with HTML editors.</p><p>Only four libraries mentioned the possibility of producing bibliographic records in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) format. Generally, libraries have been slow to implement RDF, though some institutions are building systems that will accept metadata in that format.</p><p>There appears to be some enthusiasm for Dublin Core. However, this does not seem to extend to other metadata schemes which CORC wants to support – only five libraries selected them as a reason for joining. Then again, 38 percent of respondents did report using other metadata schemes. It seems likely that as more digital resources are created, and digital collections are developed, this figure could grow.</p><p>(Précis provided to MCB University Press by consultants.)</p></sec></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ingrid</namePart><namePart type="family">HsiehYee</namePart><affiliation>Associate Professor at the School of Library and Information Science, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michael</namePart><namePart type="family">Smith</namePart><affiliation>Cataloging Librarian, Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2001-09-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2001</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">This survey, conducted in late 1999, found that CORC founding libraries shared a strong interest in controlling Internet resources and finding ways to catalog such resources quickly. Many cataloged in MARC. Although only a small number of them experimented with Dublin Core, many of them wanted to explore its potential for organizing Internet resources. Other metadata schemes were also used by some libraries. Overall, the founding libraries considered their CORC experience positive, but had several concerns. Their experience suggests that more work is needed to make fast, automated cataloging a reality. Since the findings of this study reflect experience with CORC at the developmental stage, the researchers proposed that CORC usage be monitored to identify trends in organizing Internet resources. A survey of CORC subscribers could be conducted to understand usage patterns and guide CORCs development and improvement.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Cataloguing</topic><topic>Computer languages</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>User studies</topic><topic>Internet</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LLM">Librarianship/library management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-RMP">Records management & preservation</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LTC">Library technology</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IREP">Information repositories</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">1065-075X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">oclc</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/oclc</identifier><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>17</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>133</start><end>141</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/EUM0000000005818</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">1640170304</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">1640170304.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">eum0000000005818.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© MCB UP Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Ticri/explor/TeiVM2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000317 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000317 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Ticri
|area= TeiVM2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:4ECFCB4EDF52E8E493A5F3D0EFB3D59F7A5F78B5
|texte= The CORC experience survey of founding libraries. Part I
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |