MeSH in CORC Survey MeSH in CORC Survey
Results, Including Respondent Comments
Wednesday, February 7, 2001
An invitation to complete a survey on the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and OCLC's Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) was sent out in early January of 2001. Mary Holt, Tulane University's Rudolph Matas Library; Betsy Friesen, Bio-Medical Library, University of Minnesota; Dan Kniesner, Oregon Health Sciences University Library; and Joan Gregory from the Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah were responsible for the development of the survey. The survey was mounted on the University of Utah's server as a web form created by Joan Gregory with the assistance of Sharon Dennis from Eccles Health Sciences Library who graciously provided the required cgi programming. The results were placed in a database which were imported into Excel for compiling and calculation.
Announcements to encourage participation in the survey were sent to electronic lists: AUTOCAT, CORC-L, MEDCAT, MEDLIB-L and the OLAC list. The invitation to participate in the survey was posted on January 9th, 2001 and a reminder was posted on January 26th, 2001 just prior to the January 31st deadline. The subject line for the message was: MeSH in CORC: an invitation to complete a quick survey. The survey was brief, eight questions. Seven of the questions could be answered by selecting radial buttons for the desired response; however, there was an opportunity for individual comments on each question, plus open comments and concerns on the last question of the survey. Respondents were able to leave any question blank that they wished. The respondents were required to enter their email address, but email addresses were not correlated to the responses in any way.
The HSOCLCUG survey was available from January 6th through January 31st, 2001 at:
http://medstat.med.utah.edu/corc/meshcorcsurvey.html
The text that was used as an introduction to the survey follows:
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) / Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) Survey
The Health Sciences OCLC Users Group (HSOCLCUG) has lobbied OCLC for some time to have the entire Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) authority file loaded into the OCLC Cataloging System. New technologies in OCLC's Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) may offer the opportunity to have the MeSH file loaded in the CORC environment.
With that in mind, HSOCLCUG submitted a proposal to OCLC requesting that MeSH be loaded into the OCLC CORC database. The proposal will be on the agenda of the Collections and Technical Services Interest Group at the February 2001 OCLC Users Council meeting. Initial response has been positive. The discussion is now turning to details. The first detail is whether we want OCLC to load only the topical headings or to try to load everything, including publication types, topical subheadings, etc., which would delay implementation.
We'd like to get a sense of how librarians feel about OCLC loading MeSH into CORC. We are also interested in how all types of libraries are handling access and description of health science electronic resources. Discussion on the topic would be welcome on MEDCAT, CORC-L and other appropriate lists. In addition, a health sciences special interest group is being officially formed through the CORC Users Group.
The survey deadline is January 31, 2001. The results of the survey will be used to assist discussion of the proposal by the Collections and Technical Services Interest Group at February's OCLC Users Council meeting.
Reported Data, Tuesday, February 6, 2001
Total Respondents to the survey: 109
Breakdown by respondent's email domain:
.AU 2 (1.0%)
.CA 3 (2.8%)
.COM 8 (7.3%)
.EDU 73 (67.0%)
.GOV 5 (4.6%)
.MIL 2 (1.9%)
.NET 3 (2.8%)
.ORG 10 (9.2%)
.US 2 (1.9%)
.ZA 1 (1.0%)
|
Searched, created, edited and/or exported more than 20 CORC since July 2000 |
27 |
|
Searched, created, edited and/or exported less than 20 CORC records records since July 2000 |
29 |
|
No use since July 2000 |
53 |
|
No answer |
0 |
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 1:
I search only.
________________________________________________
We did a time-limited project to catalog electronic resources as part of a staff member's MLIS program, and progressed from that to ongoing cataloging of purchased online resources. Ultimately the plan is to include more cost-free resources as well. However, due to time constraints and the project parameters, using CORC seemed less useful than following standard library procedures and doing full (standard) cataloging into WorldCat.
________________________________________________
I have searched several times, but only tried cataloging in CORC once or twice. I found it more difficult to use than creating an original MARC record. We have added only very selected remote electronic resources to our catalog
________________________________________________
group access member of OCLC
________________________________________________
I don't like the Corc screens, so I do original cataloging (10-15 a month) of electronic resources directly on OCLC, and then, it is my understanding, that it is pulled into Corc the next day.
________________________________________________
I am an OCLC user. I submit new records to OCLC on regular basis. I am interested to participate in CORC program, though the lack of time prevented me from joining the initiative this year.
________________________________________________
In the process of joining our consortium of 8 Western Australian health libraries to CORC at present.
________________________________________________
NELINET - Cataloging with CORC NELINET - Metadata and CORC Created local procedures.
________________________________________________
At the time I tested CORC, the system was unbelievably slow to use.
________________________________________________
Looking to start using CORC in the near future
________________________________________________
NLM records are wholly and almost to a tee, a whole huge entity of subject headings that would confuse non-medical researchers and medical researchers alike if the NLM subject headings were treated like regular LC headings. I see extra searching for non-medical people. I see catalogers developing uneven policies on these subject headings from library to library. I do not see why this undertaking is necessary since most medical people have access to NLM databases. I am talking about LC based subject headings for non-web OCLC records.
________________________________________________
We tapeload to OCLC only.
________________________________________________
2-day training class by AMIGOS in CORC. No actual work in CORC, except that some of our records were recovered during the search in training class.
________________________________________________
I have not been cataloging on OCLC since July 1998, when my hospital library had to go off OCLC for price reasons and return to cataloging on MARCIVE. However, I expect to beginning a new part-time job in a few weeks where I will be cataloging on OCLC again, so these questions are ofo interest to me.
________________________________________________
We are going to start very soon.
________________________________________________
As reference librarian, have searched CORC records fairly often on our OPAC, and will forward good sites for CORC consideration to our cataloger for to add to the database.
________________________________________________
have never used. Our MeSH headings are out of date.
________________________________________________
Have not used CORC as of yet, however, I am keeping up with new developments as I'm sure we will be using CORC in the future.
________________________________________________
As an administrator, I have not used CORC personally, but I support its use in my library
________________________________________________
I have a theoretical interest at this point, as opposed to practical expaerience, but I am encouraging medical catalogers to find ways that CORC would help us.
________________________________________________
As a reference librarian, we use it to search. We also alert our cataloger of sites to CORC
________________________________________________
We anticipate contributing to CORC in the near future.
________________________________________________
In addition to creation of records, we also created pathfinders.
________________________________________________
2. Would an initial load of only the MeSH topical headings in the CORC database be of interest?
|
No Answer |
0 |
|
Yes |
83 |
|
No |
12 |
|
Unsure |
14 |
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 2:
As Authorities Librarian for 2 libraries (a medical library and a main university library), I was initially expected to perform all imports of authority records from OCLC and verify that a) the correct heading had been exported by staff; and b) earlier records in our database were corrected as needed. The primary reason for assigning one person to authority record import was to ensure quality control in our shared database. However, because MeSH headings were not available in any useful form, we had to eliminate MeSH headings from this validation process which, unfortunately, soon led to no authority records being exported by medical catalogers. Quality control for the records they contributed, therefore, became haphazard, with corrections being made only to LCSH, and only when found through other catalogers' work. If MeSH headings were available for export from CORC, WorldCat, or some other source in a format compatible with standard ILS's, that would solve the problem for more than one library.
________________________________________________
The topical headings are of most interest and would be of most use to me, so it would be helpful to have them loaded.
________________________________________________
Let's step up to the millenium with a "do it now" attitude. You can too often plan too much and then someone else has come up with a better way before you even got your foot out the door.
________________________________________________
We absolutely need MeSH authority headings in CORC and WCAT!!!!
________________________________________________
As an academic library it is our policy to use LCSH. We do not delete MeSH headings from records we download but we never add them to records we are creating or editing. The presence of MeSH headings is of no concern to us one way or another.
________________________________________________
It is better to have less than nothing
________________________________________________
I would like this if the cross references were included to the heading.
________________________________________________
Personally, no. But I'd like to see it done for those who need it.
________________________________________________
My library catalogs with NLM Classification, so MeSH headings would be a better fit than LC or Dewey records. LC or Dewey would require extensive editing.
________________________________________________
I hope that if they start with the topical headings, they do continue on with the subheadings at a (not too much later) date.
________________________________________________
Whether the headings get added, or not, doesn't matter to me at this point.
________________________________________________
No meshing up the system.
________________________________________________
Would like the cross references to be included with the heading.
________________________________________________
It will would be very helpful for my library and all medical libraries.
________________________________________________
Anything to improve access to information is beneficial.
________________________________________________
We use the MeSH Browser.
________________________________________________
Our library is for an undergraduate liberal arts program and does not need that level of detail
________________________________________________
Better than nothing
________________________________________________
As a medical library, we add MeSH to all our records. This is VERY important to our users.
________________________________________________
3. Would you prefer that OCLC wait until they are able to load the entire MeSH file, even if it means delaying implementation?
|
No Answer |
0 |
|
Yes |
22 |
|
No |
58 |
|
Unsure |
29 |
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 3:
Especially for someone not overly familiar with MeSH, having the complete file available would be most helpful. In the situation I have described above, some delay in implementation would not have a significant impact.
________________________________________________
The entire file is optimal, but see previous comment.
________________________________________________
What would be loaded, initially, if the full file is not loaded?
________________________________________________
I prefer to have at least topical headings than wait. If the load is succesful and the users can take advantage of MeSH, you have an experience and a additional argument to press OCLC to load the rest of the MeSH file.
________________________________________________
Prefer that OCLC not load MeSH file
________________________________________________
partial usually means never
________________________________________________
The big question in my mind is how long would the delay in implementation be? If the implementation were delayed only 6 months, I would say wait until everything can be loaded. If the delay is one year of more, then a quick initial load would be preferred.
________________________________________________
Would rather have the records in sooner
________________________________________________
It wouldn't matter at all if the headings were loaded all at once or bit by bit.
________________________________________________
The best implementation of this database would be Dewey and Web-based, not LC based.
________________________________________________
The more it is delayed, the more things that will be deemed more important will appear on their development agenda. I think it is time to make the commitment to MESH and the medical library community.
________________________________________________
It does not effect us directly. However, the subdivisions are important for cataloguers. MeSH practices were greatly changed in 1999. Non-medical cataloguers may need the entire file to understand current practices.
________________________________________________
The records can be implemented later.
________________________________________________
I would like to see OCLC load the entire MeSH file. However, getting the topical headings in immediately I think would be preferable than waiting.
________________________________________________
If the entire MeSH can be loaded within the next 12 months, then wait. If longer than 12 months, then load MeSH headings now, followed by subheadings, publication types, etc. as time permits.
________________________________________________
Might depend on the length of the delay
________________________________________________
I think trying it out and finding ways to use it would be good.
________________________________________________
I would like to be able to search MeSh within the CORC environment.
________________________________________________
|
No Answer |
1 |
|
Yes |
91 |
|
No |
7 |
|
Unsure |
10 |
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 4:
Since there are separate medical catalogers in the Medical Library, availability of this file would have no impact on _cataloging_ work in the main library. It would have a huge impact on the process of importing and validating authority records to the local ILS, and should result in greatly improved searching ability due to increased quality control.
________________________________________________
Definitely.
________________________________________________
MESH is just the beginning for mapping vocabulary and developing more indepth cataloging.
________________________________________________
Absolutely. I've been waiting for this for since 1992!!!!
________________________________________________
MeSH records in MARC require special programming here for loading in our ILS (III). It would make life *much* easier for the records to be downloaded from OCLC as the need arises.
________________________________________________
Absolutely!
________________________________________________
Would confuse, in relation to LCSH records
________________________________________________
It would be wonderful.
________________________________________________
No, since I do not have any medical texts. However, it would be helpful for those who do.
________________________________________________
We are going to have to amend records in our system in order to make the records findable in our catalogue.
________________________________________________
Absolutely.
________________________________________________
If the CORC system was fast enough to be able to get work done. I have not used CORC since my initial test work creating pathfinders. The greatest drawback to CORC at that time was its amazingly slow speed which prevented me from getting work done in an acceptable time frame.
________________________________________________
Absolutely yes!
________________________________________________
At least it would help our catalogers from having to do extensive editing of records, which is the hold up of using CORC at this time.
________________________________________________
Would love to be able to add MeSH authorities to our local data base
________________________________________________
I would probably consult it from time to time but, as of now, if it weren't there I probably wouldn't miss it.
________________________________________________
Like I want to type more!
________________________________________________
I work for a very small library which will never afford access to OCLC but I strongly support the wider availability of easy access to authority files.
________________________________________________
This would be a very wonderful thing to have.
________________________________________________
They would be of help only if they are mapped to LCSH so there are no conflicts in authority headings. Northern Light search engine has done this with many thesauri.
________________________________________________
Could non-CORC users have access through OCLC?
________________________________________________
Vendor already loads these tapes in Library's automated system annually.
________________________________________________
it would be an extremely vital added feature for us, as we are a medical library, where our primary subject headings of choice is mesh. if oclc were to install this feature, we would definitely use it!
________________________________________________
Having one place to check fo all authority files would make the work flow much more efficient.
________________________________________________
Being able to validate headings avoids typographical errors.
________________________________________________
It would be much easier and more cost effective for us to obtain our MeSH authority headings from OCLC.
________________________________________________
I think that having the file available in CORC would expedite cataloging, as I would not have to go to MeSh Annotated, our catalog, or our resource file to check the heading.
________________________________________________
Percentage of Total respondents (109)
86.2% 94 of 109 -- Search/browse for MeSH authorities
72.5% 73 of 109 -- Export single MeSH authority records
44.0% 48 of 109 -- Tag and export groups of MeSH authority records
55.0% 60 of 109 -- Apply authority control to headings in CORC
41.2% 45 of 109 -- Edit and export of MeSH authority records
54.1% 59 of 109 -- Global maintenance of MeSH headings in CORC
59.6% 65 of 109 -- Automatic compliance with approved practices
64.2% 70 of 109 -- Error detection
Other features of interest:
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 5:
I am most interested in being able to export MeSH authority records, either singly or in a group.
________________________________________________
I think that NLM should maintain control of the MeSH authority records. Access should be not be for editing or updating, as this could cause conflicts in what the true record should be.
________________________________________________
All this is fine(Dewey and Web based)
________________________________________________
With global maintenance, it may be useful to receive notification when headings are changed.
________________________________________________
the features available, the more flexible the system thus adding more value to your product.
________________________________________________
one group of headings to deal with
________________________________________________
We FTP topical headings only into our local NOTIS system. When we need an established heading we import it into our catalog. So, we would not need to export the headings locally for authority control.
________________________________________________
6. Do you believe that availability of an online MeSH authority file via OCLC would help public services librarians or non-medical catalogers describe health information?
|
No answer |
0 |
|
Yes |
81 |
|
No |
7 |
|
Unsure |
21 |
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 6:
MeSH vocabulary would enhance all records for resources that are health related.
________________________________________________
Since, as I understand it, many of the people contributing to CORC are not catalogers, I would think that any addition to the controlled vocabulary terms available for their descriptions would be advantageous. Otherwise, a mixture of medical and non-medical terms to describe the same topic will coexist and deter efficient searching.
________________________________________________
There are implications for document delivery.
________________________________________________
We leave the MeSH headings in when we download records because they offer an alternative subject approach, and may prove especially useful in keyword searching as the MeSH vocabulary tends to be composed of terms as they are used by health professionals. The presence of such a file would make it easier for public service librarians to connect from one subject approach to another.
________________________________________________
MeSH are not as accurate as LCSH, prefer they not be used
________________________________________________
LC and MeSH headings should be able to coexist for a single bib entry - it should not be the case that one bumps the other.
________________________________________________
As a public services librarian, I am looking for ways to enhance my own medical subject pages in the HealthWeb project and at my own institution. I think CORC would provide an mechanism for consistancy in the cataloging/indexing of electronic resources.
________________________________________________
At this time, we have no website records in our catalog. This usually means a lot of duplicated effort with search engines when looking for medical websites.
________________________________________________
The MeSH database is more descriptive and specific than the LCSH.
________________________________________________
Could a MeSH browser be available like the one in PubMed to help them select terms?
________________________________________________
This seems like LC's fault decades ago. Since when is it presumed that NLM records are not proper medical subject headings as most of them are now.
________________________________________________
Yes, only if they are mapped to LCSH
________________________________________________
MESH is not the most intuitive lexicon and having the authority file would be extremely beneficial to non-catalogers or non health sciences librarians and staff
________________________________________________
Public service librarians are using the MeSH browser in PubMed.
________________________________________________
these professionals would have to have an understanding of how MESH works in order to be able to explain the information for patrons or to properly use the information in cataloguing. It would be useful only if there was a concerted effort to educate those individuals not accustomed to MESH.
________________________________________________
The MeSH Browser works very well, but non-medical cataloguers and public service librarians may not know about it.
________________________________________________
Most public services librarians use keyword searching in OPACs. Why would they be interested in checking subject authorities via OCLC.
________________________________________________
They would require training first, but that's hardly unusual.
________________________________________________
Hopefully it would, if it was made clear where to look.
________________________________________________
Probably
________________________________________________
more accurate
________________________________________________
I would expect this would be the case. When additional terminology is available, it creates additional options and therefore enhanced outcomes.
________________________________________________
Absolutely. Searching using a controlled vocabulary renders more precise results.
________________________________________________
Percentage of total respondents (109)
64.2% --70 of 109 -- Cataloging of selected electronic resources in library catalog using MeSH
74.3% -- 81 of 109 -- Web lists of resources maintained by the library
58.7% -- 64 of 109 -- Linking to electronic resources maintained by groups outside of the library
43.1% -- 47 of 109 -- Building a local database of electronic resources
6.4% -- 7 of 109 -- Use of pathfinders in CORC
Other methods or comments:
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 7:
Currently we employ a number of methods. Staff and users must check a number of different lists and search interfaces. This is far from ideal. The ultimate goal that we aspire to is that there would be one search interface from the library system that would provide access to all types of resources.
________________________________________________
I don't work in a library (I work for OCLC Forest Press), so this question does not apply.
________________________________________________+
I believe this will be changing in the near future (if it has not already) but when the initial project and its follow-up occurred, only LCSH was applied.
________________________________________________
Catalog selected electronic resources using LCSH.
________________________________________________
We are cataloging electronic journals and monographs now. we have just started adding records for databases to our catalog. Web lists are generated from our catalog
________________________________________________
Catalog selected elctronic resources in library catalog using LCSH; Web lists of resources maintained in library; Links to electronic resources maintained by library
________________________________________________
Done by a reference librarian
________________________________________________
Also we catalog electronic resources using LCSH.
________________________________________________
The library I work at is in a time warp. Hence no CORC comprehension except in a delightful Window3.1 sort of way. Thank God I have Win98 and a T1 connection.
________________________________________________
I catalog selected records in OCLC and then export for uploading into local system. I do not use CORC for this process.
________________________________________________
In our hospital library setting, we are not yet providing access to online resources on our public-access computers. We have a print list (soon to bo on our Intranet site of the electronic journals to which we have access and the IP addresses required to access these journals. It is unlikely we will be cataloging electronic resources for our patrons in the near future. The few we have on CD-ROM (as opposed to Web access), such as Harrison's, are listed on our computers with access instructions.
________________________________________________
The lack of labels has caused us to table use of CORC for a while.
________________________________________________
We catalog everything according to MeSH, but heretofore information on electronic resources had only been added to records for print resources. Cataloging of electronic-only resources is to begin shortly.
________________________________________________
we are just getting into this. we may use CORE pathfinders.
________________________________________________
COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 8:
Just a comment: I have answered this based on my experiences in my previous position, which I left about 6 months ago. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no significant changes in the procedures since that time with the exception of my absence (and the inability to fill the position at present) causing a slow-down in both authority record validation and in cataloging of web resources.
________________________________________________
I am happy to see this effort.
________________________________________________
NLM makes the entire file of MeSH (in MARC) available at its website, but getting individual records from it requires significant investments in staff time for downloading, matching against local records, and uploading needed records. Getting authority records, as needed, from OCLC would match our current mode for bib records and would require little, if any, training.
________________________________________________
As long as this does not interfer with access by non-MeSH-users, we see no problem with this proposal.
________________________________________________
If I do not join the CORc group, would I be able to take advatage of this load?
________________________________________________
When validating authority records with MeSH headings that contradict LCSH UF headings , what will take precedence. How will 1xx MeSh behave when the term is an LCSH 4xx term?
________________________________________________
I am registered for 2 training sessions on CORC this spring. We hope to make use of it once we're trained.
________________________________________________
Any authority control is good. How about the NASA Thesaurus, AAT, GMGPC, etc.
________________________________________________
Obviously it would be better if OCLC would load MeSH authority records into the OCLC Online Authority File as well, but I guess loading them into CORC would be a start. At least we would finally be able to get MeSH authority records from OCLC (whether through CORC or the Online Authority File).
________________________________________________
I would also like to see NLM subject headings including, being that MeSH and NLM subject headings are similar but not entirely the same.
________________________________________________
Adding the MeSH records might encourage the addition of a few other large thesauri to the OCLC authority database. That would be a great trend. We currently don't use MeSH headings but if they were so readily available in the database that we currently use to access the LCSH we might incorporate use of the MeSH entries at some point. Ultimately, I think that that would benefit our patrons and staff.
________________________________________________
Did you know that besides LCD technology, the most advanced forms of software is OCR and Voice command technology. No not at CompUSA. But it does exist.
________________________________________________
OCLC has been provided with a significant opportunity to support health science libraries and the users of medical information. I hope they capitalize upon it
________________________________________________
I recently took a class sponsored by Amigos on CORC. I did not find the "harvesting" to be accurate enough to be a particularly helpful tool. I know the MARC tags well and found using the web CORC interface too slow even though it did have some very nice features such as the online help and linked authority records (names and corporate). There is interest in my library in having public services librarians begin cataloging using CORC; at this point, my technical services department is not ready to deal with very imperfect records which will remain in the save file for only a limited time. We have always wanted/needed MeSH in OCLC!
________________________________________________
It is probably a good idea, and certainly the wave of the future, but MESH authority records would not benefit my library directly.
________________________________________________
Because I am the only cataloger it is difficult to keep up with authority files and this would be of assistance to all.
________________________________________________
I believe having MeSH authority files in OCLC generally and in CORC specifically would be an enormous benefit to medical libraries and their users.
________________________________________________
It would be a great breakthrough for OCLC to finally provide access to MeSH authority records. We strongly support this request.
________________________________________________
This reflects my personal feelings. It is not an official NLM response.
_________
_______________________________________
Contacts:
Health Sciences OCLC Users Group
Mary Holt, President-elect
Tulane University Health Sciences Center
Rudolph Matas Library
New Orleans, LA
email: maryholt@tulane.edu
Dan Kniesner, MeSH MARC, Committee Chair
Oregon Health Sciences University Library
Portland, OR
email: kniesner@ohsu.edu
Betsy Friesen, CORC Liaison
Bio-Medical Library, University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
email: b-frie@tc.umn.edu
Joan M. Gregory, MLS, AHIP
Librarian, Technical Services
Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library
Salt Lake City, UT
email: joang@lib.med.utah.edu
