Mieko Mazza Stanford University Workshop on Electronic Resources Standards and Best Practices

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

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

3. Library responses (continued) • Q8. How challenging are the following CJK-related issues in the KBs of major link resolution services? • a) Very few Chinese, Japanese or Korean providers/publishers have interaction with link resolution services. As a result, most CJK packages are not indexed in KBs of link resolutions services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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