Following is a summary of the e-mail meeting conducted by VIVA Cataloging and Intellectual Access Task Force in from December 6-10:

All task force members (Althea Aschmann (VPI); Karen Cary (VCU); Elaine Day (JMU); Nadine Ellero (UVa); Billie Hackney (ODU); Trish Kearns(W&M); Charles Lewis (JSRCC); Gail McClenney (VSU); Allison Sleeman (UVa)) and one guest (Lynda Wright) were included on the distribution list for this meeting.  One or two people reported problems receiving or sending mail.

1.  January 7 forum on access to electronic journals from aggregator sources (http://new.vivalib.org/tech/cat/journal_access/).
     We discussed plans for the forum:  VA Tech to handle registration; VCU to host; enrollment limited to 65; evaluation form to be adapted from the form used at the May 1999 VIVACat workshop (and originally at a training session developed by librarians at UVa). Elaine asked for examples of cataloging policies, and periodical search interfaces from other institutions.  We proceded to develop and approve a draft evaluation form.

2.  Guidelines for Cataloging and Intellectual Access (http://viva.lib.virginia.edu/vivacat/guidelines.html).  Discuss issues raised by Althea Aschmann's analysis:
http://catherine.med.virginia.edu/vivacat/vcreview.htm
     We agreed to restrict the Guidelines to MARC cataloging, excluding Dublin Core and other alternatives.  Metadata issues will be addressed by VIVACat, however not in the Guidelines for Cataloging and Intellectual Access.  We also agreed to omit live links for cataloging examples and update "canned" examples.  We continued with a discussion on how to approach the revision--from each of Althea's comments, paragraph by paragraph, or from the ground up in a total revamp.  We agreed to work from Althea's comments, but did not get far as the discussion is too complex and time consuming for e-mail.  The revision will continue at meetings of the full task force and Guidelines working group (Allison, Althea, Elaine, and Karen).

3.  Chadwyck-Healey poetry analytics
     Elaine provided a compilation of heading changes reported by My Guidarelli at VCU.  UVa is creating NACO authorities as needed.  Ed Summers (ODU) has agreed to update headings in the bibliographic file when authority work as reported on the alphabetical spread sheets with bibliographic heading, authorized heading, and authority record number, is complete.  VIVACat will provide a web page or other means of distributing access to the files within Virginia.  Elaine, Jackie Shieh, and Ed Summers have plans to write a paper on the project, addressing receipt and upgrading of the MARC records from Chadwyck-Healey, sharing the files among different OPACs, scripting and technical issues, cooperative authority control, the effect of poetry analytics in the OPAC in terms of access and granularity, and implications for cooperative cataloging of other record sets.

4.  CORC update and discussion
     The research phase of the OCLC CORC project has been extended through Spring 2000.  Allison reported that Alderman Library is in the process of getting more staff trained and working with CORC.  They are now using CORC for copy cataloging in addition to original cataloging for electronic monographs.  There is some resistance to CORC among the staff.  UVa recently had a department meeting to explain CORC and reasons for participating.   They are adding staff to CORC to meet their agreement in joining the project, and also to evaluate whether CORC participation is something they want to continue when fees are required.

5.   Discuss whether the VIVA cataloging "Guidelines" should consider metadata formats in addition to MARC, or whether we want to develop another document addressing metadata.  Perhaps this could begin as description of metadata initiatives in VIVA and lead eventually to a planning document or recommendations.
     It was decided under agenda item 2 that the Guidlelines will exclude discussion of metadata.  Allison reported that Beth P. Camden of UVa will give a presentation at an ALCTS ALA preconference on metadata.

6.  Other Business.
     We discussed the feasiblity of future e-mail meetings and agreed that if we select this format again, the meeting should be scheduled for a dedicated time period, for example, an entire morning or afternoon, rather than spread out over a full work week.

Elaine Day
James Madison University