II. Selection Information


II. Selection of Information for the Database.

A. General Discussion.
B. Non-Library Contributors.
C. Library Contributors.
D. Record Coding Decisions.

A. General Discussion.

An effort was made to include all non-library projects (i.e., vendor/publisher, organization) that reformat legal information for the purpose of providing long term retention while preserving the look of the original. Some digital reformatting has not been included (e.g., Westlaw). For further discussion of what has not been included, see Section IV All reported library sponsored projects were included, regardless of the preservation format used. Beyond this, no judgments were made during data entry concerning the preservation quality of the projects, library or non-library.

In order to complete the project in a timely fashion and create a manageable database, many reformatted titles are represented by a collection title and not by individual titles. When to use a collection title and when to use an individual title was not always an easy decision, since some project sponsors offer a title only within a collection, while others offer the same title individually. If this was encountered, a record was created for the individual title as well as for the collection. The individual title record will include project records for both sponsors. See the vendor discussions below for more specific information about collection titles.

B. Non-Library Contributors.

1. Law Library Microform Consortium (LLMC). LLMC is largely controlled by its member law libraries. Since it is a consortium and not a true commercial entity, it’s agency type in the database is “organization”. LLMC has traditionally reformatted on microfiche, but has begun to scan documents and now offers some of its titles in digital format. All LLMC data is backed up to silver halide film and the masters are stored in two separate archival storage facilities.

LLMC’s holdings represent over 7,000 titles. To describe these holdings in the database, it was necessary to group many of the titles in collection records. There are collection records for the Native American Collection, U.S. Military Collection, Yale Blackstone Collection, Canon Law, Common Law Abroad, Civil Law Collections, U.S. Territories, and Legal Periodicals. For the other LLMC subject areas of U.S. Federal, U.S. States, Anglo-American Selected, Non-U.S. Jurisdictions, and Anglo-American References; individual title records were added for very large (400 fiche or more) or particularly significant titles. Other titles in these subject areas were gathered under collection records, e.g., “Early Federal Nominative Reports.” The treatises reformatted by LLMC were entered as individual title records.

2. Hein. Hein strives to work with law libraries to protect and preserve important legal materials. It offers legal information on microform, as reprints, and more recently in digital format. In the past, Hein archived its images on microform masters. They appear to be moving away from this practice toward more reliance on digital formats. According to Kevin Marmion, President of Hein, any product they are currently digitizing can be made available in online, print, or microform format from the original digitization.

As with LLMC, individual records were added to the database for large and significant sets, for treatises, and for many of the government reports it reformats. Collection records exist for many of the titles Hein markets as series: Superseded State Codes, Legal Periodicals, Hornbook and Nutshell Series, Bar Journals, etc.

3. LexisNexis UPA (University Publications of America). UPA’s microforms from its “Law and Legal History Catalog” (http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Allh/default.asp) have been added to the database. Microforms from the “English, Irish, and Scottish Law” catalog were also added (http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Ies/EnglishIrishScottishLaw.asp). Collection records were created for titles that UPA sells only within a collection, such as the “American Legal Manuscripts from the Harvard Law School Library.”

4. LexisNexis CIS (Congressional Information Service, Inc.). Records were added for CIS’ microform collections and titles, as well as its digital reformatting of the U.S. Serial Set. Data for inclusion was taken from its catalog listing at:  http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/3cis/cisMnu.asp

5. UMI/Proquest. The data added for this vendor was taken from its Law catalog at:  http://www.umi.com/umi/subjectcatalogs/law.pdf Collection records were used for such categories as bar journals, legal theses and dissertations, and legal periodicals. UMI offers a significant number of foreign publications.

6. Lawbook Exchange. All titles in the “Reprints of Legal Classics” catalog were added to the database. The most recent version is Summer 2003 and is available online at: http://www.lawbookexchange.com/reprints-summer-03

7. Thomson/Gale Primary Source Microfilm. PSM’s microform catalog is available at:  http://www.gale.com/psm .  A composite law subject catalog is not provided, so titles and collections were selected by browsing the general catalog. PSM sells the large collections of 19th and 20th century legal treatises.

8. Readex. Readex offers a few law related publications, including the U.S. Serial Set and a wide range of United Nations Documents. Information was taken from its web site at: http://www.readex.com/

C. Library Contributors.

An email notice announcing the survey was distributed to the Academic Directors Listserv and to the SCC-SIS Listserv. A general email, without the survey link, was sent to the chair of the Private Law Libraries SIS for distribution. Private Law librarians were asked to contact LIPA if projects were planned, underway, or completed. No private law libraries responded.

Fifteen State/Court/County law libraries responded to the survey. Six libraries reported projects. The SCC respondents are listed below with an asterisk by those reporting projects:

Anne Arundel County Law Library (MD)
Charles County Public Law Library (MD)
Court of Appeal (California)
Dougherty County Law Library (GA)
Douglas County Law Library (KS)
Johnson County Law Library (KS)
Maryland State Law Library *
Montgomery County Circuit Court Law Library (MD)

Pulaski County Law Library * (AR) (responded jointly with UALR)
Rhode Island Dept. of Attorney General Law Library
San Bernardino County Law Library (CA)
State Law Library of Iowa
State Law Library of Montana *
Wisconsin State Law Library *
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit *
U.S. Dept. of Justice *

Thirty-two Academic law libraries responded to the survey. Twenty libraries reported projects. The respondents are listed below with an asterisk by those reporting projects:

Brigham Young University Howard W. Hunter Law Library *
Chase College Law Library *
College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe Law Library
Cornell Law Library *
Duke Law Library *
Georgetown University Law Library *
Harvard Law Library *
Indiana University School of Law Library
Louisiana State University Law Library *
North Carolina Central University School of Law Library
Rutgers University Library for the Center for Law and Justice *
Samford University Cumberland School of Law
University at Buffalo Law Library *
University of Arkansas at Little Rock * (some projects jointly with Pulaski County Law Library)
University of Colorado Law Library
University of Connecticut School of Law Library *
University of Dayton Zimmerman Law Library
University of Florida Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center *
University of Illinois Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Memorial Library
University of Maryland Thurgood Marshall Law Library *
University of Miami Law Library
University of Michigan Law Library *
University of Nevada Las Vegas Wiener-Rogers Law Library
University of North Carolina Katherine R. Everett Law Library
University of Pennsylvania Biddle Law Library *
University of Richmond William Taylor Muse Law Library *
University of San Francisco Zief Law Library *
University of Texas at Austin Tarlton Law Library *
University of Washington Marion Gould Gallagher Law Library *
Wake Forest University Professional Center Library
Willamette College of Law Library
Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Library *

The Law Library of Congress also reported projects that are included in the database.  Projects conducted by libraries that are not law libraries were included if identified.

D. Record Coding Decisions.

The following lists attempt to explain how and why data was input in a particular way.

1. Title or Bibliographic Records:

a. Authors were keyed with surname first, as is usual in library catalogs. Distinguishing information, such as dates, were not         added.

b. ISBN and ISSN numbers were entered without hyphens. Hyphens in RLIN numbers were included.

c. Records coded for a material type of “treatise” were coded for jurisdiction “other” if they covered topics concerning more     than one jurisdiction, and were not international in nature. If the subject headings for the original work included the subdivision     “United States”, the jurisdiction was coded as “federal”.

d. If the material type was not obvious, sources such as Cohen, Berring and Olsen’s Finding the Law were consulted.

e. GPO and other official government titles were added only if they had been reformatted by non-government agencies.

f. Serial publications were entered as if using successive entry cataloging. In other words, if a serial publication had changed     title during its lifetime, only one record was input and previous titles were entered as alternate titles if needed for access             purposes.

g. Although record type was defined to accommodate “serial” and “monograph”, the field was added late during the creation     of the database and has only been used for “collection” records as of December, 2004.

h. Material type of court reports was used for digests..

2. Project Records:

a. LLMC has been coded as agency type, organization, in project records.

b. Library names are listed as follows to ensure they appear in table views: Brigham Young University; Chase College; Cornell; Duke; Georgetown University; Harvard; Louisiana State University; Rutgers University; SUNY University at Buffalo; Arkansas, University at Little Rock; Connecticut, University of; Florida, University of; Maryland, University of; Michigan, University of; Pennsylvania, University of; Richmond, University of; Texas, University at Austin; Washington, University of; Yale.

c. Links from some non-library projects are to web sites that describe their product. In some cases, the link is to the actual         catalog (e.g., UMI) or to a site where one is able to access complete titles lists (e.g. Primary Source Microfilm’s online list of     titles in 19th Century Legal Treatises). Some links from library projects are to web pages where the material is available for         public access. Other library links are to title lists provided with the project information (e.g. University of Washington’s list of     “Legal Newspapers from Washington City, County and State Bar Associations and other Local Publishers”).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close