when our patrons go to our library’s research databases webpage they’ll see databases listed there, as one might expect. they’ll also bump into single newspapers, e-journal collections, and encyclopedias.
this amalgam didn’t occur overnight, and it certainly wasn’t intentional. as the library began to acquire e-resources it naturally needed some place to put them to show our patrons that we had these special, new things; the research databases hand-coded html page was born. over time that page became the dumping ground for all new e-resources. that was the place the library told users to begin their e-research.
speed forward several years and several hundred e-resources, and enter our new electronic resource management system (erms), a metadata dream. the erms allows for the categorization of all of those e-resources so that they cluster together easily to make them more readily findable. now that we’re intentionally tagging e-resources with categories, the question of “what do we tag as a database?” came up. if an e-resource isn’t tagged as a database, it disappears from the research databases page and is discoverable only through our catalog. as a result we’re having some pretty lively conversations about how to manage that metadata.
we’ve talked about three possible ways to handle this, more intelligently than summarized in these bullet points:
- ignore the problem. we’ve always told our users to go to the research databases page and that’s what we should continue to do.
- put your foot down that if it’s not a database, it’s not a database! off the list it goes!
- decide that well, mmmmaybe that one title can stay even though it’s not a database, and maybe that one, too.
of the three options, number 3 seems like the way most libraries are handling it but i really don’t see how that will scale as we continue to increase the numbers of e-resources. do we have time to pull together a small committee each time we license a new e-resource to determine if it should display on the research databases page?
how has your library handled this? is there perhaps a fourth option we haven’t considered?





