This NISO report makes interesting reading with implications for KB+. Good to see such positive coverage for KBART.
As you know, the quite simple question: which titles are in the NESLi2 deals? Is not that easy to answer.
As part of the key deliverables of the KB+ project we have requested that the publishers provide their title lists in the KBART format. KBART format is a clear and simple standard that suits the KB+ initial purposes. Not all the publishers are KBART compliant. However, in general the publishers’ response has been fabulous. They have collaborated with us, untangling the discrepancies between their title lists and the NESLI2 agreements.
As you may know, verifying and standardising title list is a demanding and time consuming task. It takes us time to deal with the essence of the serial publications. The serials publications are not static, they are alive and they live their life: they move house (transfers between publishers) , they get married (mergers), they have children (supplements), they change their names, they have nicknames, they go on holiday (stop for a while and come back again), they die (ceased).
Furthermore, we have encountered other cases of a higher complexity: for example the case of Camden 5th (CUP) has several series, starting at different times, all with Volume 1 Issue 1.
Of course, we are not trying to solve all the challenges related to the serials publications. Nevertheless, our key aims are to be able to give a straight and clear answer to the question above and to have the extra, necessary metadata for our technical team. This has forced us to move forward and decide how the metadata needs to be presented. We have, for example, identified in separate files, the open access and free titles and the additional titles (those that are not part of the Nesli2 deals but to which the libraries can subscribe independently at a reduce fee).