Presentation on theme: "One Bib to Rule Them All – SUNY One Bib / Shared Catalog Project SUNYLA June 12, 2014."— Presentation transcript:
One Bib to Rule Them All – SUNY One Bib / Shared Catalog Project SUNYLA June 12, 2014
The Quest of the Shared Catalog and Authorities Taskforce “One Database to rule them all, One Discovery tool to find them, One Record to bring them all And in the Catalog bind them.” ~ with apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien Kenyon Wells, Jefferson Community College
Overview Assume that attendees have heard about the project through regional meetings Original activities; Task Force membership Current status – Merge Subgroup recommendations – Proof of concept (POC) – Preparatory work Concerns raised in regional meetings Workflow Subgroup comments Where does all that leave us
Activities Task Force Members Develop criteria for the bib record merge or use of OCLC Master record Develop workflow guidelines and standards OLIS Investigating changes in Aleph configuration files Create campus profiles – data analysis Contact campuses regarding data cleanup based on data analysis ITEC Investigate and develop server architecture Investigate programming needs for the bib record merge while maintaining links to other Aleph modules
Shared Cataloging & Authorities Task Force Fall 2012 – Shared Cataloging and Authorities Task Force created Members Gone but not forgotten Sandy Card, Binghamton Louise Charbonneau, Mohawk Valley April Davies, Cobleskill Cindy Francis, Genesee Marianne Hebert, Potsdam Amy Hillick, Orange Kevin McCoy, Suffolk Marianne Muha, Buffalo State Nancy Poehlmann, Albany Angela Rhodes, Morrisville Amy Rupp, Jamestown Werner Sbaschnik, Old Westbury Jennifer Smathers, Brockport Stephen Weiter, ESF Marsha Clark, CUNY Madeline Veitch, New Paltz Anne McFarland, Oneonta; Matthew Smith, Sullivan; Kimmy Szeto, Maritime; Kenyon Wells, Jefferson
Merge Catalog Subgroup Assignment: Develop criteria for the bib record merge or use of OCLC Master record for the Shared Catalog Project. Phase I—Random Samples (315 records) 95% of records examined showed that OCLC is “better” or “good enough” Recommendation to SCLD: Source of bib record: OCLC Master record
Phase II: Special Formats Assumption that considerable enhancements are routinely done for special formats: – Curriculum materials – Special Collections and Archives – Scores – Recordings – Videos Jan-May Subgroup focused on additional random samples for each format
Results: CURRICULUM Total titles in extract*: 30 Total titles compared 26 a. OCLC is better % b. OCLC is good enough % c. OCLC is worse % * Samples from: Buffalo, Geneseo, Old Westbury 96% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough.” Consensus that further investigations were not warranted.
Results: SPECIAL COLLECTIONS Sample: 10 records from each Comprehensive College 58%-100% of the records showed that OCLC is “better” or “good enough.” Unique materials in Special Collections would have had original cataloging on OCLC Consensus that further investigations were not warranted.
Phase II: Special formats Scores – Sound – Videos Preliminary analysis showed that 80-95% of OCLC records is “better” or “good enough” Not what we expected No trends were identified to suggest a different approach
Scores - Sound - Video Larger Sample Random sample: 10 records from ALL libraries, (including copies of bib records with same OCLC# from other SUNY holdings) + the OCLC master record, with publication date of 2000 or later Result: 4,816 campus records + 1,185 OCLC records Focus: Campuses with graduate music programs: All records for FRE POT PUR, but review all campus copies and compare to OCLC.
Results: SCORES 94% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough.”
Results: SOUND 87% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough.”
Results: VIDEOS 98% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough. ”
SUMMARY: Scores – Sound - Videos Yes, we would lose enhancements done by catalogers over time. BUT 41%-61% of the time OCLC is BETTER Overall, we would gain more than we lose. Sound and Video formats will become obsolete SubGroup members reported anecdotally: When OCLC was “worse” it wasn’t terrible, nor was the best campus record WAY better. There were no trends to indicate that any one campuses' records were better than another’s.
How do users search our catalogs? GUI Cataloging Module – Services – Custom Services – OPAC Stats – Web OPAC Search Strings – Word Searches (custom 62) WebOPAC is not the only finding tool
Report Sample from Potsdam
Proof of Concept Server Environment Server Environment – Proof of Concept (POC) – Technical specifications have been finalized – Hiring underway for migration programmer (part-time temporary position) – Twelve campuses will form initial POC group – Separate Aleph instances will be created for POC (separate from PROD and DEV sides) to enable migration testing that will not impact these campuses – Campuses selected represent various configurations and sizing
DRAFT POC Environment
POC – Phase 1
POC – Phase 2?
Preparatory Work Data Considerations Campus data profiles – Questions on local practices Staff accounts Duplicate OCLC records Indexing review Services that identify bibliographic records without holdings and/or item records Social Security Numbers
Preparatory Work Testing to Take Place in POC (Samples) Changes to staff accounts Course reserve – used in BIB (01 library) Migrating local data from BIB to HOL record New book lists New client configuration OCLC Master Record use Patron records – ensure uniqueness in numbering Services: Printed Products, Job-lists, Reports, etc. Vendor data loads
Committee Work Recent Discussions OCLC WorldCat Master Records – review of test data loads Remove older circulation transaction data? – No, as data is used for weeding, collection development Stop loading vendor records (Ebrary) once a campus has implemented a discovery layer? – Not all vendor data loads are available in discovery tools – Need to address PDA and one-off purchases
Regional Visits - Themes Sponsored Jointly by SCLD & OLIS Authority control Communication Course reserves Data cleanup Discovery tools ILL/Resource sharing Indexes Governance issues Last copy Local data Local enhancements OCLC – updates, overlays, spine labels… One bib – how determined, what will it look like Post-Aleph Timelines / process Training WebOPAC Workflow
Other things to consider
Workflow Policy & Procedure Details are difficult until there is a real environment to test within Basics – Follow RDA & AACR2 cataloging standards – Control over records is given only to campuses holding the item and the SUNY-selected governing committee A campus bringing in a new record & campuses holding an existing record need to be responsible for the quality of the record Edits & enhancements to a bibliographic record (that apply to all copies in SUNY) should be done in OCLC Campus-specific fields about local holdings, donors, provenance, electronic access, etc. need to reside at the holdings or item level, or at the bib level in local subfields
Workflow Policy & Procedure Basics (cont.) – Don’t change your current workflow YET, but be thinking about & creating/editing local procedure and practices that will probably need to change or be removed in a single bib environment Bib-level enhancements in Aleph Stripped Fields Local notes added at the bibliographic level Course Reserves in the XXX01 – there will be SUNY standards Authorities – You are not losing any work or cataloging responsibilities! There is cleanup to do There is record maintenance There is governance There is communication
Possible Workflow Structure
Where Are We? POC staging server (Island of Doctor Moreau) – POC staging area deployed (oracle, Aleph) – ITEC to copy data for POC campuses When POC staging server ready – OLIS updates POC data - related to staff accounts and patron records ITEC deploying POC one bib server (Brave New World) – Programmer and ITEC will migrate/merge data from POC staging server to one bib server – OLIS to configure Aleph unix tables; including WebOPAC environment – OLIS to do preliminary testing When ready Workflow group starts testing Brave New World Testing results – considerations for Governance Committee?
Next Steps Review findings from POC Phase 1 testing – (12 campuses) Evaluate feasibility of moving forward with POC Phase 2 Determine status of the POC project Volunteers needed: – Governance Committee – Other Task Force work – new members