1. Primo Configurations at CONSCU
Steven Bernstein
Associate Librarian for Cataloging & Metadata | Central Connecticut State University

2. Who We are Connecticut State Colleges & Universities (CSCU)
17 Libraries
12 Community Colleges – Migrated from 12 separate instances of Voyager
4 State Universities – Migrated from 1 instance of Millennium
1 State Library – Migrated from same instance of Millennium as State Universities
Systems Office located at CT Board of Regents for Higher Education’s Hartford offices
Organizational merger coincided with migration

3. What Our Discovery System Looks Like
Single shared Network database with 17 separate Institutions/Primo instances
Each library’s Primo is custom-branded and styled but has the exact same interface
Transfer Articulation Policy
Primo contains everything to which a given Library has access, but is scoped as follows:
<Library> (i.e., CCSU) – searches everything to which that library has access
<Library>’s Catalog – searches what Primo has indexed from that library’s Alma Institution Zone
CSCU Library Consortium – searches what Primo has indexed from the Network Zone

4. How Decisions are Made
Expert Teams consisting of volunteers from across the consortium
Teams for: Acquisitions, Cataloging and Resource Management, E-Resource Management, Fulfillment, Primo, Systems & Network Zone
Discuss and test changes to the system in the sandbox
Proposals sent on to all staff for comment
Proposals voted upon by Council Of Library Directors (COLD)
Decisions implemented by Systems Office
Affinity Groups for all of the above areas open to all for discussion of various Alma/Primo/general library issues
Communicate using Basecamp

5. What Implementation Looked Like
Star Trek: Generations (1994)

6. Catalog/Databases vs Discovery Layers
Library Catalog & Separate Databases
Discovery Layer
Pros
Each database can be searched with precision
Each database uses its own exhaustive set of elements that are relevant to is scope
Cons
Resources of different types and or topics are in silos, requiring either foreknowledge of each database’s contents or timely pre-research
Pros
Layer on top of Library Catalog as well as other databases for quick-and-dirty pre-indexed metasearch of everything to which the library has access
Offers familiar “Google-like” experience
Individual interfaces for the Library Catalog as well as the other databases are still accessible for precision searching
Cons
Metadata from each database must be shoehorned into discovery layer’s elements

7. Catalog/Databases vs Discovery Layers
Library Catalog & Separate Databases
Discovery Layer

8. To Be Fair, Discovery Layers Offer Both

9. Primo Same as Discovery Layer… …But No Separate Catalog Interface!
Pros
Layer on top of Library Catalog as well as other databases for quick-and-dirty pre-indexed metasearch of everything to which the library has access
Offers familiar “Google-like” experience
Individual interfaces for the Library Catalog as well as the other databases are still accessible for precision searching
Cons
Metadata from each database must be shoehorned into discovery layer’s elements

10. To Be Fair, Primo Has Browse Search
But it doesn’t work like a real catalog should…
Limited indices (subject, author, title, call#)
Half-baked See References
Half-baked See Also References
Following a Reference performs a Basic Search rather than a Browse Search

11. How We Fixed It
Programmer at the System Office came up with a workaround to have references direct user to the proper location in the index
Still being tested
We tried, but—in the end—we could not completely fix this problem
Ex Libris’s approach to browseability—Headings Enrichment—adds non-preferred terms to bibliographic records instead of including authority records in the index
It simply doesn’t work
This can only be fixed if people make enough noise in the idea exchange
Infinite Loop
See Recursion
Recursion
See Infinite Loop

12. More Problems with Primo
Out-of-the-box normalization to Dublin Core- based PNX resulted in much of our rich MARC21-based metadata either not making its way to the user or being grouped together in user-unfriendly ways.

13. MARC Bibliographic vs. Dublin Core
~250 Elements
1000’s of sub-Elements
Complex
Expansive
15 Elements
No sub-Elements
Simple
Restricted

14. How We Fixed It
An Excel “ballot” was created with a row for every MARC element; committee members could vote yes or no for each element’s inclusion in the Primo display as well as leave comments about:
How the content should be formatted
How the element should be labeled
Whether various elements should be combined, be sub elements, constitute lateral links, etc.
There was some unanimity, but many of the fields required a lot of discussion

15. And More Problems with Primo
Primo deduplication and FRBRization caused metadata from bibliographic records from Alma to seemingly disappear.

16. How We Fixed It Played around with the deduplication vector
Lessened the problem but did not solve it completely: dedup cannot be turned off (given the disagreement on the desirability of this function, that’s probably for the best)
Some catalogers would prefer the control that comes with manual deduplication

17. Is Alma/Primo a Success?
Pros
Cons
Contemporary interface
Single database with a uniform look for all libraries in consortium, yet each gets their own style
Least expensive option
Lacks a lot of the key functionality of our old system
Two years in, a lot of the librarians still wish we had our old system
A handful of faculty have complained about the lack of functionality

18. Primo Lowers the Bar Photo: Bar at Kalia Beach, Dead Sea
(30 miles East of Ex Libris Group Headquarters)

19. Questions?