Post on 13-Aug-2015
transcript
Cataloging with OCLC WMSFebruary 2014
Jeff Siemon, Digital Resources LibrarianFuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA
Goals for this 45 minute discussion
1. share among ourselves (users of OCLC WMS metadata/cataloging) what has been helpful
2. share with OCLC staff difficulties/improvements we’d like to see regarding OCLC WMS metadata/cataloging
3. start with a quick presentation from Jeff Siemon regarding pros/cons of three workflows I’ve tried
Three+ Cataloging interfaces
1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion
Browser3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records
Cataloging interfaces pros/cons1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging
2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records
Pros• Easy to train staff• OCLC trains this workflow• Drop down menus prevent data
errors• Speeds up processing by
eliminating unnecessary improvements to bib records and exporting
Cons• Does not encourage improving
bib records• No templates/constant data
unless one uses all the budget/order/receive features (i.e. gift books or simpler purchasing)
• Label printing waiting on Road Map
• Need to move to Metadata “module” interface for original cataloging or adding/editing local fields
• Need to move to Connexion Client for non-Roman scripts, Macros, NACO, & local save file for reviewing
Cataloging interfaces pros/cons1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging
2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser
3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records
Pros• Easy transition, Connexion is
familiar to catalogers• Can eliminate complex
“acquisitions”• Constant data reduces data errors• Constant data speeds up processing• Macros available to speed up
processing• More keyboard friendly interface
(fewer drop down menus)• Easy to improve bib records and
contribute to WorldCat (replace master record)
• OCLC Label program integrated• Same interface for simple copy
cataloging, replace record, original cataloging, non-Roman scripts, and NACO
• Serials and multi-volume monograph data is cleaner than what WMS ACQ generates.
Cons• Connexion will be end-of-
life in a few years• Training new employees is
a bit more complex• Initial set up of constant
data• Must install Connexion
Client• Client has the most editing
features; but must use Browser for LHRs (fortunately there is an easy command to launch holdings maintenance in the Connexion Browser.)
Cataloging interfaces pros/cons1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser
3. WMS Metadata – Manage RecordsPros• Stay in WMS
interface/authorization• Able improve bib records and
contribute to WorldCat• Can add/edit local bib data• Serials and multi-volume
monograph data is cleaner than what WMS acquisitions generates.
Cons• Less keyboard friendly than
Connexion interfaces (i.e. must tab or mouse click between fields)
• No templates/constant data unless one uses all the budget/order/receive features
• No Label printing, waiting on Road Map
• Need to move to Connexion Client for controlling individual headings, NACO, Macros, and non-Roman scripts
Questions or Comments?• Do you have any tips or workflow ideas to
share?• What suggestions do you have for improving
the WMS Metadata record manager?• What kind of global find and replace would
you like to see for holdings?• Did WMS speed up any processing/
cataloging? • How has training and support been?• Have you used apps?• What kind of integration with the
Knowledge Base would be helpful?
Fuller uses Cataloging workflow 2• Connexion Client to find/create and edit bib records• Connexion Browser to create Local Holdings Records = Items• OCLC Label Program or Connexion Client to create labels
Fuller Cataloging workflow
Paste in the call number and scan the barcode, then save the Local Holdings Record
Data Migration – Bib and holdings• Bib data and Patron and Circulation data transferred
relatively easily.• Holdings data: Horizon wanted to charge for extracting
data, but our Systems librarian could do it herself, at least for monographs, with the Horizon export utility
• For “multivolume monographs” & serials holdings we got a raw copy of our Horizon data, and used a consultant (AlphaG) to extract serials holdings (a few thousand dollars well spent), but 853/863 pairs would have been better
• Fuller used 856 42 fields for Tables of Contents, Donor “book marks”, and other related resources, but WCL displays these as full-text “view now” links, ignoring indicators
Data Migration – Serials Holdings• OCLC uses MARC Format for HoLdings (MFHL)
aka Local Holdings Record (LHR) but not well documented
• Fuller also extracted the serial pattern from Horizon into a note
Multi-volume Data Migration – 866/876 vs. 853/863/876
OCLC Data Staff are used to 866 ; WMS GUI creates 853/863 pairs; Try to get OCLC or an outside vendor to convert your data to 853/863