One Bib to Rule Them All – SUNY One Bib / Shared Catalog ProjectSUNYLA June 12, 2014

The Quest of the Shared Catalogand Authorities Taskforce

“One Database to rule them all,One Discovery tool to find them,One Record to bring them allAnd in the Catalog bind them.”

~ with apologies to J.R.R. TolkienKenyon 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, BinghamtonLouise Charbonneau, Mohawk ValleyApril Davies, CobleskillCindy Francis, GeneseeMarianne Hebert, PotsdamAmy Hillick, OrangeKevin McCoy, SuffolkMarianne Muha, Buffalo State

Nancy Poehlmann, AlbanyAngela Rhodes, MorrisvilleAmy Rupp, JamestownWerner Sbaschnik, Old WestburyJennifer Smathers, BrockportStephen Weiter, ESFMarsha Clark, CUNYMadeline 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 13 50.00% b. OCLC is good enough 12 46.15% c. OCLC is worse 1 3.85%* 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 - VideoLarger 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 ConceptServer 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 WorkData 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 WorkTesting 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 WorkRecent 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 - ThemesSponsored 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 SUNY ONE BIB CATALOGING WORKFLOW*

Search SUNY Catalog

SUNY record is found

Attach Holdings/Create Item

Create OCLC record

Edits Needed

Send item to be shelved No Edits needed

Needed

Edit OCLC/Aleph record

SUNY record is not found found

Download OCLC record

Upload record to Aleph

Holding/Item record created

*Campuses have different budgeting and acquisitions workflows. These workflows

will not have to be altered for the SUNY One Bib project.

Physical Processing/Barcode

Search OCLC

Edits Needed OCLC Record Found

OCLC Record Not Found

Send item to be shelved

No Edits needed

Needed

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

Contact information

– maureen.zajkowski@suny.edu– maggie.horn@suny.edu– hebertm@potsdam.edu (Marianne Hebert)– npoehlmann@albany.edu (Nancy Poehlmann)– rhodesam@morrisville.edu (Angela Rhodes)– mccoykj@sunysuffolk.edu (Kevin McCoy)