One Bib to Rule Them All – SUNY One Bib / Shared Catalog Project

1. One Bib to Rule Them All – SUNY One Bib / Shared Catalog Project SUNYLA June 12, 2014

2. 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 all And in the Catalog bind them.” ~ with apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien Kenyon Wells, Jefferson Community College

3. 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

4. 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

5. Shared Cataloging & Authorities Task Force • Fall 2012 – Shared Cataloging and Authorities Task Force created • Members • Gone but not forgotten 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 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 Anne McFarland, Oneonta; Matthew Smith, Sullivan; Kimmy Szeto, Maritime; Kenyon Wells, Jefferson

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. Results: SCORES 94% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough.”

13. Results: SOUND 87% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough.”

14. Results: VIDEOS 98% of records = OCLC is “better” or “good enough.”

15. 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.

16. 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

17. Report Sample from Potsdam

18. 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

19. DRAFT POC Environment

20. POC – Phase 1

21. POC – Phase 2?

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Other things to consider

27. 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

28. 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

29. Possible Workflow Structure

30. 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?

31. 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

32. 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)