ALA Midwinter Philadelphia 2014
FRIDAY – Jan. 24
8:30-11:30 MAR Franklin 11 & 12 Technical Services Directors Large Research Libraries IG http://connect.ala.org/node/217113
8:30-8:40 Introductions & Announcements (10 min.)
8:40-9:10 CIC Heads of Cataloging group's cooperative cataloging pilot (Chris Cronin; 30 min.)
9:10-9:40 “Cooperative Cataloging” Initiative (Scott Wicks, Bob Wolven, Joan Swanekamp, Caitlin Tillman; 30 min.)
9:40-9:55 Break (15 min.)
9:55-10:55 UC Davis’ IMLS research grant on the future of cataloging (Guest: Eric Miller; 60 min.) [includes overview on what we need to know about BIBFRAME and how it could affect the rest of technical services work]
10:55-11:20 Future Directions for the PCC (Beth Camden; 25 min.)
11:20-11:30 Agenda building for Las Vegas & wrap up (10 min.)
Notes
Cooperative Cataloging at CIC. Institutions talking about sharing expertise, collection development… the whole continuum of technical services (cataloging). Outsourcing cataloging is very expensive. U of Chicago, Ill Urbana, U of Iowa, U of Wis Madison, etc. If they are actually going to go forward, they need to do so assessment to show it works. Questions: pay each other and how you include financial dept. in each library – too much work. Decided to assess who had the expertise. In the 8 institutions were there really easy swaps in expertise? – it didn’t exist. So then, they tried a low level of how many titles would you be willing to catalog for another library and ended up with about 100-120 a year. Focused on language and didn’t find much to share, so then tried formats, like maps. He listed languages (UND only collects in a few). This was hard to sell to catalogers with tons of stuff to catalog in their institution that are undone. However they use OCLC resource sharing amongst CIC. One or 2 catalogers per institution are involved. Discussion of standards was next especially with RDA. Decided not to do a CIC-core nor BIBCO catalogers but decided to use BIBCO standards (BSR’s) as they exist for various formats. Do we give each other loggins or just catalog? Decided to just catalog and not mandate NACO unless the cataloger is following BIBCO standards and marking the record as such which means they are doing NACO. Need to do 880’s for access points for foreign materials, but still talking about it. Require 1 subject. Call numbers vary at the various libraries. Do what you do at your library. Defining expertise is also an issue – you can get buy or you actually are a native speaker? Metrics – assess time and costs. Might model the RDA test to tract time. Send physical or scan portions of the work. One library tried a google service. Includes professionals and really good staff, but not sure about actually sharing staff salaries. If scanned, was it good enough or did the cataloger have to call the other library? Their librarians in some cases have been part of ECIP. Will track rules used, what was used to do subject analysis, what did it take to add vernacular scripts, tract the cost of the assessment was even discussed. Going to discuss working with ILL on the project – they are used to scanning and mailing. Need to make sure one library doesn’t get overburdened. For CIC members that decided not to participate felt they just had too much of their own stuff to do. Michigan can gain nothing because they have all the language expertise they need but are interested in the metrics of the process. Suggested keeping track and once you have maxed out you could bill at the end of the year.
Cooperative cataloging at Columbia, etc. Similar. How can we provide access to materials that are not “easy” – foreign languages, non-book formats (maps again), etc. The why of cataloging these materials, is relevant to global scholarship. Classes being taught on campus have broadened globally. They are involving different library area in their discussions. Need people with language, cataloging code and subject analysis expertise. Cooperative collection development isn’t helping get materials cataloged (orginal). Funding issues have caused out-of-balanced collections, i.e. some materials are cheaper. Changes to staff – mostly retirements of people who may have immigrated, and generally fewer people have foreign language skills. Library of Congress has 1300 fewer staff than it did 20 years ago so they aren’t as good a resource any more for specialist expertise. Looking at creating a web-based tool non-catalogers could use to input information. They are thinking of scanning parts of it and linking it to this brief record in OCLC. Maybe someone else would want to upgrade the record, but not sure any one will ever have the time. The issue isn’t just foreign language, but the broad variety of materials coming in, things you want in your discovery services, how to handle primary materials (contentdm-like) but fewer staff. The expectation is they will be in OCLC rather than in their local “silo” catalog. Great cataloging no, but good enough to be discoverable and shareable (ILL). Looking at an access-level element set good enough to get it into OCLC.
IMLS grant at UC Davis. McKenzie Smith. Re-inventing the cataloging models for the future. How does BIBFRAME fit in? What will the cataloging workflow look like in an academic library. The grant will track the process. Interdependency across library functions is the root of our difficulty with changing part of our local environment. We sometimes plan for stuff that is already out of date for the world around us. We have to do something better. Libraries need to implement new standards and technologies, but we cannot adopt them in an environment constrained by complex workflows and interdependencies on a large ecosystem of data, software and ILS or service providers (Alma is too complex – he is saying we need to be simpler). How can we swap in new things to replace old processes that make the business model improve? Rethink the library as a web of data. We have an opportunity to deconstruct the full library ecosystem. We need to be leveraging the web - use strategy to rethink local metrics, cooperative metric, relationship of Tech Serv to other departments, between libraries, with vendors. We need to discuss/address benefits/challenges and concerns about current environment and workflows. How do existing software, systems, etc. inhibit adoption of new standards? Need to recognize we may have unhelpful dependency on the systems and the workflow imposed on us by them (Alma grr) Rethink how we can introduce new standards into the current workflows, or better let go workflows that are system dictated and decide what you need. With open data on the web, so many more options are available. What is the impact of converting from MARC to BIBFRAME. Discovery should increase as more relevant links are created in the process of cataloging using BIBFRAME. Web work should allow for greater economies of scale. E.g. blogging – you write for the web. Can a group decide to move head on the bleeding edge will others wait – certainly. At UC Davis (Aleph and YBP) they will explore converting MARC to BIBFRAME develop and test prototype discovery and display systems. By default the data will be in the web – we don’t have to push it there (to be discovered by Google, or our users) www.zepheira.com/alamw14
PCC. Beth McNally-Camden. How does PCC shift its priorities as the environment shifts? What does authority control mean in a non-MARC environment? What about VIAF? RDA solves undifferentiated names. Shift if from uniqueness of the string to unique identifiers. PCC is considering how to cooperation with ISNI project (focus on rights management) and ORCHID (researchers claim rights to their work). PCC will be working on a new strategic plan. Should they attempt standards for non-MARC records? Identiers/creators – a role for PCC? How can they work with BIBFRAME.
Note: I heard “cooperative” at several levels; let’s avoid data wrangling (i.e. copying from one place to another and having to manage it for the specific vendor’s system); get a much as possible into OCLC where everyone can use it.
5:30-7:30 PCC Exhibit A-C Exhibits open – all conference reception
Asked for demo of OCLC Discovery. I think it was set as a demo to a specific database, not all OCLC.
7:30-9:30PM PCC 110 B SAC RDA
Notes
Gordon Dunsire, John Attig, Robert Maxwell, etc.
The definition doesn’t need to be here. The definition on the last page needs revising. May not include 23.5 Source consulted. There will be a call for examples including terms and classifications. We need to be done so SAC can approve before Annual. Be done May 1. Examples by April 1.
Gordon – the FRSAD model – 2 entities plus work, ie thema and nomen. Thema being theoretical and nomen is what you call that. JSC is desperate to have something in that part of RDA but need to start at a simple level. Are we going to pass right through the thema and go to the nomen? It becomes a label. One of the outcomes of the FRBR remodeling, is it may become simpler. Need to separate label and identifier (the identifier could be URI which points to itself). We get around the problem by creating an authorized access point. A similar problem is in VIAF where several forms are decided to be okay to identity a person, yet VIAF is linking them together.
FRBR consolidation – FRSAD is different than FRAD and FRBR and may wag the dog – it is 15 years newer than FRBR.
Timeline – at the earliest consolidation would be ready is 2015. Should be able to report in Aug. to IFLA’s FRBR review group. That would require a worldwide review. If the report isn’t ready by this Aug. it will be a year later. He thinks it could be in RDA but be careful not to over-define the entities make rules too complex and then you add another 2 years. He would like to see a clear outline of an entity-relationship and clear definitions.
SATURDAY – Jan. 25
8:30-10:00 PCC 102 A OCLC WMS
Notes – Registered
“Realizing the Results of Collaborating in the Cloud: OCLC WorldShare Management Services.”
During this session, you’ll learn how libraries are improving workflow efficiencies and increasing end user access to their collections with WorldShare Management Services.
Andrew K. Pace, OCLC Executive Director, will provide an overview and update of WorldShare Management Services. Three special guest speakers will be sharing their library’s experience WorldShare Management Services :Jason Griffey, IT Administrator, University of Tennessee Chattanooga, Steve McKinzie, Director of Library Services, Catawba College, Colleen Willis, Senior Librarian, National Academies Research Center
What you buy includes everything. No extra cost for covers, authority, etc. Collection evaluation incorporated (replaces collection analysis)
Cloud software with core services. Open platform with apps to expand. Small frequent updates and everyone is at the same support level.
Large interdependent systems made mastery prohibitive (i.e. me the only one to do tables, etc.) Isn’t Alma to some extent the same problem?
Benefits: cost savings (hardware and subscription), time savings in technical services, increased staff satisfaction, increased user satisfaction, increased usage (print & e), electronic resource management
No need to purchase hardware and software, mobile access, link resolution, cover art, TOC, reduces time in acquisitions and cataloging.
Even though has it’s own discovery, can run another (why?!)
Staff redeployment – redesign library web site, catalog unique materials, catalog archives, focus on users.
Viterbo University – says cataloging time was cut in half (depends on previous system)
Metadata, acquisitions, licenses, circulation, ILL, analytics (reports)
Have 180 libraries live, 250 committed – world wide
PALNI - private libraries; Libros (New Mexico) – academic consortia ; using consortial borrowing
There is a community center online that we can all see where users can ask for enhancements
50-60 new features in last 2 releases, some based on user input
There is a “user group” with elected reps
Colleen Willis
Had a system dying and had a year to do RFP to implementation. As non-techie she needed a system that all the pieces would work well together. Reasons chosen: discoverability, user interface, 1 platform, cost savings, OCLC support. Had been using Illiad and Connexion. She had to do herself. They were paying for discovery, paying for link resolver, seat licences, etc. Went from $65,000 to $24,000. Currently using Illiad, but probably going to go to WMS ILL. Effect on staff time – during the transition year there were busy, but now starting to get online journals setup, etc. she is feeling that it will take about 4 weeks to set up her online subscriptions. They had already done a cataloging cleanup before migration. Everything went where it needed to go. Of course there we some glitches, but OCLC was great. She was part of a cohort group of new libraries to learn amongst. WMS admin platform – they don’t do a whole lot of circ, but feel the staff interface is clean, clear. Get patrons from PeopleSoft – ftp weekly. Takes time once a week to do circ reports – she admits a library with lots of circ would do more. Turned in lots of tickets as she set up different parts of the system but every ticket was answered. The interface to manage her online collections is relatively easy – it takes a bit to show in. If someone finds a wrong date range, she can fix it quickly. Users incredibly happy – it is google-like. (Pepperdine OCLC?) Love discoverability.
Use of catalog has gone up 58%. ILL – lending has gone up, but borrowing has gone down. Don’t have to do anything with their IT department to run the system. They have their custom WC local interface. Can set up bibliography lists on their interface. There is a citing feature. Will have more time for staff to be part of the learning process.