Entry Filed under: Cataloging, OCLC News
Earlier this year, OCLC announced a pilot project to explore upstream metadata capture and metadata enhancement using publisher and vendor ONIX (Online Information Exchange) metadata. Here’s an overview of how the pilot is progressing and the next steps.
Between January and June 2008, OCLC:
enhanced the OCLC ONIX to MARC crosswalk.
created the OCLC MARC to ONIX crosswalk.
defined rules and hierarchies for mining existing WorldCat records to enhance ONIX metadata and to enhance or create records in WorldCat.
developed software to perform creation and enhancement activities.
began receiving ONIX metadata from publisher and vendor pilot partners.
developed evaluative tools and case study templates for reporting on pilot results.
began to collect statistical information on metadata received and enhanced.
continued to refine crosswalks, rules for enhancement and software based on live data.
began defining mapping between DDC and publisher BISAC (Book Industry Standards and Communications) subject headings.
Results thus far provide proof of concept that metadata can be created and enhanced through these processes.
Three pilot partners submitting approximately 1,000 ONIX records each:
Total records processed: 2,935
Total records matched in WorldCat: 2,724
Total records with no exact match: 211
Total records enhanced: 2,706
One pilot partner submitting a larger data set:
Total records processed: 7,649
Total records matched in WorldCat: 6,584
Total records with no exact match: 1,065
Total records enhanced: 6,565
During July and August, OCLC will wrap up the pilot and provide final statistics, pilot partner evaluations, case studies and recommendations for moving forward to library and publisher supply chain communities. OCLC welcomes input from both communities on new ways to think about cataloging and metadata creation in support of both library and publishing needs.
Pilot overview.
ALA Annual presentation.
July 16th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: MLC News, OCLC News
OCLC was awarded a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to explore attitudes and perceptions about library funding and to evaluate the potential of a large-scale marketing and advocacy campaign to increase public library funding in the U.S. The findings of this research are now available in the latest OCLC report, From Awareness to Funding: A study of library support in America.
Among the findings from the report:
Library funding support is only marginally related to library visitation.
Perceptions of librarians are an important predictor of library funding support.
Voters who see the library as a “transformational” force as opposed to an “information” source are more likely to increase taxes in its support.
The report suggests that targeting marketing messages to the right segments of the voting public is key to driving increased support for U.S. public libraries.
Purchase a print copy of the report or download a free electronic version at the OCLC Web site.
July 16th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Cataloging
Enhance Sharing Session at ALA Annual
Anaheim, California, 2008 June 27
Based on Notes by Shana McDanold, University of Pennsylvania
And Glenn Patton, OCLC
Edited by Jay Weitz
Roughly fifty members of the OCLC cooperative gathered for the Enhance Sharing Session during the American Library Association Annual Conference in Anaheim on Friday, 2008 June 27. Enhance Coordinator Jay Weitz moderated the meeting, but handed most of it over to Glenn Patton, Director of OCLC’s WorldCat Quality Management Division. Cynthia Whitacre, Manager of OCLC’s WorldCat Quality Department, was also in attendance. First, highlights from the handout “News from OCLC,” the full text of which follows this report, were noted. Two other pieces of news were also relayed:
· OCLC has been using automated software to control specific types of personal name headings in WorldCat bibliographic records. Name headings must be qualified with subfields to make a concrete match. Unqualified name headings (unique or not) are not being controlled. As of late June, 15.7 million headings have been controlled, which is an estimated 65% of the data to be processed. The project is on hold until late July due to other activities at OCLC.
· The project to add non-Latin script cross-references to name authority records has been put on hold by the Library of Congress. The new implementation date for the automated population of the Name Authority File is July 13, 2008.
Glenn then led a discussion about the “Expert Community Experiment” that OCLC has been contemplating and discussing internally in recent months. The experiment would include expansions of Database Enrichment and Enhance capabilities and some refocusing of quality control efforts. Here are Glenn’s own notes on his presentation:
How many times have you heard someone say … or read on OCLC-CAT or AUTOCAT or other lists?
· There are digits transposed in this class number but I can’t fix it – can someone help?
· There’s a typo in the title in the CIP Record that affects access. I can add the physical description … but I can’t fix the typo.
· I discovered a problem in the new record I created last week … but other institutions have used the record so I can’t fix the problem.
· This heading is controlled to the wrong authority record but I can’t fix it … and I don’t have time to do a change request.
· There’s an authority record that this heading should be controlled to but, since it changes the heading, the system won’t let me replace the record.
· I’d like to be able to share in fixing things like this but applying for Enhance take too much time and too much work – and my department head doesn’t want me to spend the time.
· I know I’ll be rejected if I apply so I just don’t want to put myself through that.
We’re hearing this more and more … especially the last two – and especially in the context of WorldCat Local where WorldCat becomes the local catalog, where catalogers are used to just fixing things.
We’re also hearing, especially from younger cataloging staff, “Why can’t WorldCat be more like Wikipedia? Why isn’t OCLC making better use of the expert community of catalogers?”
So we’ve been thinking about ways to make things easier, especially in those cases where the cataloger has figured out how to fix the record (and will edit for use in the local catalog) and should be able to “just do it”.
One possibility is opening current Database Enrichment capabilities dramatically for anyone with a full-level cataloging authorization. Probably in the context of a 3- to 6-month experiment this fall and winter, to see how it works.
Thoughts about this???
Of course, this means more people doing what Enhance institutions can do.
So, how might we refocus the Enhance Program (in its 25th year) to make better use of this part of the “expert community”?
· Help with headings maintenance?
· Open up some types of merging?
· Other thoughts?
Watch for more information over the next few months.
Feedback from the session attendees was generally positive. Such changes might help the reputation of catalogers by making cataloging more of a community activity rather than an elite group activity. There were also numerous questions and comments:
· What will be the implications for PCC records? British Library (UKM) records? LC records? OCLC is just beginning to think through some of the implications. There may be certain restrictions on some categories of records because of the requirements of cooperative programs (CONSER and BIBCO records, for instance) and record use agreements, and details will need to be discussed and determined.
· What will be the structure for quality control? OCLC has some tools (and might be able to develop others) to assist in the review of replaced records. Clearly, some guidelines for participants in the experiment will need to be provided, and there will be an intense review period to see how the experiment is going.
· As for Database Enrichment right now, frustration was expressed that if you’re making multiple changes and one of them is outside of the current boundaries, then all changes to the record are disallowed by the system and you have to start over. One way around that is to make changes one at a time. Is there any way to change that so the allowable changes go through or an error message appears letting you know which change is not allowed? It is unknown if that’s possible with the current system. This would be considerably less of a problem under the Database Enrichment expansion that is being contemplated.
· It was asked if the ability to Enhance, correct, and clean up 505 fields could be added to Database Enrichment. Currently, an existing 505 can edited and a new 505 may be added when one is not already present on the record.
· There still needs to be an Enhance program, but with additional capabilities. Enhance libraries should be able to do more things beyond Database Enrichment.
· There need to be checks and balances built into the system. The documentation about how to do things and what you can and cannot do needs to be richer. An emphasis on “playing nice” or “don’t run amok” needs to be incorporated more clearly into the documentation.
· Expanding Database Enrichment activities should bring in more as well as newer/younger catalogers, getting people involved and invested in sharing the cataloging responsibilities (a true “shared cataloging” environment in WorldCat).
· Guidelines are great, but people don’t always follow them. What about damage control and restoring data? In the past, OCLC has had a 100 day window to restore data and to undo merges and updates to records. This window will expand to be longer and we are hoping that the restore process can be made simpler as well.
· How will training and education about the expanded abilities be handled? There could be a mix of different training options, including Web based sessions, Webinars, recorded live sessions, and help from regional service providers. OCLC will solicit feedback from participants as much as possible to guide further training and documentation.
· Has the possibility of a different Encoding Level as an indicator been considered? No. Adding a new Encoding Level would be difficult and complex to implement.
· Will there be a gradual addition of bibliographic formats or will they all be opened up at once? The thought has been to open up all formats at once, with the exception of certain categories of records (as noted earlier).
· It was noted that this will be very helpful for the more specialized formats like Visual Materials and Maps to get more information into the database and give experienced catalogers increased ability to clean up existing records.
· What is the number of Enhance participants versus the total OCLC membership? In terms of OCLC symbols, there are currently about 208 institutions participating, although some institutions have multiple OCLC symbols. In terms of the total number of libraries doing cataloging in WorldCat, there are around 9,000-10,000 symbols.
· What will be the fate of the Enhance program? The idea is to expand the focus of Enhance. OCLC has long recommended that Enhance participants not replace records for resources they don’t hold. The technical problems that often used to result in electronic files from the presence of replace transactions for items not held can now be avoided. So Enhance institutions being allowed to do bibliographic file maintenance or to start working on records based on other people’s bibliographic change reports are now real possibilities. Again, details will have to be worked out in cooperation with LC, PCC, and other entities.
· Several people requested that maybe permission to merge records, within strict guidelines, be given to Enhance libraries. The ability to do Type Code changes to master records is another possible expansion of Enhance.
· What about being able to make partial changes to headings, such as when the main series or parent organization changes name but the sub-series or sub-organization doesn’t? That shouldn’t be an issue.
· What about documentation changes? If someone is starting training of new staff now, should we wait? These changes are still in the discussion and planning stages. So for now continue with how things are in your training and work, and use the existing documentation.
· Should libraries apply for Enhance now or wait? The Enhance program and existing authorizations will continue unchanged for now. Although you should be aware that the focus of the program might change, it’s up to the individual institution to decide about the timing of any Enhance application at this point.
· It was brought up how this will be a benefit for network level cataloging. Currently PCC needs documentation for corrections, but if your cataloging is at the network level you may not have access to what you need or it may be difficult to acquire information from the individual library. With these proposed changes to Database Enrichment and Enhance, this would no longer be an issue since you’d be allowed to make changes based on other people’s information.
· Is there a way to communicate with libraries that input or last edited a record (based on their symbol)? The PCC libraries contact information is available on the Web. Can that link be added to the list of “Useful Web Links” in Connexion? Possibly.
· Can a way to attach scans to error report forms be added? That is something to be considered and explored.
· What about financial credits? Will they change? They will be reevaluated, but they won’t go away. They will be adjusted based on how Database Enrichment and Enhance change. OCLC recognizes that the financial reward is an incentive for participation and a tool to convince administrations of the usefulness of collective participation (“for the greater good” won’t cut it these days).
· Is there a timeline for the possible changes? The experiment could begin as soon as this fall, but a good deal needs to be discussed within OCLC and coordinated with other cooperative programs and institutions first. OCLC will also need time to define and implement all of the system changes that will be necessary. We will keep you posted.
Enhance participants were encouraged to continue the discussion on the Enhance discussion list. OCLC would like comments (both positive and negative), suggestions, points to consider, and so on, from participants. You can find instructions on subscribing to the Enhance discussion list, hosted by the University of Washington, here.
July 14th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Cataloging, Technical Services
If you are interested in learning more about what’s new at OCLC in Cataloging and Metadata, click on the link below and scroll down to Special Updates and Offers to receive email updates about new services, events, offers, and features. Select Cataloging and Metadata and any other area of interest. This is not a replacement for the OCLC-CAT discussion list, but is used to supplement the information sent to the list.
Subscribe to OCLC Special Updates and Offers here.
July 9th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Collections, OCLC News
OCLC NetLibrary has introduced 27 new eBook Subject Sets and five new eAudiobook Subject Sets for 2008-2009. Combining comprehensive coverage in core subject areas with authoritative frontlist content, 2008-2009 Subject Sets are a fast and affordable solution for libraries that are interested in starting or growing an eContent collection.
New Subject Sets are grouped in five collection categories, including General Social Sciences & Business, Hot Topics & Special Interest, Teacher’s Resources, Personal Growth & How-To and eAudiobooks. Selected from our catalog of more than 170,000 titles, Subject Sets are available for all library types and include OCLC MARC recordsat no additional charge.
Libraries can purchase by individual Subject Set or by category for complete subject coverage. Please note that Subject Sets are available to individual libraries and multi-branch library systems only and are not available for consortia sales. All titles included in Subject Sets have been cleared for worldwide distribution. Complete title lists and additional resources are available here. Click the sets for more information.
eBook Subject Sets
eAudiobook Subject Sets
FY09 Subject Set Price List
FY09 Subject Sets FAQ
FY09 eAudiobook Subject Sets FAQ
July 9th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Cataloging, Collections, OCLC News
OCLC has begun adding records from the Jewish National and University Library (JNUL) to WorldCat. An initial load of more than 550,000 Hebrew-script records have been processed. The OCLC symbol for the JNUL is J9U. Additional files of Latin-script records as well as Arabic-script and Cyrillic-script records will be added over the next few weeks. Some sample Hebrew-script records include #232696837, #232697211 and #232693320.
The Hebrew-script records do not have romanized fields paired with the fields containing script data. The “language of cataloging” (field 040, $b) is coded as Hebrew. If other OCLC users wish to have a record that contains paired fields, they should create a parallel record following the guidelines in Bibliographic Formats and Standards section 3.10.
July 9th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Cataloging, OCLC News
For the fiscal year just concluded (July 2007 through June 2008), OCLC staff have:
- corrected 2,137,903 bibliographic records
- performed 207,742 merges resulting in the deletion of 317,022 bibliographic records
- added 165 new authority records
- updated 395,817 authority records
- referred 765 authority records (name and subject) to the Library of Congress for resolution
Many of the changes resulted from the processing of 182,348 change requests, an increase of 21% over the same period of fiscal year 2007.
During the same time period, OCLC CIP Upgrade Unit staff have:
- upgraded 20,501 CIP records
- added 1,006 new authority records
- updated 857 authority records
These figures for authority records include 450 new series authority records and updates to 247 existing series authority records. This activity with series authorities continues to grow as a result of OCLC’s adapting to the Library of Congress’s stopping series authority work.
July 9th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Cataloging, OCLC News, Technical Services
An important part of the maintenance and improvement of WorldCat is the activity by member libraries in adding call numbers and subjects, tables of contents, etc., upgrading minimal-level records and enhancing full records. During the fiscal year 2008 just completed, member libraries did the following:
Database enrichment: 157,787 records (a 21% increase from FY2007)
Minimal-level upgrades: 108,130 records (also a 21% increase)
Enhance upgrades: 156,423 (16% increase)
For a “refresher” on what member libraries can do in each of these categories, take a look at the following sections of Bibliographic Formats & Standards.
Database Enrichment: section 5.4
Minimal-Level Upgrades: section 5.2
The Enhance Program: section 5.5
July 9th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Resource Sharing
This Sunday, July 13, OCLC will be implementing new “Reasons for No” for users of WorldCat Resource Sharing. This change will happen at a later date for users of OCLC ILLiad following the release of a new ILLiad Web service. The original Reasons for No were developed by the ILL Protocol Implementers Group (IPIG). Over the years, some of these reasons have become outdated and new reasons have become necessary. The details of these changes are outlined below.
Process
Beginning in 2008, OCLC started working with an ad hoc group of libraries to revamp the Reasons for No as they appear in WorldCat Resource Sharing and OCLC ILLiad. This advisory group consisted of volunteers from the OCLC ILL Users Group at ALA Midwinter, members of SHARES, library staff who participated in discussions on ILL-L, and Regional Service Providers and any libraries they contacted.
OCLC presented a list of current Reasons for No, asked for user opinions on the usefulness of the reasons and suggestions for new reasons. OCLC also asked for opinions on how “Not Found as Cited” should be handled systematically. OCLC went through this process four times until it came to a resolution where each proposed change had a majority.
Complete list of Reasons for No
Below is the list of Reasons for No that will appear in WorldCat Resource Sharing starting in July 2008. They are in the order in which they will appear in the drop-down list. This order corresponds to how often they are used by WorldCat Resource Sharing and ILLiad users.
In Use/On Loan
Non Circulating
Not on Shelf/Missing
Not Owned
Lacking Volume/Issue
Branch Policy Problem
On Order
Cost Exceeds Limit
Technical Processing
Preferred Delivery Time Not Possible
Poor Condition
At Bindery
Volume Issue Not Yet Available
Not Licensed to Fill
Required delivery services not supported
Prepayment Required
Other
Retired Reasons for No
The following Reasons for No will no longer be used:
Unspecified
Charges
Locations not found
On reserve (now use: In use/on loan)
On hold (now use: In use/on loan)
Not found as cited (moved to system-supplied Conditional response)
Lacks copyright compliance (moved to system-supplied Conditional response)
Changes for Conditional Responses
In the current environment all conditional responses are supplied by users via the Administrative Module and Constant Data. Beginning in July, the WorldCat Resource Sharing system will supply four conditional responses for users:
Not found as cited (will no longer be a Reason for No)
Used when the Lender cannot find a requested item based on borrower-supplied citation information
Duplicate request? (new)
Used when the Lender receives two requests for the same item around the same time. The Lender can confirm that the Borrower truly wants two copies of the same item.
Borrower concerns/please contact lender (new)
Used when a Lender is not comfortable lending an item to a particular Borrower until they have a conversation. This may be due to overdue materials, materials with IFM attached that have not been received, etc.
Lacks copyright compliance (will no longer be a Reason for No)
Used when the Borrower has not noted CCG or CCL compliance and the Lender wants this information to be supplied before agreeing to supply the item.
ILLiad impact
OCLC is making these changes first to WorldCat Resource Sharing. At the same time as the changes are implemented in WorldCat Resource Sharing we will be updating the Atlas Systems Web service to include the new Reasons for No in ILLiad. Until that development work is completed and users have upgraded to the new release that incorporates the Web service, users of ILLiad will not have access to these new Reasons for No and users of WCRS may receive some of the older Reasons for No.
ISOILLimpact
Users of ISOILLwill continue to receive ISO-sanctioned Reasons for No. New OCLC Reasons for No will be mapped to “Other” if there is no logical ISO reason provided.
Other partners
OCLC is also updating the Web services used by other partners that use WorldCat Resource Sharing. OCLC will be making this updated Web service available in July 2008. As with ILLiad, there will be some lag time while partner organizations implement the new Web service and users upgrade their software.
July 8th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Entry Filed under: Collections, Partnerships & Projects
OCLC and Index Data, a software development and consulting enterprise that specializes in information retrieval and metasearch solutions, are working together to extend the discovery capabilities of WorldCat Local to include all licensed and full-text resources of a library. Index Data will help OCLC incorporate metasearch into WorldCat Local for searching databases that are not indexed in WorldCat.org.
View news release.
July 7th, 2008
Aaron Smith
Previous Posts
