One Bib to Rule Them All –
SUNY One Bib / Shared Catalog
Project
SUNYLA June 12, 2014
The Quest of the Shared Catalog
and 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
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
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
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
• Gone but not forgotten
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
a. OCLC is better
b. OCLC is good enough
c. OCLC is worse
26
13
12
1
50.00%
46.15%
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 - Video
Larger 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 Concept
Server 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 Work
Data 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 Work
Testing 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 Work
Recent 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 - Themes
Sponsored 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
No Edits needed
Physical Processing/Barcode
Needed
SUNY record is not found
found
Search OCLC
OCLC Record Found OCLC Record Not Found
Edits Needed
Edits Needed
Edit OCLC/Aleph record
Download OCLC record
Create OCLC record
No Edits needed
Send item to be shelved
Upload
Needed record to Aleph
Holding/Item record created
Send item to be shelved
*Campuses have different budgeting and acquisitions workflows. These workflows
will not have to be altered for the SUNY One Bib project.
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)