Jane Anne Carey
Metadata Resource Management Librarian
University of Florida Libraries
jacarey@ufl.edu
Catalog Management Interest Group
January 8th, 2011
The Journey to Single BIB
“I hold the world but as the world,
A stage, where every man
must play a part”
The Merchant of Venice,
William Shakespeare
The Company of Players
State University System Libraries of Florida (SUS or SUL)











Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Florida Atlantic University (FAU)
Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU)
Florida International University (FIU)
Florida State University (FSU)
New College of Florida (NCF)
University of Central Florida (UCF)
University of Florida (UF)
University of North Florida (UNF)
University of South Florida (USF)
University of West Florida (UWF)
The Technical Crew
Florida Center for Library Automation
(FCLA)
“provides state-of-the-art, cost-effective
information technology to assist the libraries
of the public universities of Florida in their
support of teaching, learning, research and
public service. More specifically, implement
and centrally support high quality computer
systems that help the libraries acquire,
manage and provide access to information
resources.”
http://fclaweb.fcla.edu/
The Stage
Aleph, shared Integrated Library
System (ILS) created by Exlibris
Staff functions supported by FCLA include
circulation, acquisitions, cataloging, course
reserves and database maintenance. We are
currently on Version 19 of the Aleph software.
The Producers
Council of State University Libraries
(CSUL)
Composed of the Deans and Directors of the
SUS Libraries and FCLA
The Directors
Technical Services Planning Committee
(TSPC)
A committee created by the CSUL in 1995 to: Plan,
create, and implement tools and processes for
intellectual access to SUL Collections; analyze and
assess current practices, policies, and procedures
for technical services activities; recommend new
and improved levels of service; coordinate with
other CSUL committees on issues of mutual
interest; advise the CSUL regarding trends in
technical services.
The Play
The Journey to Single BIB –
Phase 1 – 2010
An exciting adventure tale full of danger,
committees, surprises …
and tedium
Pre-production timeline
Since early 2008 subcommittees TSPC
have discussed the possibility of
having a shared bibliographic record
architecture and sent forward a report
to that effect to the CSUL in August of
2008.
Points in favor of a
single bibliographic record:
 Unmediated borrowing can be instituted (Uborrow).
 Simplification of shared storage maintenance.
 Possibility of shared authority work.
 Shared database maintenance.
 A smaller bibliographic database.
 Full and partial updates of discovery tool will be much
faster and more efficient.
 Record displays in the discovery tool will be cleaner since
minor variations in headings will be eliminated that now
lead to apparent duplication of name and subject fields.
Points against having a
single bibliographic record:
Loss of some local data – particularly Special Collections
Loss of local autonomy in catalog construction.
Greater need for coordinated database maintenance.
Proprietary records will require special handling and may
require considerable vendor negotiation and in some
cases extra money expended in order to include them in
a statewide database.
 There has not been a statewide standard for cataloging.
This has led to divergent cataloging practices, the
consequences of which are now manifested in the
current union view record. Permanently merging the
records would mean that there would be no way to fix
some of these problems.




Pre-production timeline
On the strength of that report, CSUL
created the Single Bibliographic
Record Task Force (SBTF) to
investigate the steps needed to create
an effective merged ILS.
Pre-production timeline
They in turn created the Single
Bibliographic Pilot Project (SBPP)
composed of the chairs of the catalog
departments of the three largest
libraries (University of Florida, Florida
State University, and University of
South Florida) and representatives
from FCLA
Pre-production timeline
In the spring of 2010, TSPC formed the
Statewide Standards for MARC Records
Advisory Group to draft guidelines for
cataloging in a shared bibliographic
environment. Representatives were from
UF, FSU, USF, UCF, NCF, and FCLA.
The final draft was submitted in June 2010
and was finalized in September 2010.
Out of Town Tryouts - SBU
In May 2010, under Phase 1.1, FCLA
created a test catalog (SBU) of the merged
records of the three largest libraries.
At each library, catalogers familiar with
serials and special collections materials
looked at it to gauge the results.
A second merge in November opened the
field to more investigators.
Bib Tag Options - SBU
1. If not found add it, only one tag from latest record kept,
no duplicates, for non-repeatable fields.
2. All unique tag content is kept, all have $5 added.
3. All unique tag content is kept, no $5s added.
4. None kept, drop all occurrences.
5. Use longest field.
6. Use most complete field (008)
Dictionary of Scientific Biography
OCLC # 00089822
 2600 $a New York, $b Scribner $c 1970-1990 $5 FU
 2600 $a New York, $b Scribner $c [1970-1980] $5
FTS $5 FU
 2600 $a New York, $b Scribner $c [1970- $5 FTaSU
 300 $a 14 v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FU
 300 $a 16 v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FTS
 300 $a v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FTaSU
 300 $a 18 v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FU
But I didn’t come today…
Correcting legacy problems:
• OCLC reclamation project - Since 2009, UF has
been working with OCLC on a reclamation project to
match UF records to holdings on OCLC’s WorldCat
• BIB tags – since January 2010 UF staff have been
working on a project to clean-up incorrect record
tags
Act 1: OCLC reclamation project
OCLC processed over 3,392,000 records
89% were reconciled
375,000 unresolved
Act 1: OCLC reclamation project











=LDR 00331nam 2200157K 4500
=001 002987355
=004 UFAPM9211001
=005 20071024162800.0
=008 021008q19501959xx\\\\\\\\\\\\00000\\\\\d
=035 9\$aAPM9211$bUF
=049 \\$aFUG{dollar}
=099 \\$a39h12717
=245 00$aLITTLE RED RIDING HOOD.
=260 \\$c1955.
=951 \\$lFUG
Act 1: OCLC reclamation project
Undefined
Eighteenth Century Collections Online
Congressional Information Service
English Short Title Catalog
No Holdings
Marcive
Electronic Thesis Dissertations
Card Project (Carp)
Suppressed BIBs
National Technical Infromation Service
Circulation created
Duplicate OCLC numbers
Serial Solutions
Act 1: OCLC reclamation project
Serial Solutions (97 records) – Ignore - should not have been
included in OCLC reclamation
OCLC dup (110) – Print OCLC # on BIB and Microfilm OCLC #
on Holding – most prints suppressed – download microfilm
record
Circ created (1,080) – Ignore – will be corrected when item
cataloged
NTIS (1,107) – Mark as provisional
Suppressed (1,223) – Spot check then ignore – never should
have been included
CarP (3,391) – Aleph service to determine if OCLC numbers –
bring in new records – future project to catalog remaining.
ETD (3,791) – ETD experts in Main Campus and Health Center
added OCLC numbers to all and updated OCLC
Act 1: OCLC reclamation project
Marchive (6,320) – Ignore the 83% suppressed and future staff
project on the rest
No Hol (14,568) – Ran a Global Change service in Aleph to
Suppress the BIBs
English Short Title (26,351) – Probably ignore – still checking
on status
Congressional Info Service (29,751) – Microfiche not
requested – discussion with the Legal Information Center as to
whether to suppress all the records
18th C Collections (120,061) – Probably ignore – still checking
on status
Undefined (167,297) – Find out how many are suppressed –
then run an Aleph service get a picture of which have OCLC
#s, ticklers TKR, and Location
Act 2 - BIB Tags
University of Florida:
1,787 tags with associated records
• 924 under 20 records
• 461 under 1,000 records
• 300 under 100,000 records
• 75 under 1,000,000 records
• 27 over 1,000,000 records
Remember those Tag options?
1. If not found add it, only one tag from latest record kept,
no duplicates, for non-repeatable fields.
2. All unique tag content is kept, all have $5 added.
3. All unique tag content is kept, no $5s added.
4. None kept, drop all occurrences.
5. Use longest field.
6. Use most complete field (008)
Act 2 - BIB Tags
855 tags correct:
• 246 under 20 records
• 278 under 1,000 records
• 240 under 100,000 records
• 65 under 1,000,000 records
• 26 over 1,000,000 records
Act 2 - BIB Tags
932 found to be incorrect
Staff corrected 710 tags:
Individual records – 1800 records with 635 tags
Global changes – 1,183,064 records with 75 tags
222 tags left to be handled by UF staff or FCLA
Act 2 - BIB Tags
Examples of strange tags:
• 02823
• 033 1
• XXX14
• A Se
• KR1
• 008C:
• .S84
• ???
• 019##
• 041(?
• UFCOP
• UFSCI
• UPD
• V40
Why can’t they type TKR?
• TKE
• TKP
• TKR$$
• TKR@@
• TKRo
• TKR1
• TKR31
• TKRR
• TKS
• TKT
• TLR
• TRK
Act 2 - BIB Tags
FCLA Global Changes:
Finished:
Tag 2600 – 1,408,168 records
FCLA removed 1st indicator 0
Act 2 - BIB Tags
FCLA future changes:
100, 110, 111 – change 2nd indicator to blank
100, 600, 700 – change 1st indicator from 2 to 1
700, 710, 711 – change to blank any 2nd indicator
not 2
Possible changes:
730, 740 – change to blank any 2nd indicator not 2
440 – change to 4901 & 830 0?
Finale
“A little work, a little play
To keep us going—and so good-day!”
Trilby
George du Maurier
Coming Attractions
Phase 2 - 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Items - linked correctly
Use of the Aleph clients to edit bib, holdings and items
Union and SUL catalogs based on the shared bib. records
Permissions - merged into one file
Ability to run cataloging Services, Aleph reports
Acquisitions workflow (services/reports)
Batch Loading
Merged Authorities
Circulation functions
UBorrow
Reserves
Analysis Data Warehouse and ARROW reports
Test merge of all 11 databases
Upgrade Aleph to version 20