Possibilities of a union catalogue for Kenya libraries

706 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
706
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Kenya lacks a national union catalogue or integrated national bibliographic network that links the many types of libraries that exist in the country. This has made resource sharing and standardization a challenge for the libraries. A large number of the libraries do not even adhere to international cataloguing standards. There are no standards set for cataloguing of material containing information that is unique to the country.  It is quite difficult to identify what has been published in Kenya and to accurately determine which publications are held in other libraries. There is duplication in cataloguing especially of material that is found in more than one library.
  • National bibliographic standards manualIt is essential that every member library provides accurate and standard data by using agreed upon bibliographic standards. Since the computer cannot distinguish between good and substandard cataloging, each library has to accept the responsibility of abiding by the standards. Participating libraries will have to agree on the standards to adapt for naming and classifying. Local standards to suit the specific needs and requirements of database containing locally produced information material will have to be agreed upon.
  • Z39.50/SRU/SRWZ39.50 also known as ISO23950 is a protocol that enables search of and retrieval from remote databases.  Z39.50 applications search remote databases that are connected to internet using the TCP/IP transportation protocol. This protocol has been widely used in library systems and it has greatly impacted on the way library systems interact.  A key example of Z39.50 protocol application is the Library of Congress gateway that links to over 400 library catalogues. The protocol has also been adopted by commercial databases, museums and government information centres.The advantages associated with this protocol include; searching multiple catalogues or databases with one single user interface, searching multiple catalogues or databases with one search, obtaining results from multiple servers are in a standard format that can be combined, possibility of using results by a client, e.g. for copy cataloguing or for creation of a bibliography and ability to order items ordered or requested through Inter-Library Loan. Search and retrieve web service (SRW) and search and retrieve URL service (SRU) are web services-based protocols, an improvement of Z39.50 that are built for querying internet indexes or databases and returning search results. Although they are implemented differently, both SRW and SRU are similar, since they both define a similar set of commands (known as "operations") and responses
  • Z39.50/SRU/SRWZ39.50 also known as ISO23950 is a protocol that enables search of and retrieval from remote databases.  Z39.50 applications search remote databases that are connected to internet using the TCP/IP transportation protocol. This protocol has been widely used in library systems and it has greatly impacted on the way library systems interact.  A key example of Z39.50 protocol application is the Library of Congress gateway that links to over 400 library catalogues. The protocol has also been adopted by commercial databases, museums and government information centres.The advantages associated with this protocol include; searching multiple catalogues or databases with one single user interface, searching multiple catalogues or databases with one search, obtaining results from multiple servers are in a standard format that can be combined, possibility of using results by a client, e.g. for copy cataloguing or for creation of a bibliography and ability to order items ordered or requested through Inter-Library Loan. Search and retrieve web service (SRW) and search and retrieve URL service (SRU) are web services-based protocols, an improvement of Z39.50 that are built for querying internet indexes or databases and returning search results. Although they are implemented differently, both SRW and SRU are similar, since they both define a similar set of commands (known as "operations") and responses
  • 1. Library Standards for Exchanging Catalogue RecordsThe exchange of catalogue records between libraries, either as individual records or as a batch process, requires a common language to encode the cataloguing information. MARC (Machine Readable Cataloguing) is the most common standard used by libraries.Best practice is to use a scheme that creates efficiency in the exchange of library catalogue records.2. Describing library resources and access standards for librariesProviding a standard way to transcribe and describe attributes of library resources creates catalogue records that are consistent in form.  The content standard for libraries, "the Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR") provides a consistient way to transcribe an author when used as a accent point. e.g. <last name, first name>. Best practice is use the standard designed for use in the construction of library catalogues. 3. Controlled VocabulariesControlled vocabularies provide an "authorised" terrm when it it is possible to have variant spellings, and concepts, to describe an entity ...Best practice is to use a controlled list of names 4. Classification Schemes Best practice is to use a standard classification scheme e.g. Dewey, Library of Congress Classification   5. HoldingsHoldings statements describe the location of an item or similar group of items of a library. The New Zealand National Union Catalogue contains the holdings of more than 280 New Zealand libraries.Best practice is to use the standard designed for use in the description of holdings statements. 
  • There is great potential to share more data within consortia which necessitates a new layer of standards.The participating institutions must accept to adapt certain common standards and norms to ensure professionalism and conformity. To successfully implement the union catalogue in Kenya, a good number of librarians will have to be willing to implement the necessary policy changes and adapt the necessary standards that will facilitate the interoperability of systems both between a union catalogue and their local systems and between the union catalogue and global services and data stores.The libraries that decide to merge their records or decide to use a single point for access to all their collections will be forced to compromise to ensure that standards are set and implemented to ensure uniformity and ease of access for the final users.
  • Possibilities of a union catalogue for Kenya libraries

    1. 1. Possibilities of a Union Catalogue in Kenya: An update Tito Wawire Peter Mwangi Gichiri Beatrice AmolloPresented on behalf of UN-WB-UL Union catalogue committee & Koha Kenya Community
    2. 2. Background• In May 2011, a presentation titled ‘Open Source Software for implementation of Union Catalogue for Kenya ‘ was presented in a meeting sponsored by the Goethe-Institut, Nairobi on ‘Modalities of establishing a union catalogue for Kenyan libraries and the standardized integration of local content into that catalogue’ held in Nairobi for librarians from various library categories.• One of the resolutions was that the same presentations be made at a UN-UL-WB meeting that was to be held in the same month - 19th May at KCA. The presentation titled ‘Union Catalogue for Kenya libraries’ was well received by the participants.
    3. 3. • From this meeting, a team was proposed to look at possibilities of implementing a UC in Kenya. – The use of an OSS was appreciated by all, however the participants tasked the technical team to come up with a model that would incorporate all libraries regardless of the various Integrated Library systems.• A proposal to this effect was prepared and submitted to the National Council of Science & technology through UN-UL-WB for funding consideration.
    4. 4. The proposal rationale• Kenya lacks a national union catalogue or integrated national bibliographic network that links the many types of libraries that exist in the country.• It is quite difficult to identify what has been published in Kenya and to accurately determine which publications are held in other libraries.• There is duplication in cataloguing especially of material that is found in more than one library.
    5. 5. A research study by Libraries Automation Status project team member conducted in May, 2011 revealed that…… • Most libraries are automated • Most libraries have catalogue data in electronic form Library Information Management Z39.50/SRU/SRW protocols Systems in use Support Koha Libsoft Sirs Mandarin AmlibPercentage Inmagic Yes Liberty3 No Weblis ABCD Vubis Smart 0 10 20 30 40 • Majority libraries(87.5%) could share their data • Libraries can share bibliographic data. • All systems support z39.50,SRU or SRW
    6. 6. Availability of catalogues on the web 54 52 50 Percentage 48 46 44 Yes No Most library users search their institutions catalogues OPAC search by library categories Cross-searching other libraries in Kenya is100 rare. Why? – The need for a union80 Catalogue60 Frequently International catalogues are fairly popular.40 Occassionally Why? Possibly MARC records download20 Rarely 0 Never Inclusion of a choice menu for each library Your Own Other International Other Union in the web interface. Library Libraries in Libraries Catalogues Kenya Include feature for parallel searching of all or selected libraries Include international catalogues in the virtual catalogue
    7. 7. Different Methods of consultation70.00%60.00% • Need to include features to support50.00% inter-library loans as a priority. Very likely40.00% • Likely30.00% Unlikely It would be important to cluster Not at all likely20.00% libraries in geographical locations10.00% 0.00% Visit the library, if Visit the library, Use inter-library Buy items if Take action as it were in the even if it were not loans (ILL) available citation details same in the would be enough neighbourhood neighbourhoodContribution of the Virtual Union Catalogue 90.00% 80.00% Union catalogue will contribute to a 70.00% great extent the quality of information 60.00% search 50.00% Enormously 40.00% To a great extent 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1
    8. 8. Target group for the union catalogue willcomprise of libraries within: • Academic Institutions (Tertiary level) • Research institutions • KNLS • Special collection libraries • Members of KLA and KLISC that are not covered in the first four groups.
    9. 9. Why a Union Catalogue?• Libraries today have to deal with physical, digital and licensed collections – all at the same time. – With this kind of setup, the union catalogue will help the libraries achieve better, richer, shared collections and economies of scale in services and exposure.• The union catalogue is becoming more closely tied with local systems – using local resolvers to connect users directly with full text, accessing the local catalogue for circulation availability and passing users to local reference services.
    10. 10. Apart from resource sharing, the benefits of the UCto libraries include:• Facilitates cataloguing and improves the speed of cataloguing amongst participating libraries.• Result in production or supply of quality, bibliographic and authority records.• Development and maintenance of mutually acceptable standards.• Development of a more coordinated document supply service.• Development or increase in joint collections, printed and electronic ones.• Links to a wide range of document suppliers and electronic journals.• Ongoing discussion, planning and programming among participating libraries.• Likely formation of a national bibliographic network• Reduction in acquisition and cataloguing expenses.
    11. 11. The benefits to the library users include:• It is easier to confirm the existence of an item from a wide collection in one search or a click of a button;• Accurate information about the item location is established from the union catalogue, since this is provided in the catalogue.• Confirmation of the availability of required information at those known locations;• Getting the required information at the precise time of need; and• Ascertaining the licensing controls and authorization of the collections in the union catalogues.
    12. 12. Some Examples: • OCLCs WorldCat • Research Libraries UKs Copac • Library and Archives Canadas Amicus • South Africas SaCat
    13. 13. Project ObjectivesMain objective• To design and implement a suitable union catalogue that will facilitate resource sharing and promote uniformity or conformity within a national bibliographic network of libraries in Kenya.
    14. 14. Specific objectives• To set and implement standards for authority control and assignment of mutually accepted descriptors for the national bibliographic network.• To develop system for document supply and resource sharing in order to provide library users from all participating institutions with appropriate information• To promote consistent indexing of information that will enable users to perform consistent searching of records from multiple libraries, at any given time.
    15. 15. Expected Outputs1. An open source software based national union catalogue/portal that links libraries at all levels in Kenya. – The OSS option will be particularly helpful to upcoming libraries. – Libraries that do not wish to migrate or use the proposed OSS will be able to link to the union catalogue virtually using SRU & Z39.50 protocol.
    16. 16. Expected OutputsThe union catalogue will possess features of a next generation catalog • Single point of entry for all library information. • Web interface. • Enriched content. • Categorized searching. • Relevancy. • Recommendations/related materials. • User contribution. • RSS feeds. • Integration with social network sites. • Persistent links.
    17. 17. Expected Outputs2. National bibliographic standards manual – It is essential that every member library provides accurate and standard data by using agreed upon bibliographic standards. – Local standards to suit the specific needs and requirements of database containing locally produced information material will have to be agreed upon.
    18. 18. More about the Proposed Union Catalogue
    19. 19. Why Open Source? Disillusionment with current vendors Open source is seen as a solution to: ◦ Allow libraries to have more flexible systems ◦ Lower costs Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with mergers and acquisitions Open source is beginning to emerge as a mainstream option. No vendor lock in.
    20. 20. Protocols for the union catalogue• Z39.50 also known as ISO23950 is a protocol that enables search of and retrieval from remote databases. – Z39.50 applications search remote databases that are connected to internet using the TCP/IP transportation protocol. – This protocol has been widely used in library systems and it has greatly impacted on the way library systems interact.
    21. 21. Protocols for the union catalogue• Search and retrieve web service (SRW) and search and retrieve URL service (SRU) are web services-based protocols, an improvement of Z39.50 that are built for querying internet indexes or databases and returning search results.
    22. 22. Standards to be considered for the UnionCatalogue• Standards for Exchanging Catalogue Records – MARC21• Describing library resources and access standards – Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), Resource Description and Access (RDA)• Controlled Vocabularies – LCSH, MeSH• Classification Schemes – LC, DDC, Sears, UDC, NLM• Holdings – MARC21 Format for Holdings Data, ANSI/NISO Z39.71 Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items
    23. 23. Project Methodology• The project will be conducted in phases. – The number of phases will be determined by the number and types of participating libraries. – These phases will be precluded with data collection to establish status of the libraries. • Questionnaires will be distributed through online means and o personal contact where necessary.
    24. 24. Phase One• Hold workshop or meeting to sensitize libraries about the project. – Agree on standards & protocols• Conduct training of cataloguers• Set up union catalogue of 1st group of libraries
    25. 25. Phase Two• Demonstrate union catalogue and discuss challenges if any, in preparation for expansion (Workshop)• Expand union catalog to second group of libraries.• Set mutually accepted standards for publishing of a National Bibliographic Manual – (One day seminar – one physical and follow up virtual discussions)
    26. 26. Phase Three• Union catalogue to include all the other participating library clusters• Subsequent phases of the project will focus on publications from public and middle level colleges’ libraries; with an object of forming a comprehensive Bibliographic Centre.
    27. 27. Schedule of Activities for one yearACTIVITY ONE YEAR M1-M2 M3-M4 M5-M6 M7- M9- M11- M8 M10 M12Needs analysis Collect information about existing library    databases Cluster interested libraries into groups e.g.  academic, special, public and research Analyze metadata formats and standards adapted   by the participating librariesDevelop/Agree on mutually accepted standards    (Workshop)Install and set up union catalogue hardware and  software (phase one)Print and circulate manual   Upload UC/ Host for Internet Demonstration Training of cataloguers workshop  Launch union catalogueReceive bibliographic data from libraries        Submission of membership fees from participating  institutions
    28. 28. • Funding requested will be used for training, UC web hosting and purchase of physical requirements.• The team proposes to host the project in one of the participating libraries’ premises for the initial one year.
    29. 29. Finally……• There is great potential to share more data within consortia. – This necessitates a new layer of standards. – The participating institutions must accept to adapt certain common standards and norms to ensure professionalism and conformity.• The libraries that decide to merge their records or decide to use a single point for access to all their collections will be forced to compromise to ensure that standards are set and implemented to ensure uniformity and ease of access for the final users.
    30. 30. • Exposing library data collectively on a national or international scale will require the participating libraries’ commitment to provide a cohesive delivery and reference service to the target users.
    31. 31. Thank you

    ×