NASIG 2008 Conference Presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NASIG 2008 Conference Presentation

  1. 1. “ Harnessing the Spider Web: Collaborative Serial Maintenance, Challenges and Solutions at UC” NASIG 2008, Phoenix AZ Sarah Gardner – UC Davis Melissa Beck – UCLA Valerie Bross - UCLA
  2. 2. Background <ul><li>Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control ( ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“… envisions a future for bibliographic control that will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records…” </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Background <ul><li>UC Bibliographic Services Task Force Report: Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California ( ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ View UC cataloging as a single enterprise, eliminating duplication and local variability in practice, agreeing on a single set of policies, sharing expertise, and maximizing efficiency.” </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Background <ul><li>Collaboration and cooperation are the goals … how to get there? </li></ul>An exercise in “herding cats.”
  5. 5. Background at UC <ul><li>University of California System </li></ul><ul><ul><li>10 campuses, 100+ individual libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective holdings of 32 million items </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared library catalog (Melvyl) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared offsite storage facilities (north and south) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Background at UC <ul><li>California Digital Library (CDL) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared digital collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Licensed commercial content as well as digitized UC content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>12,000 electronic journal titles </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>58,000 electronic monographs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>300 databases </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>97,000 URLs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cataloging and maintenance “in-sourced” to one campus: UCSD </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Background at UC <ul><li>Shared Cataloging Program (SCP): Provides catalog records for CDL titles for the University of California campuses, maintains coverage data and keeps links current </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperative model, but only applies to electronic titles/maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All UC campuses except one use single-record approach (print and electronic on same record), so maintenance from print check-in still had to be dealt with individually at each campus </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Background at UC Davis <ul><li>Automated SCP processing at Davis campus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Before 2004, SCP records and updates were processed manually, one by one (with a small army of student labor!) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Automation was a blessing, but also required complicated overlay algorithms and maintenance reporting which caused delays and overburdened SCP staff </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Background at UC Davis <ul><li>UC Davis was an RLIN library for many years and had spotty holdings on OCLC </li></ul><ul><li>2005: *LARGE* OCLC reclamation project that involved updating holdings and massive, complex overlay algorithms </li></ul><ul><li>Significant effort to protect “local” data that should have been in OCLC record anyway (missed entry changes, legitimate title variants, frequency changes, index information, subject headings, etc.) but could not change OCLC master records </li></ul>
  10. 10. UC and CONSER <ul><li>UC System and CONSER history </li></ul><ul><ul><li>University-wide Library Automation Program (predecessor to current Office of the President) was involved in “CONSER I” – initial serials conversion project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UCLA joined as Full member in 1980 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UCSD joined in 1996 </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>Established in 2006, reports to system-wide cataloging group </li></ul><ul><li>The first funnel program to involve bibliographic records in the PCC (other funnels focus on authority work) </li></ul><ul><li>A step towards “single-enterprise” cataloging for the UC system </li></ul>
  12. 12. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>Organization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 key positions established: UC Funnel Coordinator, Training Coordinator, Communications Coordinator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual campus liaisons established to keep local staff trained and up-to-date on latest news </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>Davis and Irvine – first campuses to be trained and put on review (May 2006) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Training Coordinator from UCLA made site visits to explain CONSER edit policies and what to expect during review period </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funnel Coordinator worked with CONSER and OCLC to set up authorizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UCLA reviewed records submitted by Davis and Irvine, later UCSD joined as reviewers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communications Coordinator set up listserv and Funnel website: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>Logistics of review: </li></ul>Edits recorded in a local field (910) by cataloger, submitted for review, additional feedback from reviewer incorporated into 910 so cataloger could make other edits as necessary in local ILS. Also used to “flag” a record for SCP, so updated record can be distributed to other campuses
  15. 15. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>NACO requirement: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UC Davis was not a NACO library before 2006, training was set up as part of the implementation plan (at nearby Berkeley campus) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NACO UC campuses can assist other campuses in the Funnel with establishing headings </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>Progress so far </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Training at campuses in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara and Riverside </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant OCLC savings because of high $$ CONSER enhancement credit (administrators finally had good things to say about cataloging!) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SCP records are more correct and up-to-date, and since they are distributed weekly, all campuses benefit </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. UC CONSER Funnel <ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to get more campuses involved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Streamlining/improving SCP notification, so all campuses benefit when a Funnel member edits an SCP record </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant budget cuts on the horizon … also an opportunity to maximize efficiency through UC CONSER Funnel </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Looking Ahead <ul><li>CONSER developments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CONSER Standard Record training in 2007, Funnel used web-based distance learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing system-wide guidelines for applying CSR </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WorldCat Local at UC (Next-Gen Melvyl) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Live on May 27 th , success as a shared OPAC could mean less reliance on individual campus ILS OPACs </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. How Does This Apply to Me? <ul><li>Starting a Funnel project in any setting </li></ul><ul><li>What is the task/goal? </li></ul><ul><li>Identify key people with buy-in </li></ul><ul><li>Start small! </li></ul><ul><li>Build in accountability </li></ul>
  20. 20. Further Resources <ul><li>UC CONSER Funnel can serve as a model for other libraries/consortia, for organization and training </li></ul><ul><ul><li>See “Advantages of CONSER participation”: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>See “How to Become a Member”: </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Thank you!