Pros and cons of three workflows for catalogers using WMS, as of February 2014. Using Connection Client, Connection Browser, or WMS Record Manager, and various combinations

1. Jeff Siemon, Digital Resources Librarian
Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA

2. 1. share among ourselves (users of OCLC WMS
metadata/cataloging) what has been helpful
2. share with OCLC staff difficulties/improvements we’d
like to see regarding OCLC WMS metadata/cataloging
3. start with a quick presentation from Jeff Siemon
regarding pros/cons of three workflows I’ve tried

3. 1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging
2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser
3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records

4. 1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging
2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser
3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records
Pros
• Easy to train staff
• OCLC trains this workflow
• Drop down menus prevent data
errors
• Speeds up processing by
eliminating unnecessary
improvements to bib records and
exporting
Cons
• Does not encourage improving bib
records
• No templates/constant data unless
one uses all the
budget/order/receive features (i.e.
gift books or simpler purchasing)
• Label printing waiting on Road Map
• Need to move to Metadata
“module” interface for original
cataloging or adding/editing local
fields
• Need to move to Connexion Client
for non-Roman scripts, Macros,
NACO, & local save file for
reviewing

5. 1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging
2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser
3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records
Pros
• Easy transition, Connexion is familiar to
catalogers
• Can eliminate complex “acquisitions”
• Constant data reduces data errors
• Constant data speeds up processing
• Macros available to speed up processing
• More keyboard friendly interface (fewer
drop down menus)
• Easy to improve bib records and
contribute to WorldCat (replace master
record)
• OCLC Label program integrated
• Same interface for simple copy
cataloging, replace record, original
cataloging, non-Roman scripts, and
NACO
• Serials and multi-volume monograph
data is cleaner than what WMS ACQ
Cons
• Connexion will be end-of-life
in a few years
• Training new employees is a
bit more complex
• Initial set up of constant data
• Must install Connexion Client
• Client has the most editing
features; but must use
Browser for LHRs (fortunately
there is an easy command to
launch holdings maintenance
in the Connexion Browser.)

6. 1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging
2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser
3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records
Pros
• Stay in WMS interface/authorization
• Able improve bib records and
contribute to WorldCat
• Can add/edit local bib data
• Serials and multi-volume
monograph data is cleaner than
what WMS acquisitions generates.
Cons
• Less keyboard friendly than
Connexion interfaces (i.e. must tab
or mouse click between fields)
• No templates/constant data unless
one uses all the
budget/order/receive features
• No Label printing, waiting on Road
Map
• Need to move to Connexion Client
for controlling individual headings,
NACO, Macros, and non-Roman
scripts

7. • Do you have any tips or workflow ideas to
share?
• What suggestions do you have for improving
the WMS Metadata record manager?
• What kind of global find and replace would
you like to see for holdings?
• Did WMS speed up any processing/
cataloging?
• How has training and support been?
• Have you used apps?
• What kind of integration with the
Knowledge Base would be helpful?

8. • Connexion Client to find/create and edit bib records
• Connexion Browser to create Local Holdings Records
= Items
• OCLC Label Program or Connexion Client to create
labels

9. From Client, Launch
Local Holdings Maintenance

10. Connexion Browser
Opens,
Create Local
Holdings

11. Apply Constant Data
for location and shelving location

12. Paste in the call number and scan the barcode,
then save the Local Holdings Record

17. • Bib data and Patron and Circulation data transferred relatively
easily.
• Holdings data: Horizon wanted to charge for extracting data,
but our Systems librarian could do it herself, at least for
monographs, with the Horizon export utility
•  For “multivolume monographs” & serials holdings we got a
raw copy of our Horizon data, and used a consultant (AlphaG)
to extract serials holdings (a few thousand dollars well spent),
but  853/863 pairs would have been better
•  Fuller used 856 42 fields for Tables of Contents, Donor
“book marks”, and other related resources, but WCL displays
these as full-text “view now” links, ignoring indicators

18. • OCLC uses MARC Format for HoLdings (MFHL)
aka Local Holdings Record (LHR) but not well
documented
• Fuller also extracted the serial pattern from Horizon into a
note

19. OCLC Data Staff are used to 866 ; WMS GUI creates 853/863 pair
Try to get OCLC or an outside vendor to convert your data to 853/8