|
|
SCTF issues, discussion, questions
************************************************************
Summit Catalog Task Force: Issues, Discussion, Questions
Sent to TF Members 8/27/2004
A. Issues Related to Quality of the Database.
1) An unknown number of duplicate bibliographic records exist in the database.
INNReach matches on the bibliographic utility (i.e. OCLC) number in the 001
field. Even the 019 field (OCLC number of merged duplicate record for the
same resource, now deleted from WorldCat) is not part of the matching
algorithm. Records without identical OCLC-number 001 fields do not match,
practically speaking. The limited INNReach matching algorithm is the
primary source of duplication in the Summit catalog.
While future incidence of duplicate records will probably be reduced through
the new Alliance policy about inclusion of OCLC numbers in bib records,
duplication will continue:
a) Members will purchase batches of vendor-supplied records, particularly
for individual titles in serial aggregators. These records may or may not
have OCLC numbers. It may not be realistic to expect that libraries will
replace these records with records with OCLC numbers, since these record
batches are expected to be very dynamic.
b) Members will enter brief records for some GPO depository materials,
particularly ephemeral ones, that have no records in OCLC, when the library
lacks staff to supply original cataloging on OCLC. Again, it may be
unrealistic to think this practice will cease, given library staffing levels
and SuDocs requirements for fast turnaround.
c) Despite the efforts of Summit staff, some duplicates remain in the
database from the time prior to adoption of the current 001 policy.
Discussion questions regarding duplicate records:
Does duplication negatively affect the usefulness of the database to
end-users to a significant extent? Can users still find and request the
resources they seek? What do we know about Summit user behavior that might
support the premise that duplicate records create difficulties for end-users
and library staff in identifying and obtaining resources? While duplicates
may have some impact on database usefulness, might duplication have only a
minimal impact on the usefulness of the database to clients, if it largely
confined to areas (e.g. some GPO materials, electronic journals with
licensing restrictions)?
What Council could do:
* Authorize Summit staff or some appropriate Summit groupto advocate to
Innovative Interfaces for inclusion of 019 in the INNReach matching
algorithm and for other improvements in INNReach record matching. Without
improvements at the INNReach system level, Council's options in this area
seem limited.
2) Records for current serial publications are far more static in Summit
than in OCLC and many member libraries' individual OPACs. Static serial
records do not reflect the nature of the resources.
Changes in cataloging rules and in continuing resources themselves have
resulted in increasing dynamism of serial records in OCLC. Later versions
of records frequently provide new information, complete previously
incomplete information, and correct errors. But Summit records are not the
most recent versions of many serial records.
Unless the library that "owns" a record replaces it, or a library with a
higher load priority replaces the record and the record has appropriate
encoding level, the Summit record is not replaced. (There was an
expectation that many serial records would be replaced by incoming records
from the University of Washington, an active CONSER participant, when the
Orbis and Cascade databases were merged. This apparently did not happen in
many cases.)
New versions of serial records may add new access points for additional
variations of the title, new issuing bodies, and other searchable
information that might be used for retrieval. In addition, new versions of
records may actually expand the coverage of the record by collapsing more
than one slight variation of a title into a single record. The
older-version Summit record may therefore show holdings for an individual
library that are more extensive than the publication coverage stated in the
Summit record. The resulting display is confusing.
Discussion questions regarding static serial records:
Since end users cannot currently request materials at the article level, and
many bound volumes of journals are not requestable, static serial records
may not have much negative impact on end-user success at present. If Summit
is used to verify information, however, will lack of new access points have
an impact on success? If Summit is later used for requests at the article
level, would currency of bibliographic information become more relevant? Or
would version of the bib record and consistency of information have little
impact on end users, if they are primarily performing "pass-through"
searches from their home OPACs?
Are interlibrary loan staff using Summit to determine serial holdings of
member libraries? If so, do discrepancies between latest/OCLC versions of
the record and the Summit version, or discrepancies between bibliographic
data and holdings data on Summit, have an impact on their work?
What Council could do:
* Authorize a group to explore options for regularly obtaining updated
CONSER records. (Currently, OCLC does not offer this service; but perhaps
another vendor, such as Serials Solutions, might). These could be loaded as
highest-priority records, and overlay existing Summit versions of these
records.
* Authorize Summit staff to explore ways to re-load serial records of Summit
member libraries that are CONSER participants, and overlay existing Summit
versions.
3) There are batches of inferior records in Summit, some of which are known
(i.e. records for NetLibrary titles). But there are few, if any, mechanisms
for replacing them.
There are some known batches of inferior records on Summit, and perhaps some
that have not been identified. For example, OCLC staff acknowledge that
many NetLibrary records are of doubtful quality; they also state that these
records are regularly being upgraded on OCLC. Unless the Summit library
that "owns" a NetLibrary bib record replaces it, or a library adds a new
NetLibrary record, however, Summit is unlikely to include the upgraded
records.
There may be other batches of inferior records on Summit. These might
include other vendor-produced records purchased and loaded in batch, or
records from members with minimal cataloging standards, perhaps for some
specific category or format of material. Currently, there are few if any
mechanisms for identifying and replacing these records.
What Council could do:
* Establish minimal quality standards for loads of records, with identified
exceptions (e.g. brief records for ephemera). (As noted earlier, this may
be unrealistic.)
* Authorize an appropriate Summit committee to negotiate with OCLC
concerning replacement of NetLibrary records in the Summit database, and to
explore other ways of addressing problems in specific loads of records.
4) Unlike III local library systems, INNReach lacks an authority control
module. In addition, while guidelines advise authority maintenance, Summit
does not require authority maintenance of member libraries' databases.
Since it has no authority module, the Summit OPAC has no cross references.
Does this lack have a negative impact on end users' ability to locate
materials? Or do end users typically start with their local OPAC, which may
have references, and move back and forth between Summit and the local OPAC?
The lack of an INNReach authority module and limited authority maintenance
by some member libraries result in discrepancies in access points for the
same entities in the Summit OPAC. Does this inconsistency have an impact on
end users success? How do we know?
What Council could do:
* Advocate for development of an INNReach authority control module.
* Establish required minimal authority control maintenance standards for
member libraries. (Again, this may be an unrealistic expectation.)
5) Innovative plans to implement some concepts of Functional Requirements
for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). If FRBR concepts are implemented at the
local system level but not the INNReach level, there will be further
divergence between local OPACs and the Summit OPAC.
FRBR is a new conceptual model for the bibliographic universe. It promotes
clearer displays of information about multiple manifestations of the same
work. This aspect of FRBR renders it of particular interest to institutions
serving many undergraduate students. Innovative is currently working on an
implementation of FRBR for local library systems.
There is divergence in retrieval results between local Innovative OPACs and
the Summit OPAC with regard to authority control (no see- or see-also
references in Summit). There may be further divergence between local
Innovative OPACs and the Summit OPAC if Innovative implements some of the
concepts of FRBR at the local-system level, but not at the INNReach level.
What Council could do:
* Authorize an appropriate Summit group to monitor Innovative developments
with regard to FRBR and advocate for inclusion of FRBR concepts in INNReach.
6) Many of the issues identified by this TF suggest that the master record
selection process might benefit from review.
In the course of the TF's discussions, several questions concerning the
current process of identifying the master record emerged. With the growth
of the Alliance and of the database, is the current process of determining
load priority still valid; or should individual elements be modified?
Should records from independent cataloging units within a single institution
be loaded at the same priority level, when these units have very different
policies and practices?
What Council could do:
* Authorize an appropriate Summit committee or task force to review the
master record selection process, suggest possible changes, and advocate for
enhancement of INNReach software as necessary.
B. Issues Related to Client Use of Summit Records.
1) Faculty and students at Summit institutions use EndNote (or similar
software) in combination with their local Innovative OPACs. They cannot
currently use Summit in this way.
Products such as EndNote, a bibliographic formatting and research tool, may
be changing client expectations with regard to use of catalog information.
Since many faculty and students at Summit institutions use EndNote at the
local level, they may expect to use it at the Summit level as well. This
would require purchase of Z39.50 software for Summit.
What Council could do:
* Purchase Z39.50 software for Summit.
C. Lacunae in the Orbis Cascade Alliance Organizational Structure.
1) No Summit group comparable to the Summit Borrowing Committee exists to
provide regular monitoring and consideration of possible OPAC database
issues. A Summit cataloging group might perform the following tasks, on a
regular basis:
* identify emerging and anticipated database issues, and identify
cataloging developments that may have impact on Summit;
* define standards of record and database quality;
* monitor database quality;
* examine impacts of existing or proposed standards or developments on
member libraries;
* advocate to vendors for development of new products and services to
improve the database; and
* revise documentation with regard to database issues.
What Council could do:
* Create a standing Summit catalog committee. While Council could,
alternatively, create task forces on a case-by-case basis, charged with
considering specific issues or addressing specific problems, this approach
is likely to place the Alliance in a reactive position with regard to new
developments. A standing committee charged with regular review of new and
anticipated developments might be a more proactive approach.
2) No Summit group systematically gathers data on user behavior apart from
circulation functions. Areas of enquiry may include end user starting
points---Summit or local OPAC, staff use of the system (e.g. for
interlibrary loan requests not placed through Summit), etc.
Without systematically gathered information, even anecdotal, about how the
system is used, it is difficult to know if some issues are true service
problems or just minor annoyances.
What Council could do:
* Appoint a task force to propose an initial research agenda for the Alliance.
* Partner with the University of Washington Information School to study
specific questions.
* Authorize Summit staff to work with I-School faculty and students, and
with authorized Summit groups, to gather and analyze information about use
of the system, beyond circulation transactions.
******************************************************
Carolynne Myall
Head, Collection Services and Chair, Library Faculty
University Libraries of Eastern Washington University
LIB 100, 816 F St.
Cheney, WA 99004-2423
Phone: (509) 359-6967; FAX: (509) 359-2476
|
