Journey to Single BIB

Journey to Single BIBJane Anne CareyMetadata Resource Management LibrarianUniversity of Florida Librariesjacarey@ufl.eduCatalog Management Interest GroupJanuary 8th, 2011

1The Journey to Single BIBI 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 PlayersState 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)

3The Technical CrewFlorida 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/

Luckily for UF located in Gainesville and several members of the staff were from the UF cataloging department4The StageAleph, 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.

5The ProducersCouncil of State University Libraries (CSUL)

Composed of the Deans and Directors of the SUS Libraries and FCLA

6The DirectorsTechnical 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.7The PlayThe Journey to Single BIB Phase 1 2010

An exciting adventure tale full of danger, committees, surprises and tedium

8Pre-production timelineSince 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 CollectionsLoss 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 timelineOn 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 timelineThey 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 timelineIn 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 - SBUIn 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.

15Bib Tag Options - SBU1. 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)

Meanwhile SPTF was going thru tags one by one determining what would happen to the tag on the merge. 16Dictionary of Scientific BiographyOCLC # 000898222600 $a New York, $b Scribner $c 1970-1990 $5 FU2600 $a New York, $b Scribner $c [1970-1980] $5 FTS $5 FU2600 $a New York, $b Scribner $c [1970- $5 FTaSU

300 $a 14 v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FU300 $a 16 v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FTS300 $a v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FTaSU300 $a 18 v. $b illus. $c 29 cm. $5 FU

But I didnt come todayCorrecting legacy problems:

OCLC reclamation project - Since 2009, UF has been working with OCLC on a reclamation project to match UF records to holdings on OCLCs WorldCat

BIB tags since January 2010 UF staff have been working on a project to clean-up incorrect record tags

to tell you about committees. I came today to talk about UFs efforts to clean house before our records merged with the other catalogs18Act 1: OCLC reclamation projectOCLC processed over 3,392,000 records

89% were reconciled

375,000 unresolvedIn preparation for merging the catalogs UF contracted with OCLC to reconcile Aleph records with OCLC records19Act 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

This what a record looks like discovered a problem with provisional Baldwin records to RLIN and then to OCLC. First thing did was make these records Provisional and contact OCLC to remove holdings. Which they did unless other libraries had added their to OCLC holdings. 20Act 1: OCLC reclamation projectBreakdown of identified collections21Act 1: OCLC reclamation projectSerial Solutions (97 records) Ignore - should not have been included in OCLC reclamationOCLC dup (110) Print OCLC # on BIB and Microfilm OCLC # on Holding most prints suppressed download microfilm recordCirc created (1,080) Ignore will be corrected when item catalogedNTIS (1,107) Mark as provisionalSuppressed (1,223) Spot check then ignore never should have been includedCarP (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 OCLCAct 1: OCLC reclamation projectMarchive (6,320) Ignore the 83% suppressed and future staff project on the restNo Hol (14,568) Ran a Global Change service in Aleph to Suppress the BIBsEnglish Short Title (26,351) Probably ignore still checking on statusCongressional Info Service (29,751) Microfiche not requested discussion with the Legal Information Center as to whether to suppress all the records18th 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 TagsUniversity of Florida:

1,787 tags with associated records924 under 20 records461 under 1,000 records300 under 100,000 records75 under 1,000,000 records27 over 1,000,000 records

FCLA sent the 3 largest libraries (University of Florida, Florida State University, and University of South Florida) lists of the all the Bibliographic tags used and how many records associated with them. Since I dont have all the current tags memorized, I went through them checking against Marc tag lists, OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards, and Aleph tag lists to determine which are correct.

24Remember 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)

I also added this number designation to the Excel spread sheet figuring we could ignore records that would disappear on merge25Act 2 - BIB Tags855 tags correct:

246 under 20 records278 under 1,000 records240 under 100,000 records65 under 1,000,000 records26 over 1,000,000 records

26Act 2 - BIB Tags932 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 FCLA27Act 2 - BIB TagsExamples of strange tags:02823033 1XXX14 A Se KR1008C:.S84???019##041(?UFCOPUFSCIUPDV40

Why cant they type TKR?TKETKPTKR$$TKR@@TKRoTKR1TKR31TKRRTKSTKTTLRTRKThe worse thing is: I went back to the BIB Tag list at FCLA after months of corrections to discover new problems.28Act 2 - BIB TagsFCLA Global Changes:

Finished:Tag 2600 1,408,168 recordsFCLA removed 1st indicator 0

29Act 2 - BIB TagsFCLA future changes:100, 110, 111 change 2nd indicator to blank100, 600, 700 change 1st indicator from 2 to 1700, 710, 711 change to blank any 2nd indicator not 2

Possible changes:730, 740 change to blank any 2nd indicator not 2440 change to 4901 & 830 0?

FinaleA little work, a little playTo keep us goingand so good-day!

TrilbyGeorge du MaurierComing AttractionsPhase 2 - 2011Items - 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 functionsUBorrow Reserves Analysis Data Warehouse and ARROW reports Test merge of all 11 databases Upgrade Aleph to version 2032