Network Level Cataloging: The View from a Member Library

Diana Brooking University of Washington Libraries [email protected]

Jan. 14, 2008 ALA Midwinter

Origins of the Paradigm Shift: Cataloging in Local ILS vs. OCLC

• UW is beta testing WorldCat Local – WCL based on searching/display of

master

records OCLC WorldCat • Master records • Institutional records (new)

Local ILS – Copies of OCLC records – 3 rd party vendor records (500,000) – Local brief bibs • UW local catalog contains corrections & improvements not present in WorldCat • WorldCat also contains improvements we don’t get

Cataloging on OCLC

• Control by utility with trend toward decentralization – Report changes to OCLC – Enhance (1983- ): libraries must qualify for enhance status for each format – Minimal level upgrade (1985- ) – Database enrichment (1991- ) • No regular database-wide authority control cleanup • Member libraries edit one record at a time

Cataloging in Local ILS

• Local control with trend toward batch processing • Only some changes made to master recs – Many recs not reviewed by catalogers at time of download from OCLC (quick cataloging) – Post-cataloging processing (authority control, other cleanup) – UW has Enhance only for bks, vis, com – Some changes not suitable for shared recs?

Working in local ILS: more efficient

• Services: authority control vendors (outsourcing cleanup on a regular basis) • Services: additional sources of MARC recs (not licensed to go to OCLC) • Tools in the ILS: global update, create lists, headings reports, etc.

• Tools outside the ILS: MARCEdit

Institutional Records?

• Not clear how IRs will work in WorldCat Local • May be the only solution for legacy data • Not scalable or sustainable if institutions continue maintenance locally • Master record: starting point or end product?

Network-level today?

• Taking on effort that may not be offset by others yet?

• Lack of tools: less efficient, more costs • Staff implications: More time reviewing records? More FTE for database maintenance? More training?

• Role of LC/PCC? Need for member libraries or OCLC to supply much more support for national level programs?

Suggestions

• Improve participation in Enhance/other programs • Standards and practices when many libs share one master record as local record • Provide a conflict resolution process (signed edits with editor history and easy reversion) • Network-level maintenance tools • Network-level authority control processes • More granular bib notify service • CONSER, open source software development, other models?