gil interconnected libraries cooperative cataloging (3)

GEORGIA COMO ConferenceOctober 5, 2016

GIL GALILEO Interconnected Libraries

Cooperative Cataloging in the Zone

• Single catalog for all GiL libraries• New and different workflows• New methods of electronic resource management• Batch loading from GALILEO for all libraries in a single load• Option to include digital content in Alma• Integration of cataloging & acquisitions workflows

Best Practices Topics to Consider

• Many decisions required for cooperative cataloging with single Catalog / Single Bibliographic Record

• Different mindset for cataloging when using one catalog for GIL• Accept that workflows will change• Decide what happens in each zone• Who does what• Development of new policies that function for all• Quality of vendor records• What kind of support or functions needed at consortium level

New Environment Challenges

Team Leads: Adam Kubik, Clayton State UniversityDebra Skinner, Georgia Southern University

Sandra Bandy, Augusta UniversityKayla Barrett, Georgia ArchivesQian Cui, Georgia State University LawMatt Frizzell, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGuy Frost, Valdosta State UniversityKelly Holt, University of GeorgiaNeil Hughes, University of GeorgiaJenifer Marquardt, University of GeorgiaBritni Williams, Albany State UniversitySusan Wynne, Georgia State UniversitySean Purcell, GIL Support Resource

Functional Project TeamsCataloging Team

• Role – Develop policies & procedures for cooperative work in Alma

– Seek input from catalogers in GIL– Post proposed polices in Alma Project Wiki for approval– Policies become guidelines for working in shared bibliographic

environment

• Focus– Policies– Best Practices / Day One– Authority Control in Alma

Cataloging Team Functions

Guiding Principles for Collaboration in a New Library Management SystemRACL agreed on these at the June 23, 2015 online meeting.

Direction for GIL

Together, the 30 USG Libraries have over 7 million unique titles (over 17 million volumes) available to students, faculty, researchers, and our global community of learners (in addition to our GALILEO resources). The USG vision of “One Statewide Library” allows for an extensive, yet efficient collection in times of increasing library costs and economic constraints. The following principles should guide the investigations, discussions, and recommendations related to how we implement our next system and how we work together to ensure a core collection of resources and services needed for teaching, learning, and research at all USG institutions.

Principles of RACL Guidelines

RACL Guidelines• Power of collaboration

– Collaboration provides the most significant opportunity to improve library services for our students, faculty, and staff.

• Change at this point needs to be transformative– Reduce the duplication of work across the system, and enable staff to

work more efficiently.

• Manage all materials in the same interface and workflows– Integrate the processing of electronic, digital, and print materials into the

new system and eliminate the duplicate data entry required by disparate systems.

RACL Guidelines• Rethink workflows to gain efficiencies

– Take advantage of next generation system capabilities to design better workflows and update out-of-date practices.

– Eliminate redundancies, so we can deliver cost effective services and reallocate scarce resources to other priorities.

– Take time to explore and consider new workflows. Be open to new approaches and innovative solutions.

• Look beyond the individual library for efficiencies– Take full advantage of shared systems. – A shared bibliographic file (Alma Network Zone) will provide the greatest

opportunity and flexibility for sharing resources and sharing services. – Use configuration options for consortia that facilitate sharing data, sharing

resources, and sharing services and avoid duplication of effort. – Where possible, use a common set of policies across the system.

RACL Guidelines•The Orbis Cascade Alliance has stated this focus extremely well:

•Do things once•Do things the same•Do things together

•Facilitate/enhance resource sharing across GIL, beyond GIL, and as practical beyond Georgia

•Facilitate integration with other campus and USG systems (authentication, financial, learning management, etc.)

•Focus on best practices, library standards, and ongoing staff development

Are we there yet?

Alma Project WikiCataloging > Network Zone Policies

Cataloging > Network Zone Policies

The Cataloging and Metadata Team is working on recommended policies to cover the following issues. Links are provided where draft recommendations have been worked out.

Please note that draft policies are subject to change as the Cataloging and Metadata Team continues its work, as well as based on feedback received from the overall Alma Implementation Team and other interested stakeholders. 

Alma Cataloging Overview1.  Zones in Alma  PROPOSAL2. Cataloging Quality Control PROPOSAL Alma Network Zone Policies1. Choice of NZ or IZ  for bibliographic records. PROPOSAL2. Choice of New Bibliographic Record or Addition of Holdings in NZ (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)3. Managing Metadata in the NZ     a) Upgrading and Merging Records in the NZ (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)    b) Batch Changes to NZ Records (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)    c) Suppression of Records in NZ (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)4. Bibliographic Standards    a) Cataloging Floor Bibliographic Standards PROPOSAL    b) Standard Bibliographic Utility (Debra Skinner)    b) Language of Cataloging PROPOSAL    c) Minimum Brief NZ Records PROPOSAL    d) Subject Access in the Network Zone Policy. PROPOSAL

Cataloging > Network Zone Policies

• Defines purpose and functionality of each zone• Overview rather than comprehensive

– Institutional Zone– Network Zone– Community Zone

Draft Proposal: Zones in Alma

The Institutional Zone or IZ houses the holdings or inventory for an individual library as well as bibliographic records for resources that cannot be or are not intended to be shared. Each library in the USG consortium has an IZ.

Institutional Zone

The Network Zone houses one common bibliographic record for resources owned by all libraries in the USG consortium.  Individual libraries can add a new record if one does not already exist in the NZ and add holdings to records that already exist in the NZ.  One NZ is shared by all USG consortium libraries.

Network Zone

The Community Zone comprises the Alma Knowledge base as well as Library of Congress authority records.  The CZ is primarily used to populate portfolios for electronic packages and databases.  One CZ is shared by all libraries using Alma as their library management system.

Community Zone

• GIL Libraries aim to provide exceptional service to their community.  A significant element of that service is providing an efficient and effective catalog of our resources.  Consortium members will work together to provide quality control, consistency, and reliability in the catalog by following policies developed to guide each institution working toward this common goal. 

• These policies set out principles regarding working in the Network Zone that GIL Libraries members must follow.   They are designed to meet national standards and best practices while facilitating work in a shared system. When there are no specific policies, libraries should act in line with these principles. 

Draft Proposal: Cataloging Quality Control

• GIL Libraries add all bibliographic records to the Network Zone• Exceptions to policy examples:

– Records with vendor metadata not allowed to share– Records for equipment circulation, inventory, room reservations– Host records for bound with materials– Records for “On the fly” created at circulation– Records for PDA/DDA (prior to purchase)– Records for personal copies on reserve

Draft Proposal: Choice of NZ or IZ

• Specifies minimum standards for completeness and content designation

• Provides expectations regarding quality, reducing need for editing and re-editing of records

• Exceptions: – Order records – Alma CZ records– Marcive shipping list records– Retrospective conversion materials– Vendor records when there is no choice

Draft Proposal: Cataloging Floor Bibliographic Standards

• Records for ordering purposes go in NZ- created or imported• Brief records used when complete record is not available in NZ, CZ, or

OCLC• Must search NZ before creating brief record• Minimum Requirements

– ISBN or appropriate standard number (020)– Title (245 $a)– Statement of responsibility if available (245 $c)– Publisher or equivalent (264 $b)– Date of publication – may be approximate (264 $c)– Format (300, type, bibliographic level, or note)

Draft Proposal: Minimum NZ Brief Records

• GIL libraries must use English as language of cataloging• Refers to language of descriptive cataloging, not the language

of the resource• Coded in MARC field 040 $b eng• Possible area for metadata cleanup!

Draft Proposal: Language of Cataloging

• GIL uses select group of thesauri for subject access• English language terms • Indicators for thesauri retained

– Second indicator 0 – Library of Congress Subject Headings– Second indicator 1 – Library of Congress Children’s Literature Subject

Headings– Second indicator 2 – Medical Subject Headings– Second indicator 7 – Keep English language access points; remove

other languages

Draft Proposal: Subject Access in the NZ

• Separate records = national standard• Each manifestation of title has a bibliographic record• NZ will have legacy single records• GIL must use separate records but not required to convert

migrated single records• Exceptions

– Government documents– Established practices – Georgia Newspaper project (print/microform)

Draft Proposal: Single vs. Separate Bibliographic Records

Draft Proposal: Content Standards for Local ExtensionsIntroduction

Most libraries have data of local importance in Voyager that needs to be preserved in the new Alma environment.  This data can be preserved by moving the data to aprescribed field and appending $9 LOCAL at the end of the field. This process should be used for information that serves an institutional purpose but that is not appropriate for the Network Zone. 

Examples include gift notes; special collections and archival materials notes; information that pertains to a specific copy (i.e. signed by author); and data that may not conform to national cataloging standards for inclusion in the network environment such as locally assigned subject terms. A table of local fields for use by GIL libraries has been developed for reference in adding local information.  

Table with list of MARC fields where data of local importance may be stored.Any locally important data that is currently stored in these fields can be preserved in a local extension by moving it to the indicated field, and appending $9 LOCAL at the end of the field.

It is not expected or intended that all instances of these fields will be mapped into a local extension in Alma. Local extensions are to be used for the preservation of data which serves an institutional purpose, but which would not be appropriate in the Network Zone. Reasons that data would not be appropriate in the Network Zone include:

- The data is for internal staff use- The data only applies to a local copy of the resource- The data does not conform to national cataloging standards for inclusion in a network environment

Draft Proposal: Local Field Migration Mapping

• Table with list of MARC fields defined for use of local extension data in Alma

• Examples:– Local Extension in Alma – 590 (local public note)– Defined for use as per MARC tag – 590 (local public note)

– Local Extension in Alma – 591 (other archival materials note)– Defined for use as per MARC tag 544 (other archival materials note)

Draft Proposal: Local ExtensionField Definitions

• Choice of new bibliographic record or addition of holdings in NZ• Upgrading and merging records in NZ• Batch changes to records in NZ• Suppression of records in NZ• Standard bibliographic utility• Alma profiles for record import/merge and normalization• Provider neutral record standard• Content standards for electronic resources managed at the system

level

Proposals in Development

• Day One – What do we need to be able to do– Will post to Wiki as developed

• An ongoing committee to develop Best Practices– Much will be developed after Go Live in Alma

Best Practices for GIL Libraries and Day One Procedures

Debra SkinnerCoordinator of Cataloging Interim Department Head, Collection & Resource ServicesZach S. Henderson LibraryGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboro, GA 30458dskinner@georgiasouthern.edu

Alma Wiki https://sites.google.com/site/usgalma2017/cataloging/network-zone-policy

Thank you!