"The Technical Services Council, Public Services Council, and Cabinet have all endorsed the concept of adding the Affiliated Libraries' cataloging records into Gladis. There are several issues that need to be addressed to explore the feasibility and process of this concept.
"The charge to the Task Force is to identify the issues involved which include: local subject headings vs. LC headings; analytics for articles; record flows (to Melvyl, bibliographic utilities, etc); and Gladis circulation features.”
Gladis circulation and Gladis maintenance issues are a particular concern. The Task Force explores these issues as key aspects of the main project of adding Affiliated library records to Gladis.
The following Affiliated libraries are not participating in the project: the Environmental Design Archives, the Ethnic Studies Libraries, and the Industrial Relations Library, the holdings of which already appear in Gladis; the Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Library and the Giannini Foundation Library, which have restricted access policies and do not catalog on OCLC or RLIN; the Architecture Slide Library, whose specialized collection of images is represented in SPIRO, its visual online public access catalog; and the Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC) Library, whose non-participant status was not confirmed until late in the Task Force’s work.
The EERC Library, located at the Richmond Field Station, catalogs on OCLC, and has about 20,000 records in Melvyl, but relies primarily on its online abstracting service, Earthquake Engineering Abstracts, for public access to the collection. The abstracting service includes all of EERC’s analytic cataloging of journal articles, etc., as well as EERC’s OCLC records, which are cross-loaded from Melvyl. The EERC Library decided not to participate in the project because its distance from the central campus severely limits Berkeley student use, and because Earthquake Engineering Abstracts and Melvyl meet the needs of its user community.
The retrospective capture of Affiliated library records is a one-time
task that will involve copying the records, loading the records into Gladis
and Melvyl, and then removing the original records from Melvyl. Over 600,000
records need to be captured.
A substantial number of Affiliated library records will duplicate existing
Gladis records. The loader that adds records to Gladis includes a record
matching program that identifies potential matches and sends them to review
queues for manual disposition. Each participating Affiliated library will
manage the review queue resulting from potential matches of its records
to Gladis records.
A different record duplication problem arises in the context of “n” level Gladis records for Affiliated library materials stored at NRLF. This problem is discussed in the section Affiliated Library “n” Level Records at NRLF below.
Both in the initial startup phase and as an ongoing effort, the project will incur internal costs for systems support and programming, for training in Gladis maintenance and autocirc, and for review queue and error log resolution. It is understood that The Library will absorb its internal costs, and the participating Affiliated libraries will absorb theirs. The Affiliated libraries will pay for needed hardware, network connections, hardware support, and similar direct, out-of-pocket costs associated with the project. The Library and the Affiliated libraries will negotiate the payment of fees for the electronic transfer of cataloging files from OCLC and RLIN.
It is also understood that the needs and priorities of the Affiliated libraries, as ongoing partners in Gladis, will be weighed and assessed in the context of the needs and priorities of The Library as a whole. Given the long history of cooperation and mutually beneficial relationships between The Library and the Affiliated libraries, the Task Force takes the positive view that reasonable accommodations will be made, and that the Affiliated libraries will do an effective job of making their needs and priorities known in the Technical Services Council and in the other advisory bodies of The Library.
The project raises serious workload issues for technical services in The Library and for the participating Affiliated libraries. The Task Force strongly recommends that sufficient staff be allocated not only for systems support and training, but also for ongoing high-level tasks that ensure the quality of the Gladis database. These tasks include resolving review queues of potential duplicate records, and monitoring logs that identify potential problems in the access points of incoming records.
The Task Force assumes that if this report is received favorably, the next step will be the drafting of memorandums of understanding between The Library and the participating Affiliated libraries.
For a work already represented in Gladis, the Affiliated library will use Gladis maintenance to add its location to the Gladis record, initiating a dual record flow of Gladis to Melvyl, and Gladis to OCLC. Melvyl will retain the full record, and OCLC will retain only the library location information. More precisely, OCLC will link the Affiliated library’s holding symbol to the OCLC master record, but not retain an online version of the local record itself. Implementing this record flow will require some changes and accommodations in Gladis and OCLC, all of which appear feasible. This approach meets an important goal of the Affiliated libraries, which is to maintain their distinct identities in the OCLC union catalog and interlibrary loan subsystem.
In addition to adding its library location, an Affiliated library might also add access points and notes to the Gladis record. These further changes will display in Gladis and be uploaded to Melvyl, but will not be retained in OCLC; only library location information will be retained in OCLC.
For a work with cataloging copy in OCLC, but not in Gladis, the Affiliated library will copy catalog directly on OCLC, bypassing Gladis maintenance. For a work entirely lacking cataloging copy, the library will do original cataloging either in Gladis maintenance or on OCLC. For cataloging initiated on OCLC, the record flow will be OCLC to Gladis to Melvyl.
For deleting an Affiliated library record, or removing an Affiliated library location on a merged record, Gladis maintenance will be used. Currently, a deletion uploads to Melvyl, but not to OCLC. A separate OCLC transaction is required to delete the record in OCLC. The Task Force joins the Technical Services Council in urging that Gladis maintenance be modified to upload deletions to OCLC. Making record deletion a single transaction in Gladis maintenance would facilitate accurate holdings information in OCLC, which is important for interlibrary lending purposes.
The Law Library catalogs and maintains its records directly on RLIN, not on its own Innopac system. The Law Library will export its records from RLIN to Gladis, and the records will then upload from Gladis to Melvyl. The Law Library will not use Gladis maintenance, except to resolve potential matches involving incoming Law records. Unique Law records will enter Gladis and upload to Melvyl unchanged, but Law records that were merged with Gladis records might be altered, and the merged records could be subsequently edited in Gladis maintenance. However, library location and holdings information will not change.
The copied OCLC and RLIN records will be loaded into Gladis and then loaded back into Melvyl. For a period of time, while the success of the retrospective capture process is assessed, and review queues resulting from potential record matches in Gladis are dealt with, there will be duplicate holdings in Melvyl generated by the addition of the newly loaded copies to the original Affiliated library records. Once it is determined that the copies have loaded successfully into Gladis and Melvyl, and that the review queues are either eliminated or in a manageable state, the original OCLC and RLIN records will be extracted from Melvyl and discarded. (The Datapoint and UTLAS records will remain in Melvyl.) The overlap period is a safety measure to ensure that records will remain accessible during the retrospective capture process.
Records in review queues are inaccessible to users. In order to minimize the accessibility problem, and to ease the review queue workload on the Affiliated libraries, the Task Force recommends these steps: For Law records only, in which a full Law record matches a full Gladis record, bypass the review queue process and merge Law holdings directly to the Gladis record. Since Law has no plans to edit its records in Gladis in any case, this step would considerably expedite the loading of Law records. For other Affiliated library records in full-full matches, send only the bibliographic portion to the review queue and merge the holdings to the Gladis record. The Affiliated library could enhance the record in Gladis maintenance or let the record stand; in either case the holdings would be accessible to users. Implementing these steps would require programming in Gladis.
The potential matches in Gladis review queues will be resolved by the Affiliated library whose record generates the potential match. In the resolution of a potential match, the Gladis record will overlay the Affiliated library record unless the Affiliated library record is more complete and/or has updated access points. The Affiliated library might add notes and/or access points to a preferred Gladis record.
Copy-specific information and serial holdings information will be captured from the OCLC and RLIN records and mapped to the appropriate holdings fields in Gladis.
|"n" Level Records||2,719||17,798||1,612||1,864|
Most “n” level records from ITSL and WRCA, and many from IGSL, include the OCLC control number, added by NRLF staff from information supplied by the depositing Affiliated library. These records will be machine matched to their corresponding bibliographic records on the OCLC control number. The matching will occur when the OCLC archive records are added to Gladis. Similar machine matching, on the RLIN or Innopac control number, should work for most Law “n” level records.
For “n” level records lacking control numbers, the alternatives are manual matching, and possibly machine matching on the call number. If machine matching on the call number proves not to be feasible, the OCLC Affiliated libraries will be responsible for manually merging the remaining records in Gladis maintenance. In IGSL’s case, many corresponding bibliographic records are Datapoint records which will not be loaded into Gladis; IGSL will target these Datapoint records for upgrading to full MARC records. Law agrees to cooperate with NRLF staff in merging records for Law holdings.
Call number schemes vary among the participating Affiliated libraries. It is not clear that Gladis routines that normalize call numbers for sorting and searching can accommodate all the variation. Call numbers that cannot be normalized will sort oddly and will not be searchable from a call number search. Partial reformatting may make some call number formats more amenable to normalization. Until questions of normalization and formatting are resolved, the Task Force recommends that the OCLC Affiliated libraries continue to receive shelflist cards in paper. This will be the most reliable way for these libraries to track cataloged materials by call number.
One specific local cataloging practice that must be modified to make it compatible with Gladis is IGSL’s use of two local subject headings. The Task Force recommends changes that bring the practice more in line with standard subject heading practice.2
Gladis autocirc operates in a complex public services environment, and accommodating the specialized needs of the Affilated libraries will add to the complexity. For example, the Affiliated libraries circulate to selected off-campus clientele groups. While some individuals in these groups might have library cards, most will not. Accommodating this particular class of non-card holders in autocirc is a policy matter, and should be reviewed as such. As a technical matter, accommodating the non-card holders could be accomplished by issuing them specially tailored “Reference Use Only” cards.3
It is understood that the participating Affiliated libraries will be responsible for their own barcoding, and that they would reimburse The Library for their barcode stock. It is also understood that they will pay for needed hardware and for hardware upkeep. None of the libraries anticipates undertaking large barcoding projects, at least initially. Rather, they will barcode newly acquired items as they are cataloged, and previously cataloged items “on the fly” as they are circulated.
2. The two headings are “County planning” and a pattern heading for the California statewide ballot propositions, e.g., “Proposition 13, June 1978.” Both are coded with the OCLC MARC 690 tag, with no indicators. Whenever IGSL assigns “County planning” heading, it also assigns the standard, albeit less specific, “Regional planning” heading. IGSL will cease using the “County planning” heading. At the time of the record load into Gladis, the “County planning” heading will be stripped, and the statewide ballot proposition headings will be machine-converted to a new author/title format, i.e., “610 10 $aCalifornia. $t Proposition 13 (June 1978 ) .”
3. "Reference Use Only" (borrower type 0) cards would allow these users to be entered into the Gladis patron database. As issued, these cards permit, for all library units on autocirc, short-term access to the stacks and same-day checkout only. However, at checkout in an Affiliated library, the same-day due date could be manually changed to a later date, and a note added to the patron record indicating an Affiliated library patron, e.g., “WRCA patron only.” This approach would still permit the usual “Reference Use Only” access to other library units. If this approach is approved, the Affiliated libraries and the Service Desk will need to work out appropriate procedures for setting up patron records with the needed notes.