URSUS CATALOGING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes
September 25, 2009
Present: Sheila Bearor, Chair (LEG), Peggi Loveless (AUG), Nelson Eubanks (SYS), Sharon Fitzgerald (ORO), Kang Cao (ORO), Mary Saunders (MSL), Bryce Cundick (FAR), Judie Leighton (BPL), Elizabeth Phipps (USM), Lanny Lumbert (USM), James Jackson-Sanborn (SYS), Lynn Wilcox (LAW), Gretchen Brissette (PI)
Via Polycom: Kathryn Donahue (FK), Angelynn King (MAC), Sarah Campbell (PPL)
Guests: Barbara McDade, Director (BPL), Joyce Rumery, Director (ORO)
Sheila called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and asked members and guests to introduce themselves. Gretchen was secretary for the meeting. It was moved to accept the May minutes as printed – Passed.
INFONET REPORT:
James Jackson Sanborn reported on the following:
*Staffing: the Library Systems Manager position was advertised; UM Human Resources had ok’d three (3) on-campus interviews
*Intern: Rufen Liao (
*Update on the non-profit status: J J-S had a meeting with the lawyer and it is being set up; may take a while; this will give some flexibility when applying for grant funds, etc.
*Grant submitted: MSL & Infonet submitted a grant request to AARA; there will be public computing centers set up in nine (9) libraries across the state
*MARVEL: the MARVEL database policy is not being followed; looking at the policy; there was additional PUC funding the last round; there will be a multi search box for MARVEL databases;
*Audio books: after 6months, 1062 are owned, 261 in MP# format; in the first 6 months there were 16,000 check-outs;
*Catalog records: Overdrive will be sending 5 test records before all of the records are downloaded; the load in Minerva and URSUS will have 857 links; they will have their own unique OCLC # specific to the audio book; there will be a gmd [downloaded audio book] in the 245 field
*Open tickets: J J-S is to send us the URL for open tickets
Nelson Eubanks reported on the following:
*URSUS had been behind on updates; these were done in August
CHARGE FROM THE DIRECTORS:
“The URSUS library directors have
requested that the URSUS Committees look at best practices within their
areas. We want the committees to look
for ways to be more effective and efficient with the methods, processes, and
services for which they are responsible.
This need to reassess is driven by technology, user needs and
expectations, and the environment. We
expect that this will require a literature search, not just of library
literature, but multidisciplinary sources and we expect that some committee
time will be used for brainstorming. This
wiki may be useful: http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=Main
Page”
A discussion ensued over the charge from our Library Directors
Some questions and ideas:
*Is the main focus to save money or improve the system?
*Need to start with the end user and work backwards
*Look at where we are – where we’re going – how do we get there
*need to define ourselves better
*what is our purpose and best way to achieve that purpose—make it as broad as possible
*Best practice is the first step; how far apart will the second and third steps be?
*Funding shouldn’t be a primary issue – se what the ideal is and let the directors worry about the money
*need a single search layer
*just signed a three year contract with III three weeks ago
*keep things as modular as possible
*need a discovery layer that does X, Y, Z; need to look at three and see what the metadata challenges will be (Worldcat local; Encore….)
*need to optimize what we’re currently doing, i.e. scopes (are we using III to the fullest)
*what do we want from the tool? – faceted searching (library.dartmouth.edu)
-- needs to work with keyword searching
*need to leverage data already available
*ability to interact with other systems (i.e. Google search…)
*need to have realistic expectations (searches book side as well as articles)
*what does it mean to have a catalog? (inventory, access, shelf-list) – need to continue this discussion
*talk with collections development folks for long-term planning
*seven campus/one library [cataloging (original vs. copy, specializations (DOCS), floating collections, etc.]
Cataloging Standards Best Practices Proposal DRAFT (prepared by Bryce Cundick (FAR)): (this draft is a work in progress on the work space provided by Sharon Fitzgerald (ORO) at http://catstandardsreport.pbworks.com/
The Cataloging
Standards Committee has identified the following three main areas where
additional collaboration and efforts may be focused to be more effective and
efficient with the methods, processes, and services for which we are
responsible.
·
Reevaluation
of the current discovery interface to search the catalog. We recommend that a
committee encompassing a number of different areas (reference, cataloging,
access services, etc.) be formed to look at the URSUS catalog and decide how it
can be tailored to best fit the needs of our users. Currently, the catalog
doesn’t offer the degree of accuracy available in other catalogs. For example,
searches for “electronic resource” return results from a wide variety of
types—not just electronic resources. Some of these problems might be corrected
by a restructuring of the way URSUS is currently used, although it might become
necessary to use a new discovery tool, such as WorldCat Local or Encore. This
is something the committee would have to analyze. It would also be beneficial
for the committee to look at other catalogs in successful libraries to see if
there are features we are currently overlooking. We believe the ideal discovery
tool will offer the following:
o
Ability
to use faceted searching—separate different formats, etc.
o
Works
best with keyword searches
o
Can
work with other systems (such as Google Scholar)
o
Excels
at searching at a title level
·
Increased
interaction between catalogers. Currently, the cataloging standards committee
meets three times per year to discuss overarching concerns. However, each
library is dealing with many of the same difficulties and problems, and we
believe making a greater effort at collaboration would help all of us be more
efficient. Some potential areas for increased interaction include:
o
A wiki that allows catalogers to do common
troubleshooting, serving as a centralized resource that would let us pool our
knowledge
o
Create
tutorials focused on how to use the different facets of Millennium effectively
o
Holding
a regular meeting that encompasses more than just cataloging heads. If some of
the cataloging staff could get together in addition, an exchange of approaches
and solutions could be arranged that might be beneficial to all. This idea
could be extended to other departments—perhaps creating some sort of URSUS-wide
conference where librarians can meet and have workshops and exchange ideas
o
Sharing
training manuals/documentation would also be beneficial (and is being done now
between some campuses)
·
Study
strengths and weaknesses in cataloging across the different campuses to find
better ways of allocating workflow and workload. We have all heard the idea raised numerous times of having some sort of centralized
cataloging system. While we view such a wide-reaching response as inefficient
and potentially troublesome, we do believe that there might be areas where we
can pool our resources to catalog more efficiently. We suggest conducting an
URSUS-wide study for areas that bear the most promise (such as having a floating
collection in some areas, specializations in cataloging certain subjects or
types of cataloging (original vs. copy), etc.)
Lynn Wilcox compiled the following efficient practices that we already employ:
1) What efficiencies do we already employ as a system and individually?
*UMS Standards Policies resulting in sharing 1 bib record, and shared quality maintenance
*UMO tape loads vendor book records which include University press publications- Law purchases some university press titles that are necessary in-house to support curriculum and uses that record to immediately send title to shelf, batch loads holdings to OCLC monthly via create lists record collection
*UMO tape loads and enhances via MARCEDIT e-Springer books
*UMS batch loads Gov Doc records, customized to selecting libraries. Law uses these records to fulfill shelf listing and other GPO depository guidelines AND webpac discovery
*SERIALS SOLUTIONS Includes customized A to Z list, shared Catalog records, & customized e-serials batch loads to OCLC
*Automated Authority Control (outsourced and using III system via reports)
*Instant Authority checking via III tools and INN-VIEW
*III URL checking (can be customized to local and system specifications)
*III dupe detection system wide (barcodes, bib records etc)
*Law uses Z30 interface in Millennium to quickly search Ursus, LC, Worldcat & MaineInfonet in the same utility for catalog records to download, later batch loaded to OCLC
*System office created tape load procedure so Law (& USM) downloads Heinonline Legal Classic e-books from vendor to Ursus in customized batches, batch loads holdings to OCLC
*Semi centralized licensing and purchasing of e-resources, centralized ip authentication system
*PeopleSoft invoice interface eliminated double entry and error
*Electronic invoice loading (EBSCO)
*Library Staff Support page (communication, standards, tutorials, How do I, issue logs, and more)
*Efficiencies that need improvement and are currently being addressed: Shared Mariner indexing, e-resource cataloging outside of Mariner and Serials solutions
2) What do the libraries have in common? (III, OCLC, EBSCO?)
3) What do the individual libraries have that is unique? (audience, collection, expertise?)
4) What expertise can be centralized for the benefit of all (or is already being done for the benefit of all)? [Digitization of unique items or special collections/discovery tool/global output (funding, promotion, permissions, copyright ?)]
OTHER BUSINESS:
MSL: concerned that book jackets on Millennium do not match the item; Content Café is the vendor for the book jackets;
LAW: would like to use Address 3 in the patron record for carrel assignments; can it be protected in patron loads?
Passing of the Chair to Maine State Library – next meeting Mary Saunders will start her reign as chair of this committee
Next meeting: February 5, 2010
Snow date: February 12, 2010