Meeting Minutes for 02/22/2017

Marmot Union Cataloging Committee

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Action Items:

Completed

Ongoing

Discussion topics

• Start regular global update to find non-OCLC 001 numbers? Weekly, prefix on suspicious 001’s.

  • Nancy is working on the list of records with UNKNOWN in the 003 to find if the number is actually an OCLC number.  Most of them are.

  • Lloyd would like to find a way to farm this out to members to work on their own records

  • We considered cleaning up leading zeros with global update because they prevent matching on bib util numbers in Sierra

  • Removing leading zeros would make those dups pop out in headings reports

  • You could add an ‘x’ to the start of fields with a leading zero, then remove the ‘x0’

  • Jamie: they should be checked in OCLC first because they may be bad and after you remove the leading zeros you can’t find them again.  We should check them in an OCLC batch process before removing the zeros.

• Authority Vendor Decision – Marcive fixed author’s name, LTI did not.

  • LTI is a little better service, but MARCive has a better price

  • There was a lot of discussion of what each service did better on different records

  • Jamie: What about the ability to delete records?  Since MARCive is still developing their process, should we wait for them to figure out what that process is going to be?

    • Lloyd: MARCive seem more flexible about what their process is, since it is in development. They might listen to what we need it to be.

  • How does deleting actually work?

    • We would have to send MARCive a list of the record numbers we are deleting.  The problem if we don’t remove things is that they will send us updates for records we don’t have, and those create an error when loading the file.  It is an annoyance, not a major problem.  The worst case is when the file gets so many errors that it causes the record load to fail.  Then we would have to split the file in two before loading.  A bigger annoyance, but not impossible.

  • Would we have to keep orphan bibs in the system so we can collect the record numbers?

    • Lloyd: Yes, that’s a problem. Members would probably have to stop deleting bibs, and leave it to Nancy, who would collect the record numbers before deleting bibs.

    • Karen: Duplicate committee just discussed that orphan bibs can cause more duplicates.

  • Jamie: can MARCive set up a process where they would keep track of our record numbers, and we could send them a list of what we have, and they could find what’s missing for us?

    • Lloyd: I will ask

  • We also need to consider which electronic subscription packages need authority control.

    • Martha: Some packages are permanent, like Naxos which will also benefit greatly from authority control.

    • Lloyd: I suggest that we include all records in the gap process, because the price for gap processing is very low for both vendors.

  • Question: if we include everything in the gap process, doesn’t that increase our ongoing cost in future years?

    • No, the primary expense is adding new records.  Maintenance is a minimal flat fee.

  • Question: What is our timing on this decision?

    • We have budgeted for LTI for the rest of this year, so it’s not really a rush, but it would be nice to get this decision behind us.

  • Jamie: it seems like there are still too many unknowns to make a decision today.  The question of the large academic subscription sets needs to be decided.

  • Martha: we need to find any large sets that are different sites have loaded separately and clean those up.

  • The Marmot Academic Committee should meet to determine about the electronic sets.

New action items