Minutes for 01/22/2014

Union Catalog Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Old Business:

  • (Alysa, MK, Karen, Mark)—Cataloging standards and RDA topics
  • (Penny)—Redundant order records--order records that trigger duplicate bibs
  • (Mark)—Record Grouping functionality

New Business:

  • Georgia Fujikawa & Jodi (Innovative)
    • Innovative has other consortia where some members are OCLC customers and some are SkyRiver customers.
      • Helen Consortia in Rhode Island (9 academic – 2 SkyRiver, 7 are not)
      • Allow two 001 fields in a record locally – either 001 will flag a duplicate in the load table
      • SkyRiver 001 is always prefixed with SKY
    • SkyRiver customers will already know that there is a record in the Marmot catalog (entire Marmot catalog holdings will be uploaded to SkyRiver).
    • Option to overlay if this is a better record.
    • As we add holdings to the Marmot catalog, this will be relayed to the SkyRiver database in close to real-time.
      • OCLC library wants to overlay SkyRiver record; load table can be set to do so.
      • Two different load tables:
        • For OCLC records – III suggests that we use a table that will only overlay if the encoding level is higher. Can force overlays in specific cases.
          • Options for a match: insert, overlay, attach
          • III suggests adding priority of when to overlay
        • For SkyRiver records – may or may not need a second table
          • SkyRiver table may be set always match and attach and not overlay
          • Can also insert SkyRiver number into existing OCLC record
        • Vendor records and minimal records aren’t added to the SkyRiver unless they meet certain criteria
        • Duplicates with order records; batch process records: there is only so much the load table can do with multiple order records.
        • Jimmy asked Innovative to provide a quote for auditing load tables and workflows
        • Option for match and insert rather than “match and attach” or “match and overlay”? (Asks Jimmy)
        • Can we do a call offline to show what the workflow would look like for SkyRiver? Yes, (Innovative will set up)

Motion 1 

  • Jimmy wants to include a provision that if this breaks any OCLC records; we’d back out
  • Alysa – it sounds like SkyRiver records would be more robust, but we have to have the OCLC number – proposes we use SkyRiver record as preferred record
  • What happens if “robust” SkyRiver record is overlayed with OCLC record? Can we match and augment? Is that only an option in SkyRiver and not in Sierra?
  • What about when OCLC records are merged and 001 is moved to 035?
  • What about the 003 indicator of OCoLC? Often used to create lists for deletion.
  • If we treat SkyRiver as yet another vendor, can we approve the ability to move forward? Does it cause problems for deduping (with needing to preserve SkyRiver number)

Motion 1: The UCC considers SkyRiver an acceptable cataloging source for Marmot. The UCC acknowledges that SkyRiver may provide cost savings, workflow efficiencies, and other benefits for some member libraries. The UCC will monitor the implementation of SkyRiver to insure that no OCLC records are adversely affected. The UCC will consider changing procedures in the future to take advantage of possible record merge features. Preserving OCLC#s as well as SKY#s is a crucial point.

Passes unopposed.

Motion 2

  • The UCC reasserts that OCLC is a preferred cataloging source for Marmot. The UCC acknowledges that limited competition may balance two priorities: union cataloging integrity and best price. The UCC recommends that all members use OCLC or SkyRiver. One significant exception is vendor-provided records by Marmot-approved vendors.
  • Passes unopposed.

Motion 3

  • The UCC recommends Marmot’s proposal to cancel the current OCLC records for OverDrive ebooks.
  • The UCC considers native OverDrive metadata adequate for discovery purposes in the union catalog.
  • Passes unopposed

Motion 4

  • The UCC acknowledges Marmot’s decision to cancel the current subscription for OCLC batch files.
  • By February 1, ASU and Aspen SD should export OCLC records from Connexion to Marmot; and CMC SD51, SSSD, Town of Vail, and Wilkinson should load their own Cat Express files (or send them to Marmot to load).
  • Passes unopposed

Jimmy reviewed new pricing from OCLC.

  • Jimmy recommends for any library who moves to SkyRiver to ask OCLC to zero holdings.
  • Jo asks: is it beneficial for someone on the fence to go to SkyRiver? Or does it make things more difficult for the Union Catalog.
  • Libraries need to look at cost of effort vs. cost of utility.
  • Send SkyRiver questions to Jimmy by Friday 1/24 & he will deliver to Innovative. 
Meeting Date: 
Wednesday, 2014, January 22
Documentation Type: