Minutes for 10/26/2016

Marmot Union Cataloging Committee

Wednesday, October 26, 2016


Announcements: None

Action Items:





Formal policy proposal on large review files written

Committee edited the policy proposal, and approved it to be sent to the ASC.  The approved policy is included at the end of this document.

· Review file administrator privileges now limited to Marmot and III staff

Amy tested this in the meeting, and we confirmed that she is no longer able to edit review files owned by others.






Develop project plan for adding 001 # prefix to OCLC numbers


Lloyd and Brandon will develop a project plan for this.  It is pointed out that we need to check what effect this would have on Prospector.

Investigate a tool for comparing our 001 numbers to those found in Worldcat.org to find our bad 001 numbers


Lloyd will pursue this.  Pascal thinks it will be easy.

Unsuppress bib records remaining in lists 19 and 27


A question arose on this.  How does Pika handle a bib when all the items are suppressed?  Does it display an orphan bib like classic does?  What does Prospector do with these?  If they do leave orphan bibs, Shelley wants to be able to leave things suppressed at the bib level.

From Duplicate Committee: produce ‘how-to’ documentation on deduping -

Lloyd, Nancy, Tammy

Lloyd, Nancy and Tammy will meet to develop this documentation

From Duplicate Committee: develop a tool to find duplicates within and between the 001 and 019 fields

Lloyd, JB

Lloyd will work with JB on this

I-Type reorg proposal


On backburner due to III’s impending increase to the number of I-Types allowed, probably in Q1 2017.  This change will allow us to have a very different I-Type structure, so we will hold off until then.

Find old cataloging documentation, update it, and get it online


No update

Investigate how we can take advantage of OCLC numbers in 035 of SkyRiver records


No update

Find out about possibility of OCLC reclamation project.  To what extent it would resolve our issue of records with no 001.  How many Marmot libraries are due a free reclamation?  Price of full catalog reclamation.


Brandon says we need to determine who has a free reclamation and is willing to use it for this, then determine cost for the remainder.

Investigate possible re-indexing project. What else should be re-indexed? 019 and 079 are in the ISBN index and probably should not be.  Look through old UCC minutes for any reference to indexing, and start a wiki page to keep track of re-indexing needs.


No update

Experiment with what might be getting missed by the Headings Report duplicate check


Amy Shipley thinks that headings reports are not picking up new dups.  It appears to be finding very few dups overall, and missing new ones.  She frequently finds dups that headings reports does not pick up.  Lloyd will investigate.

Check with Sky River users about using correct loader


All SR users who have responded are using the correct SR loaders.  Some have not responded yet.  Lloyd will follow up.

Look for an automated process to fix the 001 & 019 duplicates in list 58

001 Subcom.

No Update

Evaluate authority RFQs.

Lloyd, Brandon, Julie, Jamie

We had a phone meeting w/LTI to find out why they cost more than the competitors.  They explained that they do a lot of improvements to the authority data to go beyond the basic NAF that the others provide.


The next step will be to create a sample file of 10,000 records to send to each vendor.  LTI suggested that we send 10,000 and give a short deadline, so vendors won’t be able to manually clean up their returned records.



Discussion topics


Sierra upgrade to 2.4

  • Release notes were sent out.  Nobody had any opposition to running the update soon.




Templates with fixed Cat Dates

  • Lloyd noticed that these templates were set up to create a fixed CAT DATE for records they create:


Fixed date




























It is very rare to actually want a template to create a fixed CAT DATE.  Usually they should either leave it blank or put in today’s date.  These templates were probably mistakes.  Everyone should check theirs and probably fix them or delete them.

 Next Duplicates Sub-committee meeting: Nov 9, 2016 9-10am MT

 UCC approved Marmot policy on large review files:

There is a need to control use of review files 25,000 records and larger.  When members keep small files in large buckets it can make it difficult for others to find a bucket large enough for their need.  If anyone mistakenly creates a small file in a large bucket, please copy the file into a correctly sized bucket and delete the file from the large bucket.  Marmot staff will regularly move any small files found in large buckets to correctly sized buckets if they are more than one day old.  Marmot staff will also seek to resolve questionable lists in the larger buckets.

If someone has a special circumstance that requires them to keep a small file in a large bucket, they can claim ownership of the review file and Marmot staff will leave the file there.





Meeting Date: 
Wednesday, 2016, October 26
Documentation Type: