Chair, Cataloging and Metadata SUL Shared Bib Implementation Q&A Betsy Simpson Chair, Cataloging and Metadata University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries Session description: “The State University Libraries are moving to a shared bibliographic Aleph environment by June 2012.  How will this be accomplished and what does it mean for our local processes?  This brief overview will give basic information about the implementation and allow plenty of time for questions and answers.  More opportunities for discussion and input will be available in the months ahead.” December 21, 2011 January 5, 2012

Introduction Rationale Chronology Issues Timeline Local Implementation Agenda Introduction Rationale Chronology Issues Timeline Local Implementation

What is an SUL shared bib? Introduction What is an SUL shared bib? SUL = State University Libraries FAMU, FAU, FGCU, FIU, FSU, NCF, UCF, UF, UNF, USF, UWF One bib record for each title Separate holdings and items for each SUL SUL Aleph client (SBU01) SUL: State University Libraries – 11 institutions One bib record for each title: similar to current UF setup where there is one bib record across UF, e.g., if a title is owned by the Education Library and the Science Library, there is only one bib record for the title Separate holdings and items for each SUL: the holdings and items attached to the bib record identify which SUL owns the title SUL Aleph client: single Aleph client used by all 11 institutions; not talking about the public interface, Mango, which already has a virtually merged bib record across the SUL

Rationale More efficient Allows for greater centralization Fosters collaborative collection development Timely More efficient: FCLA won’t have to maintain separate Aleph servers for each library (impacts e.g., data maintenance, upgrades) Allows for greater centralization: increases possibilities for sharing data loads, authority work, etc. Fosters collaborative collection development: facilitates SUL-wide initiatives, e.g., storage, PDA, UBorrow Timely: political will to move forward now because of impending consolidation of FCLA and CCLA if wait, might run risk that FCLA staffing is not in place to do the merge the way we want; could lead to a loss of data puts SUL in a better position if/when there is a future merge of Florida College and SUL Aleph systems Wider context: discussions nationally about the benefits of centralizing to realize efficiencies, e.g., LC's Future of Bibliographic Control report, UC’s Bibliographic Services Task Force report; also, shift toward alternative OPACs (discovery systems) and not those “attached” to the ILS

Chronology 2008: TSPC Single Bibliographic Task Force 2008-2009: CSUL Single Bibliographic Task Force 2009-2011: Single Bib Pilot Project (FSU, USF, UF) 2011: CSUL directive Not a spur of the moment decision; has been discussed for years, but things really started hopping around 2008 SUL TSPC=Technical Services Planning Committee: 2008 action plan included bullet to investigate single bib; formed task force in April 2008; submitted report to CSUL September 2008 CSUL (Council of SUL=deans) Single Bibliographic Task Force (formed in December 2008; report submitted February 2009; approved by CSUL March 2009) Single Bibliographic Pilot Project: formed in fall 2009 ; Among accomplishments: Creation of SBU01 for 3 pilots Functionality in place to edit bibs, holdings, and items Working groups (special collections, serials) Permissions merged into one file Ability to run Aleph services and reports CSUL directive: unanimous decision in December 2011 to migrate to an SUL shared bib Previous reasons given for maintaining separate bibs: autonomy collection size local data OPAC display

Bib merge Ongoing workflow Data loading Issues Bib merge Ongoing workflow Data loading Three primary issues: Merging existing records with minimal loss of local data Determining how ongoing workflow will be handled Examining data loading – and figuring out which could be done centrally?

OCLC Reclamation Tag treatment Clean-up Bib Merge OCLC Reclamation Tag treatment Clean-up Bib merge: OCLC Reclamation: aligns holdings with WorldCat, provides up-to-date OCLC number Tag treatment: pilot libraries/FCLA reviewed each MARC tag (i.e., field) to identify appropriate merge specs; also in place for authority records Options 1. If not found, add it; only one tag from latest record kept, no dups, for non-repeatable fields 2. All unique tag content is kept; all have $5 added 3. Same as #2, but no $5 added 4. None kept; drop all occurrences 5. Use longest field 6. Use most complete field (008) Clean-up: variety of data clean-up projects are underway to optimize bib merge, e.g.: correct erroneous MARC tags (to assure treatment options are properly applied) suppress holdings for suppressed bibs (holdings determine ownership, not bib) correct records with invalid OCLC prefix (to facilitate merge on OCLC number)

Ongoing Workflow Strategic Direction for SUL Catalogers SUL Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog SUL-wide tables configuration http://wiki.fcla.edu:8000/TSPC/1 Strategic Direction for SUL Catalogers – approved at Cataloger Summit fall 2010 SUL Shared Bib Guidelines and Procedures TSPC task force charged in February 2010 approved by TSPC in September 2010 outlines standards to follow and best practices evolving document Numerous tasks must be done to coordinate tables setup across SUL, e.g.: data validation, export profiles, patron files

Bib record sets Routine bib loads Proprietary data Data Loading Bib record sets Routine bib loads Proprietary data http://wiki.fcla.edu:8000/SBPP/1 Bib record sets: many thousands of bib records added annually; pilot libraries/FCLA began compilation of all bib record sets; ongoing project-needs rest of SUL data Routine bib loads: spreadsheet gives information on ongoing loads; should help determine what might be able to be loaded centrally Proprietary data: task group reviewed and recommended: message on bib to indicate records are not shareable (currently use “DO NOT OFFLOAD” status) indication that additional fees and/or legal action may result from unauthorized use compliance will be encouraged, staff educated Doing the above should eliminate need to seek permission from vendors that restrict record use by third party, i.e., any SUL that has neither subscribed to nor purchased the product represented by the vendor records

Timeline January 2012 f2f meeting at FCLA (Cataloging, Acquisitions) Full test merge February 2012 f2f meeting at FCLA (Access Services) Functional testing in all areas Refine policies and procedures March 2012 Testing and training Refine policies and procedures FCLA Shared Bib Web site - http://fclaweb.fcla.edu/content/shared-bib-implementation-project-organization FCLA timeline - http://fclaweb.fcla.edu/node/5049/ January 2012 Send at least one representative to the f2f Implementation Meeting at FCLA.--Continue workflow analysis and documentation.-- Review new full merge of 11 SULs in UX database in Test. February 2012 Continue the pilot project institutions experiences and cleanup projects with the SUL implementation teams.--Review and expand SUL-wide written policies and guidelines as needed.--Test Course Reserves.--All SULs functional testing in all areas.--Report all problems to FCLA. March 2012 Continue SUL-wide written policies and guidelines.--All SULs participate in training, testing and feedback.

Timeline April 2012 Testing and training Refine policies and procedures May 2012 Testing and training Finalize policies and procedures June 2012 Final testing Bib change cutoff Migration to shared bib April 2012 UBorrow adjustments and testing.--All SULs participate in orientation for staff, testing and feedback.--Testing services, reports, and printing.-- Continue Mango testing. May 2012 All SULs participate in orientation for staff, testing and feedback.--Continue analysis and adjustments to workflow.--Complete SUL-wide written policies and guidelines.--Database may be partially frozen.--Finalize procedures for transition. June 2012 Final testing of all functions.--Completing policies and guidelines to workflow.--Coordinate halting of changing bib records--Migration to Shared Bib FCLA will retain a copy of the pre-merge data for review for some period of time (yet to be determined). Pilot libraries (UF, FSU, USF) will help train and assist non-pilot library staff. Shared bib implementation is priority; other FCLA work will slow down or be postponed.

Local Implementation Steering Group E-mail UFSharedBib@uflib.ufl.edu Betsy Simpson, Cataloging Steve Carrico, Acquisitions Michele Crump, Access Support Susy Potter, Legal Information Center Linnea Danielsen, Health Science Center Library E-mail UFSharedBib@uflib.ufl.edu LibGuide http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/sharedbib Steering Group has been created; will serve as coordinators for functional areas Wider group to monitor FCLA shared bib listserv Steering Group e-mail Local Shared Bib LibGuide in development

Questions?