1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Chronology 2008: TSPC Single Bibliographic Task Force
: CSUL Single Bibliographic Task Force
: 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

6. 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?

7. 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)

8. Ongoing Workflow Strategic Direction for SUL Catalogers
SUL Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog
SUL-wide tables configuration
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

9. Bib record sets Routine bib loads Proprietary data
Data Loading
Bib record sets
Routine bib loads
Proprietary data
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

10. Timeline
January f2f meeting at FCLA (Cataloging, Acquisitions) Full test merge
February f2f meeting at FCLA (Access Services) Functional testing in all areas Refine policies and procedures
March Testing and training Refine policies and procedures
FCLA Shared Bib Web site -
FCLA timeline -
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.

11. Timeline
April Testing and training Refine policies and procedures
May Testing and training Finalize policies and procedures
June 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.

12. 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
LibGuide
Steering Group has been created; will serve as coordinators for functional areas
Wider group to monitor FCLA shared bib listserv
Steering Group
Local Shared Bib LibGuide in development

13. Questions?