1. Network Level Cataloging: The View from a Member Library Diana Brooking University of Washington Libraries dbrookin@u.washington.edu Jan. 14, 2008 ALA Midwinter

2. Origins of the Paradigm Shift: Cataloging in Local ILS vs. OCLC UW is beta testing WorldCat Local –WCL based on searching/display of master records OCLC WorldCat Master records Institutional records (new)

3. Local ILS –Copies of OCLC records –3 rd party vendor records (500,000) –Local brief bibs UW local catalog contains corrections & improvements not present in WorldCat WorldCat also contains improvements we don’t get

4. Cataloging on OCLC Control by utility with trend toward decentralization –Report changes to OCLC –Enhance (1983- ): libraries must qualify for enhance status for each format –Minimal level upgrade (1985- ) –Database enrichment (1991- ) No regular database-wide authority control cleanup Member libraries edit one record at a time

5. Cataloging in Local ILS Local control with trend toward batch processing Only some changes made to master recs –Many recs not reviewed by catalogers at time of download from OCLC (quick cataloging) –Post-cataloging processing (authority control, other cleanup) –UW has Enhance only for bks, vis, com –Some changes not suitable for shared recs?

6. Working in local ILS: more efficient Services: authority control vendors (outsourcing cleanup on a regular basis) Services: additional sources of MARC recs (not licensed to go to OCLC) Tools in the ILS: global update, create lists, headings reports, etc. Tools outside the ILS: MARCEdit

7. Institutional Records? Not clear how IRs will work in WorldCat Local May be the only solution for legacy data Not scalable or sustainable if institutions continue maintenance locally Master record: starting point or end product?

8. Network-level today? Taking on effort that may not be offset by others yet? Lack of tools: less efficient, more costs Staff implications: More time reviewing records? More FTE for database maintenance? More training? Role of LC/PCC? Need for member libraries or OCLC to supply much more support for national level programs?

9. Suggestions Improve participation in Enhance/other programs Standards and practices when many libs share one master record as local record Provide a conflict resolution process (signed edits with editor history and easy reversion) Network-level maintenance tools Network-level authority control processes More granular bib notify service CONSER, open source software development, other models?