Michelle distributed a copy of an e-mail sent by David Brier on behalf of the Systems Office. The Systems Office has been receiving requests from different libraries for tools that can be used to generate lists of new items. The Systems Office does not want to have to create separate programming code and tools tailored to meet the specific needs and desires of individual libraries. Instead, they hope to create one tool utilizing a single agreed upon data element. To that end, David Brier wanted to know if the SCCC could "devise and initiate a plan to identify new items using some type of indicator in the MFHD" other than the MFHD create date.
Michelle asked which libraries were using the new items list interface developed by Michael Doran at University of Texas, Arlington, which works off of data generated by the Voyager Acquisitions module. Carol Kellett reported that only UH Manoa was using the Doran product, and many public services staff were unhappy with it because the lists it generates include items that they don't think should be included. Many staff at Hamilton remember the new items list generated by the old CARL system, and want to have the exact same thing from Voyager.
Michelle asked what other libraries were using Systems Office tools to generate new items lists. Keiko Okubo from Law Library said she received reports of newly added items from the Systems Office which use data generated by the Voyager Cataloging module. Keiko said that she has to post-edit the reports to delete items that her superiors feel should not be on the list. Most other libraries that were providing newly added items lists for their patrons were generating them in-house using a variety of methods.
Michelle confessed to being very unhappy with the Systems Office proposal that libraries would only be given one option for a new items list. She was especially concerned that, instead of using data that is generated automatically by Voyager as part of routine Technical Services work, the Systems Office wanted to place an added burden on catalogers, requiring them to manually add a data element to those records public services staff want to appear on the list, and omit that element from those records public services staff don't want to appear on the list.
Carol said she didn't think the Systems Office really meant to have only one option for a new items list. She said the programmers could create reports using data automatically generated by Voyager, but the tweaks required to fine tune the reports to meet the needs of individual libraries can be time-consuming, and in the end the reports would never be clean enough to satisfy public services staff. There would always be a few things showing up that one public services person or another didn't think should be there.
Sophia McMillen pointed out that at Hamilton an item isn't necessarily ready for public use at the time Cataloging is done with it. A report generated using an element added at point of cataloging would include many items not yet officially added to the collection. Such a report would have as many problems and garner as many complaints as those already being generated by the Systems Office.
Luree Ohigashi from Hawaii Medical Library asked if a statistical category added to item records might be more workable. Most members felt that use of a statistical category would not resolve the larger issues of concern. If the statistical category were set to default into all new item records, then any resulting report would have to be post-edited to remove items public services staff didn't want included. If the statistical category were set to be added or deleted manually, then an added burden of work would be placed on Technical Services staff.
Keiko said that she was the one who first suggested to the Systems Office that a data element in the holdings record might be used to generate a new items list. Keiko felt that, in her situation, manually adding the element in before the report is generated would be less work than cleaning up the report after it is generated. Michelle said she had identified an existing MARC holdings record field that Keiko might legally use, eliminating the need for anyone to come up with another locally-defined tag that would have to be added in to the shared tag table. She directed everyone's attention to the LC web site description for tag 583, Action Note, at http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/echdnote.html#mrch583
Michelle asked if any libraries were currently using the 583 tag. Sophia McMillen and Sharon Ouchi said that Hamilton uses it, but as long as SCCC came up with a unique, locally defined term that didn't duplicate any of the terminology used by Hamilton, there probably wouldn't be a conflict. Michelle asked if it would be easier if Law added data elements to holdings records of items that should not show up on a report since, in theory, the number of things that people want left off the report would be smaller than the number of things that people want included. SCCC members felt the final decision should be Law's, but suspected that such an approach would be confusing. To save time, Michelle suggested that the work of defining which subfields and what standard terminology might be used in the 583 for a Law Library new items list be done via e-mail at a later date.
To summarize, SCCC members decided that the needs of different libraries and the clientele they serve are too varied for there to be one report using one definition of what a new item is. Because different libraries have very different Technical Services workflows, a single report relying on a data element manually added as part of the cataloging process would not necessarily result in a report that is any more consistent or satisfactory to public services staff than those that rely on data automatically generated as a part of Technical Services work. Staff need to understand that there is no perfect report. While SCCC understands that creating custom reports for different libraries is a burdensome aspect of customer service, SCCC members feel that it would be inappropriate for the Systems Office to dictate what data element should be used to generate a new items list. That decision has to be made by individual libraries based on their staffing and reporting needs.
Michelle reported that one of the cross-modular issues UHVCC was looking at was whether to retain the policy that acquisitions record should be suppressed from display in WebVoyage. At the time the UH libraries were migrating to Voyager, Hamilton Library was also undergoing a number of shifts of collections and personnel as Hamilton Phase 3 was being opened and parts of the Hamilton Phase 1 and 2 structures were being renovated. Hamilton Circulation was having to page books from temporarily closed collections, and its staff members were very concerned that the appearance of "on order" records in WebVoyage would only further confuse patrons and make extra work for staff who might spend time searching shelves for a book that hadn't yet been received. At the request of Hamilton Circulation, the Voyager Implementation Steering Committee established a temporary policy that "on order" records be suppressed from display in WebVoyage. UHVCC decided to re-examine the policy.
Michelle apologized to members for not having brought the issue before them sooner. She explained that a decisions to change the policy would not be retroactive. Acquisitions records already suppressed in the database would not have to be unsuppressed. The decision would only apply to orders being newly added to the database. Michelle asked SCCC members if they had a preference with respect to acquisitions records displaying in WebVoyage. SCCC members did not have a strong preference either way.
Certain tags that are present in bulk-imported vendor records aren't included in the shared tag table because they are not intended to be a permanent part of the bib record. When another library edits such a record, the MARC validation feature will list the vendor-specific tags as being invalid. While one option is to turn off MARC validation to save the record, then turn it back on, some libraries would like to clean up whatever vendor tags are no longer needed, rather than leaving them in the record to pop up during another MARC validation check.
Michelle asked members if they would be interested in having a list of vendor record tags that were okay to delete. SCCC member said such a list would be useful, not only for identifying tags to delete, but also for identifying tags to leave in.
Michelle said she would try to meet with Paul Beck and Eileen Yara from Hamilton Library as well as Carol Kellett from the Systems Office to develop a draft list of tags for SCCC members to review via e-mail. Nadine Leong-Kurio said she would post the final list on the SCCC web site.
In the Voyager System, the part of a purchase order record that describes the item on order is actually a bibliographic record residing in the catalog database. The idea is that the bibliographic record will eventually become the official catalog record for the item once it is received. Due to a number of unfilled vacancies in the department, Hamilton Acquisitions has become extremely overburdened in work and is looking for steps that can be cut from their workflow to save time. Two of the steps they would like to cut are the ones requiring them to add a 591 suppx note and a 591 UHM:ACQREC note to all Acquisitions bib records.
Eileen Yara and Marylyn Lee from Hamilton Acquisitions distributed a handout showing different kinds of bibliographic records used as Acquisitions records at Hamilton Library. In addition to bibliographic records which are created by manually entering data into the Acquisitions module bib record template, many UHM purchase order records use bib records that are imported from other sources. The examples given were of an on order record imported from Blackwell (vid 2247921), an on order record imported from Bennett (vid 2282858), an on order record downloaded from OCLC (vid 2287591), and a finished record for an item that had gone through ordering, receiving and cataloging (vid 2084574).
Eileen observed that, while a record created manually via the Acquisitions module can already have the 591 notes in the template so that they automatically appear in the finished record, records that are imported or downloaded from an outside source have to have the 591 notes added in manually. Eileen questioned the need for the notes, saying that she hadn't been Acquisitions liaison to SCCC a the time the decision was made to require them. She asked members if they all checked the record hierarchy before using a record to see if a purchase order was attached. Most members said they only checked the hierarchy if something in the bib record indicated that it might be a purchase order record.
Michelle explained that the decision to add a 591 suppx note to suppressed records was made because it is easy to miss the indicator used by the Voyager cataloging module, a tiny book icon which changes color from red to gray to indicate a record displays or is suppressed from display. Michelle admitted that the original intent was that the note be used by catalogers who were sorting through duplicate records that came through the migration with no holdings attached. Nobody thought about the ramifications for Acquisitions once the Steering Committee established the policy that order records be suppressed from display.
With respect to the requirement of a 591 ACQREC note, Michelle explained that the ACQREC note requirement was developed to protect purchase order records from improper handling or editing by catalogers at other sites. When UH database catalogers see an ACQREC note in a record, they are to use special procedures to avoid messing up information needed by the Acquisitions department that added the record. (The procedures can be found at http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/sccc/prelimbibs.html )
The main concern catalogers had was that they might accidentally edit a purchase order bib so that it no longer matched the item on order, thus creating extra work for Acquisitions staff who would have to change the record back or undo the order and recreate it using a different bib record. Eileen said that, while UHM Acquisitions staff appreciate the steps catalogers have taken to protect the purchase order records, the burden of work they are facing is such that the occasional incorrect modification of a purchase order record seemed like an acceptable risk. Eileen noted that a certain percent of order records already have to be undone due to errors on the part of selectors and vendors.
SCCC members agreed that UHM Acquisitions could stop putting the following notes in purchase order records whose bib component has been imported or downloaded from an outside source: 591 suppx, 591 UHM:ACQREC. The 591 suppx note can also be omitted from purchase order records created using the Acquisitions template, but the 591 UHM:ACQREC note should be retained, since it is already part of the template and automatically appears in the record. If UHM Acquisitions finds that the number of resulting records is higher than anticipated, they always have the option of going back to the original procedures of including one or both notes.
UH shared database catalogers should no longer rely solely on the presence of a 591 suppx note to determine whether a record is suppressed from display. They should also look at the color of the book icon or select the System tab to see if the "Suppress from OPAC" box has been checked.
In the shared authorities database, members don't have to worry about adding new authority records for LC subject headings because Hamilton Library has a subscription to receive automatic LCSH updates from the Library of Congress. No such arrangement exists for Library of Congress Name and Title authority records. Hamilton has been looking at purchasing name authority records from a vendor other than the Library of Congress, but that proposal has yet to come to fruition. Michelle wanted to know if, for the time being, SCCC members would be interested in manually adding name and title authority records to the shared database.
Originally, the Authorities Subcommittee had laid out procedures for libraries with access to OCLC's authority database to add name and title authority records to the shared database. With the advent of the Library of Congress's web-based authorities interface which allows users to save authority records in MARC format, it would be possible for other libraries to add name and title authority records to the shared database. A number of catalogers present said they would be interested in adding records.
Michelle asked Authorities Subcommittee members if it might be possible to have some kind of training in the do's and don'ts of adding authority records in Voyager. Nancy Sack (who is on the Hawaii Voyager Users Group board) said it might be possible to have a training session under the auspices of HVUG, since there is interest in authorities work at other Hawaii Voyager libraries as well. SCCC members asked Nancy to find out if a training session could be a part of the next HVUG meeting.
Hamilton's subscription for LCSH updates means that new subject authority records don't have to be added manually. However, changes that the Library of Congress makes to subject headings can generate lots of clean-up work in the UH shared database. For example, this year LC decided that the open ended date subdivision ^y 1945- would no longer be valid for the subject heading World politics. In the UH shared database, over 800 records had the heading World politics ^y 1945- . Nancy Sack had been working on the problem and gotten the number down to below 400, but in the meantime LC made changes to other headings that result in equally voluminous amounts of clean-up work.
Nancy explained the steps she uses to determine what subject heading to substitute for an invalid heading. Michelle proposed that SCCC try forming a team of volunteers who would try to incorporate the kind of subject authorities clean-up work Nancy had been doing into their routine. Nancy could notify the team whenever a change by LC resulted in a major clean-up project. The team could then share the work of cleaning up the invalid headings. Initially clean-up work would be done manually, but down the road it might be possible for team members to use Cataloger's Toolkit to send Nancy files of records that could be cleaned up using Gary Strawn's batch corrections application. At least a half dozen members present signed up to be part of the clean-up team. Nancy suggested team members cut their teeth on the World politics ^y 1945- clean-up project while they waited for the next big LC change.
Michelle Sturges and Nancy Sack gave a quick run through of basic features of Cataloger's Toolkit (CTK). CTK only works on a record that has been saved to the Voyager database. When more than one record is open in cataloging, CTK works with the active record. CTK performs its own MARC validation using a compressed tag table. One drawback is that the compressed tag table CTK generates does not include locally defined tags found in the UH shared tag tables. The CTK tag table could be edited to include local tags, but SCCC would have to work with the Systems Office to develop procedures for maintenance and distribution of the locally modified CTK tag table. Nancy's favorite features include the buttons for streamlining authority maintenance and clean-up. Michelle's favorite features include a button that will summarize information for all items linked to a bib including whether there are any purchase orders, and a button that will copy the vid number so that it can be pasted into a 591 dedup note.
While 1/4 to 1/3 of the CTK functions were designed specifically for the workflow at Northwestern University and would not be applicable in the UH shared database, SCCC members felt the remaining functions would be of sufficient use to justify distributing the product to interested libraries who had received training in its use. Michelle asked Nancy, (who is a member of the Hawaii Voyager Users Group board), whether non-UH database libraries were also interested in receiving training in Catalogers Toolkit. Nancy said she believed so. SCCC members asked Nancy to see if it might be feasible to hold a Catalogers Toolkit training session for interested HVUG members, possibly as part of the next HVUG meeting.
RLIN is revising its bibliographic database utility. One of the changes is that holdings data will be included in an 852 tag in the bib record. UH Hamilton uses RLIN for cataloging materials in non-Roman languages. K.T. Yao asked that the 852 tag be added to the shared database tag table to accommodate the change. SCCC members agreed to the proposal.
Carol Kellett reported that the Systems Office has discovered a data glitch happened in the training database at some point after records from the live database were copied and imported to create the core record set in 2001. Identification numbers that serve as links between records got garbled so that they no longer match. As a result of the glitch, holdings records that were part of that 2001 data load can no longer be edited. Item records and bib records linked to these holdings records can be edited. Holdings records that have been created since the original load can also be edited.
End Part 2
Part 1