Seamans, Marsha

English

University of Kentucky

University of KentuckyUKnowledgeLibrary Presentations University of Kentucky Libraries5-2-2012Synchronizing Holdings for ImprovedDiscoverabilityMarsha SeamansUniversity of Kentucky, marsha.seamans@uky.eduRight click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/libraries_presentPart of the Library and Information Science CommonsThis Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Kentucky Libraries at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusionin Library Presentations by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu.Repository CitationSeamans, Marsha, "Synchronizing Holdings for Improved Discoverability" (2012). Library Presentations. 3.https://uknowledge.uky.edu/libraries_present/3 Marsha Seamans Director, Access Records Management Dept.   University of Kentucky  Presented to OVGTSL May 2, 2012     Task Force Charge   “The UK Reclamation Task force is charged with planning and implementing a one-time OCLC reclamation project.  The OCLC reclamation project’s aim is to synchronize the libraries’ holdings between OCLC and our Voyager online catalog”—Oct. 2010  Batchload for Reclamation    You send all the records from your local system to OCLC to set your library’s holdings in WorldCat.   • As your institution’s holdings are set, the date of this batchload transaction is “stamped” on each record.   • After batch processing is complete, a Scan/Delete is performed that removes your holdings from records with a date stamp earlier than the date of the batchload transaction (typically the date when you extracted your records for submittal to OCLC).   • Any holdings set after the date of the Scan/Delete are not removed from WorldCat. Therefore, you can continue online cataloging while your records are processed. OCLC recommends, however, that you stop deleting holdings until the reclamation project is complete.   • By default, Scan/Deletes are processed to skip any holding set on a record that has a Local Holdings Record (LHR) attached. The LHR will remain and the holding will remain set on the record, regardless of date stamp. However, you can request to remove the LHR and the related holding.   Planning   Weekly meetings  http://www.oclc.org/us/en/support/documentation/batchprocessing/using/guide/3_orderbatch.pdf  Batchload order checklist http://www.oclc.org/us/en/support/documentation/batchprocessing/using/checklistfororderingBib.pdf  “A Guide to OCLC’s Batch Services,” by Margi Mann, OCLC Western Service Center  Other Voyager libraries  2010 OVGTSL presentation “Benefits of Batch Reclamation,” by Roman Panchyshyn  Questions to OCLC  How to proceed with KUK, KUM, KNE   Cannot identify provisional records    Decisions  What locations to send   Records to exclude  Locations for which we do not set OCLC holdings   Locations which represent acquisitions records  Locations  where bib and/or holding is suppressed   CIS vendor records   Match points   OCLC # AND title AND format   Do not add records to OCLC that are unmatched  Identify and report the unmatched Timing  Avoid end of year close out  Before August Voyager upgrade   Notification to all effected   Other ongoing projects?   Executing   May 6, 2011 take a deep breath, push the button  Batchload order submitted online  Fine-tuning   Add 852 for KUK, KUM, KNE   Extract and send records   Files of 90,000 or fewer records   40 files. 2.6 million records. 4 gigabytes of data.   Week of June 21 processing …  Reports 6/29/2011 – 7/7/2011 Oops!  Too many Unresolved, too many deletes  Unresolved – 138,085  Delete – 162,430  “Gap” files August – match only on OCLC #   9506 records identified on ScanDelete file which matched with Voyager  Some missed locations  Some mis-matched locations  Records added since 6/6/2011  8/1/2011 files sent    Preliminary results   Where are those results  8/22/2011 Where are those files?   Deletes – 74,214  Recommendation to proceed   Approval by Associate Dean   Notified OCLC 10/4/11 to run the Scan/Delete   Results  10-12-2011 – Confirmation that Scan/Delete was run  Cross Reference reports  Unresolved reports   UDEV reports   Our records w/ normalized OCLC #  Local reports created  Scan/Delete report expansion  Reclaim No Match report   Now what   Task Force dissolved & cleanup dispersed  Known problems for KUK, KNE, KME   Separated reports for KUK, KNE & KUM   LOTS of data to analyze     Immediate cleanup-  Known problems    Delete KUK holdings from mc,av held records  Batch load holdings to OCLC from Marcive loads completed July – Dec.  2011   Identify “mismatched” records from the batch processing, delete holdings from OCLC and add holdings to [Estimate 5000-6000 records for KUK; 200 records for Law; 200 records for MCL  Correct 38 “rejects” identified on UDEV reports  Cross Ref report UDEV reports  MARC coding errors  Fixed Fields  006 & 007   024  Others  Lots of these are provisional records   UDEV example - Rejected   UDEV record - Errors Unresolved example - Provisional  Unresolved – Fuller  Some Other Things We Found  Lots of things unrelated to the actual Reclamation  HRAF & Newsbank  EEBO/ECCO   GPO# = OCLC#  UK,MIA & UK,Lost (suppressed)   Microfilm suppressed in Voyager  Marcive shipping list records   Mismatches & 019   Format problems   Other library’s reclamation projects   019 (merged OCLC records)   HRAF & Newsbank  Holdings got set on OCLC sometime in the past; reclamation deleted them   HRAF  Never loaded records into Voyager   We want these!   Able to get a list of OCLC #s from WorldCat collection set   Newsbank   Never loaded the records into Voyager   OK – we don’t want them    EBBO/ECCO  Vendor records in Voyager   OCLC # in Vendor record is for the print    Don’t want OCLC holdings set for these    Deleted OCLC holdings on 51,527 records    GPO # = OCLC #  Some record loads pre-2000 copied the GPO record number into 035 (OCLC)ocm XXXXXXXX  Identified 7569 of these on ReclaimNoMatch report   Changed the OCLC # in Voyager to reflect matched #  Identified matches on 2nd XRef report where match was to OCLC # only – deleted holdings on OCLC  UK,MIA &UK,LOST  Show up on the Scan/Delete report   OK that holdings are deleted from OCLC   Identify all records in Voyager with these locations  Fold into Lost & Missing processing  Deleted 612 Voyager bib records  Deleted 608 OCLC holdings  Microfilm suppressed records   Records for preservation microfilm are suppressed in Voyager & therefore had holdings deleted in Reclamation  Need decision on whether to unsuppress and reset holdings   Many of these are UK theses/dissertations  247 identified on Scan/Delete, there are probably more   Marcive shipping list records – some matched in Reclamation; some on Unresolved  Mismatches & 019s  Mismatches   Title and format matches  Result of first (July) reclamation batches  Other libaries’ reclamation records   019 problems   Example of a mismatch  Example of mismatch  Next Steps    “019” problem records   Identify and correct additional mismatches  Including Marcive shipping list matches   100,000 records still to be analyzed & resolved   Review URES and UDEV reports  Provisionals ok  Vendor records ok  Others need work?   Analyze LHR report and implement database cleanup process  Normalization of OCLC # for WorldCat Local match   Positives  Approximately 36,000 KUK holdings = good deletes  Expect KNE & KUM have similarly good result   Identified LOTS & LOTS of database cleanup  Catalog much “cleaner”   Identified some workflow problems    At this point, holdings are closer to in synch    OCLC credit for mismatch deletes     Considerations  Every library catalog is different  Be selective about records sent   There is a LOT of database cleanup   Not a short term project   Right mix of resources and staffing  Programmers  Cataloging experts  Batch processing   Marsha.Seamans@uky.edu  

Synchronizing Holdings for Improved Discoverability

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&amp;context=libraries_present

Synchronizing Holdings for Improved Discoverability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky

University of Kentucky