Additional reports and presentations from the Spring Assembly May 7, 2008.
Brian Schottlaender (UCSD) "On the Record"; The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
The Library of Congress, in response to the evolving information and technology environment, convened the Future of Bibliographic Control Working Group to examine the future of bibliographic description in the 21st century. As a member of the working group, Schottlaender will discuss the group’s final report and the implications and ramifications of the report or the UC libraries.
Referred to in presentation:
On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
presented: January 9, 2008
Thomas Mann. “'On the Record’ but Off the Track” - a response on behalf of the Library of
Congress Professional Guild
LC’s Cataloging Policy and Support Office has issued decisions regarding LCSH
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pre_vs_post.pdf
Showing posts with label oclc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oclc. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Committee reports posted to Spring Assembly schedule
Committee reports for the Spring Assembly are linked from the meeting schedule.
http://lauci.lib.uci.edu/springprogram2008/Schedule.htm
Draft Minutes, Fall Assembly 2007 Nov.15-16, 2007, UC Merced
Mitchell Brown
UC Irvine vice-chair
http://lauci.lib.uci.edu/springprogram2008/Schedule.htm
Draft Minutes, Fall Assembly 2007 Nov.15-16, 2007, UC Merced
o Research and Professional Development Committee – S. Dunlap (UCSD)
LAUC Minigrants Program -- [Sample] Call for Minigrants Spring 2008 -- R&DP Revised Calendar
o Diversity Committee – Chimene Tucker (UCSB)
o Heads of Technical Services (HOTS) Summary of Activities FY2007-08 - Tony Harvell (UCSD)
o Resource Sharing Committee (RSC) Report - Lisa Mix (UCSF)
Mitchell Brown
UC Irvine vice-chair
Friday, November 16, 2007
A profession of dial-twisters
From BJ: "Librarians are inveterate dial-twisters... if there's not a dial to twist we ask them to put some dials on there to twist. OCLC has to resist all the requests for local customization if they are going to get anywhere, and instead focus on commonalities between organizations."
Also: "OCLC is very responsive to data... (rather than "staff feel that...")." Bring data to the table.
On the whole, OCLC has been good to work with for UW.
Also: "OCLC is very responsive to data... (rather than "staff feel that...")." Bring data to the table.
On the whole, OCLC has been good to work with for UW.
Bill Jordan
The next presentation is from Bill Jordan, from the University of Washington. He started out by giving a background of UW.. they have 9 IT people, for instance.
Why they got started? Lots of brainstorming about the future of the catalog etc., then Betsy Wilson went to the senior leadership of OCLC. The UW team then went to Dublin and spent three days locked in a room with OCLC hashing things out (yikes -- ed).
the notion of "perpetual beta" was brought up -- unsurprisingly some staff were not so comfortable with this.
BJ says he expected to get "flooded" with comments -- but they actually weren't. There were just 60 questions via questionpoint over the term of the pilot. Reactions were mixed. People who had already figured out the catalog were unhappy they had to figure out something else. The loudest and unhappiest comments came from the faculty and staff of the library school!*
UW did do usability in May -- 10 questions and OCLC sent staff up from Mountain View to help run the tests.
Some of the results: ILL requests have gone up *dramatically* -- loans up 40%.
Problems: some issues around the amount of the record that gets displayed. The record is stripped, even on the advanced view. A lot of the contents notes are gone, eg. (The catalogers are threatening to edit the records via the comment feature!) For some collections it doesn't work at all -- e.g. for special collections and music, no good.
BJ thinks the solution is just to show the whole record, like they do in firstsearch.
Problem between records not matching -- ie. the master record in OCLC & the record in summit. Now, they think they have this worked out & there is ~98% match rate.
Problem w/ confusing display -- i.e. the book review link is confusingly labeled vs the actual record. The internet resource icon appears when they get supplementary material online -- i.e. table of contents -- and users HATE that.
Problem with button placing -- usability testing is key.
The biggest outstanding issue is their FRBR display -- which "is terrible". They've taken the most widely held manifestation of the work as the main record -- then attached all the manifestations to that record. So you have to go to the most widely held record to find online versions, new versions, etc -- understandably users don't make this connection.
People don't actually want to know we have the 1968 version in storage.. they want the 2000 edition, which might be less widely held. Catalogers think that making a real work record might help.
* my alma mater -- psa.
Why they got started? Lots of brainstorming about the future of the catalog etc., then Betsy Wilson went to the senior leadership of OCLC. The UW team then went to Dublin and spent three days locked in a room with OCLC hashing things out (yikes -- ed).
the notion of "perpetual beta" was brought up -- unsurprisingly some staff were not so comfortable with this.
BJ says he expected to get "flooded" with comments -- but they actually weren't. There were just 60 questions via questionpoint over the term of the pilot. Reactions were mixed. People who had already figured out the catalog were unhappy they had to figure out something else. The loudest and unhappiest comments came from the faculty and staff of the library school!*
UW did do usability in May -- 10 questions and OCLC sent staff up from Mountain View to help run the tests.
Some of the results: ILL requests have gone up *dramatically* -- loans up 40%.
Problems: some issues around the amount of the record that gets displayed. The record is stripped, even on the advanced view. A lot of the contents notes are gone, eg. (The catalogers are threatening to edit the records via the comment feature!) For some collections it doesn't work at all -- e.g. for special collections and music, no good.
BJ thinks the solution is just to show the whole record, like they do in firstsearch.
Problem between records not matching -- ie. the master record in OCLC & the record in summit. Now, they think they have this worked out & there is ~98% match rate.
Problem w/ confusing display -- i.e. the book review link is confusingly labeled vs the actual record. The internet resource icon appears when they get supplementary material online -- i.e. table of contents -- and users HATE that.
Problem with button placing -- usability testing is key.
The biggest outstanding issue is their FRBR display -- which "is terrible". They've taken the most widely held manifestation of the work as the main record -- then attached all the manifestations to that record. So you have to go to the most widely held record to find online versions, new versions, etc -- understandably users don't make this connection.
People don't actually want to know we have the 1968 version in storage.. they want the 2000 edition, which might be less widely held. Catalogers think that making a real work record might help.
* my alma mater -- psa.
Is this a pilot or a done deal?
Sara talked all about the pilot project. Patricia Martin then demo'd it.
From Patricia Martin -- there will be a new OCLC symbol for SRLF (ZAS). Apparently there are 140 symbols+ for all the campuses, so that needs to be cleaned up. They are also working on a brand-new symbol for the mass digitization content, so all the campuses can access it the same way.
The pilot will only work with SRLF, not NRLF.
Martin says... "this is a lot for something that is just a pilot" because they haven't committed yet. I agree... and I think that's something many of us are wondering about.
She says... is this a pilot or a done deal? Martin says she hopes she's leaving us with the impression that this is still an open question ... at the end of evaluating the pilot project hopefully we'll know the answer.
how will the project be evaluated?
* evaluation of partnership
* performance benchmarks
* UC and OCLC user assessment
* OCLC pricing model
* OCLC business plans
Ways to give feedback:
* single point of content -- libraries pilot site
* survey
* feedback link
* news from OCLC
From Patricia Martin -- there will be a new OCLC symbol for SRLF (ZAS). Apparently there are 140 symbols+ for all the campuses, so that needs to be cleaned up. They are also working on a brand-new symbol for the mass digitization content, so all the campuses can access it the same way.
The pilot will only work with SRLF, not NRLF.
Martin says... "this is a lot for something that is just a pilot" because they haven't committed yet. I agree... and I think that's something many of us are wondering about.
She says... is this a pilot or a done deal? Martin says she hopes she's leaving us with the impression that this is still an open question ... at the end of evaluating the pilot project hopefully we'll know the answer.
how will the project be evaluated?
* evaluation of partnership
* performance benchmarks
* UC and OCLC user assessment
* OCLC pricing model
* OCLC business plans
Ways to give feedback:
* single point of content -- libraries pilot site
* survey
* feedback link
* news from OCLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
