Cataloging and Metadata Interest Group - OCLC by qingyunliuliu


									                                     Meeting Minutes/Summary
                                February 2006 Members Council Meeting

                    Group Name: Cataloging & Metadata Interest Group
                           Prepared and submitted by: Chris Grabenstatter
                     Have the minutes been reviewed by the group chair? Yes  No 

       Meeting minutes should be concise (not exceed two pages), summarize major discussion
       points, and be reviewed and approved by the group chair. Recorders, please email your
       meeting minutes to Bunny Gunderson ( by the close of business on
       Tuesday, February 21.

Members Council Delegates: Betsy Hine (Chair), Janis Bandelin (SOLINET), Eva Calcagno (OCLC
Western), Greg Cotton (BCR), Joe Edelen (MINITEX), Maggie Farrell (EC Liaison, BCR), Jan Ison
(ILLINET), Marda Johnson (AMIGOS), Loretta O’Brien Parham (SOLINET), Kendall Wiggin
(NELINET), and Bruce Willms (MINITEX)

OCLC Staff: Bob VanVolkenburg (OCLC Liaison), Chris Grabenstatter (Recorder), Larry Alford
(OCLC Board of Trustees), Charly Bauer, Wei Bender, Robin Buser, Ellen Caplan, Bill Carney, Libbie
Crawford, Linda Gabel, Dennis Lee Gong (OCLC Openly Informatics), Janet Hawk, Hisako Kotaka,
Janet Lees (OCLC PICA), Doug Loynes, Giles Martin, Elisabeth Niggemann (OCLC Board of Trustees),
Chip Nilges, Gene Oliver, Glenn Patton, Izumi Sakaguchi (OCLC Openly Informatics), Julie Webb,
Susan Westberg, Cynthia Whitacre, and David Whitehair, Marty Withrow, Cyndy Youker.

Others attending: Becky Canoran (Library Intern, BCR), Randy Dykhuis (MLC), Kevin Furniss
(OLAC), Mary Alice Lynch (Nylink), Mark Scharff (MOUG), and Catherine Wilt (PALINET).

Meeting Minutes/Summary:
Day 1:
Topic 1: eSerials Holdings Service Update – Bill Carney.
Bill Carney, who has previously presented to this IG on this same topic, reviewed the features and
benefits of the service, and then provided an update/progress report. The pilot continues with 21 libraries,
and will be growing to 36 libraries with the addition of the IDS SUNY group. Over 270,000 holdings
have been set in WorldCat, and three of the pilot libraries are testing the MARC record updating option.
The pilot libraries are showing on average that 16% of their ILL traffic related to serials is related to these
holdings. The production service will enable libraries to automatically deflect ILL requests to the next
library in the lending string based on settings in the OCLC Policies Directory. Libraries will be able to
deflect all of the requests related to eSerials, or deflect all except those from existing groups. The service
will be available in June 2006, with ordering through the OCLC Online Service Center. The holdings
portion of the service will be offered at no additional charge to OCLC member libraries. The optional
MARC record service will be available in the future, for which there will be a first year subscription rate
that includes the value of the initial record set, with a lower annual price for subsequent years taking into
account the lower number of records sent as updates. The pricing model focuses the value on the updates.
Bill stated that we continue to recruit additional partners. When asked if they will use the service, one IG
member wanted to sign up next month! Another expressed interest, but wanted to know how they might
need to warn their ILL colleagues about potential ILL traffic, and a third said their library is part of the
pilot. Bill directed the IG to additional information at the following link:

Topic 2: Content Cooperative Concept – Charly Bauer.
Charly Bauer provided an update and progress report on this project since his presentation to this IG last
fall. Using screen captures, he showed how libraries will be able to use Connexion to attach files to
WorldCat records for loading into the Digital Archive, thus exposing them for discovery through
FirstSearch, Open WorldCat, and Group Catalogs. The benefits of this approach are several:
      No new investment in hardware or software
      Auto image generation
      Infinitely scalable
      Small and large institutions/departments supported, handling a few items to 1000s
      Any format
Charly shared the names of the libraries that will pilot Content Cooperative beginning mid-May and
running for six months. The current thinking is that this activity will be covered by a library’s cataloging
subscription, providing base storage with the ability to buy more if required. IG questions and discussion
      How does this fit with ContentDM, noting that it is taking months and years to harvest a
        ContentDM collection. Charly said that the two products are complementary. ContentDM is a full-
        featured Collection Management system that will do more but also costs more and requires local
        management. He indicated that through the pilot we hope to learn what the Content Cooperative
        value points are.
      How does this fit with institutional repository? Charly suggested that we could explore putting on
        different “skins” or interfaces on top of this platform to support different business functions in a
        library such as institutional repositories, ETD systems, etc.
      Noting that the key difference is where the data resides, another wondered who owns the content?
        OCLC or the library? Does the library lose copyright to the data? The library will still own the
        content, and would be free to continue with redistribution. However, they need to be willing to
        share high resolution jpegs
      An IG member who will be part of the pilot said the big plus is that the library does not have to
        manage the archive – OCLC does. However the rights management is a big issue that they will
        explore during the pilot.

Topic 3: Terminologies Service Update – Susan Westberg.
Susan provided an update on the Terminologies pilot, which is testing providing access to multiple
controlled vocabularies for libraries, museums, and archives to create consistent metadata for their
collections. The pilot is being conducted in a phased approach, making different vocabularies available at
different points in the pilot. Libraries can use Connexion client or browser, or any other web-based
metadata editor. A survey has been completed with the initial participants, with another survey in process
for non-Connexion users and MeSH and RVM users. Pilot participants indicated that they liked having
access to multiple thesauri and the ease of adding the terms to a record in Connexion. Susan shared the list
of the eleven terminologies that will be included in the initial release of the service in June 2006. An IG
member asked if local authority files could also be used with this service. Susan said yes, that the
Microsoft Research pane allows adding URLs for your own thesauri. [After the meeting Susan clarified
that some programming needs to be done to add additional URLs, such as web-based in-house thesauri.
For more information, see and
                                                information about the Terminologies pilot can be found] More

Topic 4: Pricing for New Products under Cataloging Subscription – Chris Grabenstatter.
Chris reviewed the current three types of cataloging pricing (transaction, fixed-fee, and subscription), and
that all libraries will be moving to subscription pricing in July of 2006. Once all libraries are under
subscription pricing, we need to consider how OCLC will handle pricing for new cataloging products.
Chris outlined the three options:
    1. Include in Subscription package, no additional charge
          Need to continue to add value
          Examples include additional language interfaces, Terminologies Service, Content Cooperative
             (basic amount of storage)
    2. An option to Subscription package, with an additional charge
          Linked to the subscription but at an additional cost
          Products that are not relevant to the majority of users
          Examples include 100% delivery via PromptCat and potential new Selection Service
    3. Outside of the Subscription package
          Priced separately from annual Cataloging Subscription
          Currently includes: Dewey, WorldCat Collection Sets, and Local Database Creation; future
             would include eSerials record updating.
Discussion supported avoiding complicated pricing levels. “There is value in simplicity.” An IG member
indicated that it is a lot easier to get subscription pricing approved/paid. Additional options just
complicate this. Another suggested that anything that adds value or contributes to the cooperative be
included in the core subscription price. (Subsequent discussion related to the Selection Service on
Tuesday did support this being priced outside of the basic cataloging subscription.)

Day 2:
Selection and Ordering Workflow – David Whitehair.
Interest Group members shared answers to the selection and ordering workflow questions sent out in
advance by David. This included information about: the number of vendors; percent of items received on
approval plans versus firm orders; numbers of selectors; if and how they receive notification from
vendors; additional information selectors use to evaluate titles for selection; how selectors determine if a
title is already held by the library; if they check holdings of other institutions or groups before purchasing;
and how orders are placed. Many use approval plans, but some indicated that these were being reduced or
tightened because of budgetary constraints. Many receive either paper or electronic notification slips from
vendors. Some use Choice cards. A public library indicated that they have decentralized selection with a
huge variety of vendors, and also use Language Sets. One IG member said they have a problem of
distinguishing selection records from on order records in their ILS.

David then described a possible new OCLC Service to assist with the selection and ordering process. This
service would bring together in a single interface, records of new publications provided by multiple
material vendors and the Library of Congress. Library selectors review records matching their subject
profile and take an action to order, reject, defer, or forward them. Selected items are then loaded into the
library’s ILS for ordering and bibliographic control. David also described the ability for consortia or
groups to share their selection information with each other.

The IG members then provided feedback. One expressed concern that the system was too complex and
OCLC might have difficulty interfacing with multiple ILS systems. Another saw the advantage of
providing a single interface for all their library selectors, but indicated that they deal with 750 vendors and
couldn’t imagine that all of these could be part of this service. Some expressed interest in the group
capabilities described by David, because they currently check a lot of holdings before ordering. One IG
member indicated that they have selectors and faculty across two cities and three locations and could see
the advantage for them all to be using a single system. David then bounced a couple ideas for pricing off
the group. The first was an add-on to a library’s subscription pricing. There would be three levels based
upon the number of titles purchased per year. The other option would be a % increase added to a library’s
cataloging subscription. Much discussion ensued. The IG seemed to favor the % increase, because three
levels might be hard to define or might need many more levels to be equitable.

Finally David shared a Talking Points document and outlined some of the potential benefits of such a
     Savings in selectors time
     Acquisitions savings because all orders come electronically
     Cataloging process moves upstream and items get on shelf faster

Recommended Agenda Items for Next Meeting:
   1. Consider a joint meeting with the Digital Content & Management IG to discuss cataloging and
      access of digital materials; tying into the TF report on E-Content.
         a. Metadata Extraction & Creation Web Service update
         b. eSerials program update
   2. Changing technical services workflows in libraries; need to streamline processes.
   3. Cataloging Partners update.

Committee members were also invited to send additional topics to Betsy by mid-March.

To top