Cataloging with OCLC WMSFebruary 2014

Jeff Siemon, Digital Resources LibrarianFuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA

Goals for this 45 minute discussion

1. share among ourselves (users of OCLC WMS metadata/cataloging) what has been helpful

2. share with OCLC staff difficulties/improvements we’d like to see regarding OCLC WMS metadata/cataloging

3. start with a quick presentation from Jeff Siemon regarding pros/cons of three workflows I’ve tried

Three+ Cataloging interfaces

1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion

Browser3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records

Cataloging interfaces pros/cons1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging

2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records

Pros• Easy to train staff• OCLC trains this workflow• Drop down menus prevent data

errors• Speeds up processing by

eliminating unnecessary improvements to bib records and exporting

Cons• Does not encourage improving

bib records• No templates/constant data

unless one uses all the budget/order/receive features (i.e. gift books or simpler purchasing)

• Label printing waiting on Road Map

• Need to move to Metadata “module” interface for original cataloging or adding/editing local fields

• Need to move to Connexion Client for non-Roman scripts, Macros, NACO, & local save file for reviewing

Cataloging interfaces pros/cons1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging

2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser

3. WMS Metadata – Manage Records

Pros• Easy transition, Connexion is

familiar to catalogers• Can eliminate complex

“acquisitions”• Constant data reduces data errors• Constant data speeds up processing• Macros available to speed up

processing• More keyboard friendly interface

(fewer drop down menus)• Easy to improve bib records and

contribute to WorldCat (replace master record)

• OCLC Label program integrated• Same interface for simple copy

cataloging, replace record, original cataloging, non-Roman scripts, and NACO

• Serials and multi-volume monograph data is cleaner than what WMS ACQ generates.

Cons• Connexion will be end-of-

life in a few years• Training new employees is

a bit more complex• Initial set up of constant

data• Must install Connexion

Client• Client has the most editing

features; but must use Browser for LHRs (fortunately there is an easy command to launch holdings maintenance in the Connexion Browser.)

Cataloging interfaces pros/cons1. WMS integrated acquisitions and cataloging2. Connexion Client + holdings with Connexion Browser

3. WMS Metadata – Manage RecordsPros• Stay in WMS

interface/authorization• Able improve bib records and

contribute to WorldCat• Can add/edit local bib data• Serials and multi-volume

monograph data is cleaner than what WMS acquisitions generates.

Cons• Less keyboard friendly than

Connexion interfaces (i.e. must tab or mouse click between fields)

• No templates/constant data unless one uses all the budget/order/receive features

• No Label printing, waiting on Road Map

• Need to move to Connexion Client for controlling individual headings, NACO, Macros, and non-Roman scripts

Questions or Comments?• Do you have any tips or workflow ideas to

share?• What suggestions do you have for improving

the WMS Metadata record manager?• What kind of global find and replace would

you like to see for holdings?• Did WMS speed up any processing/

cataloging? • How has training and support been?• Have you used apps?• What kind of integration with the

Knowledge Base would be helpful?

Fuller uses Cataloging workflow 2• Connexion Client to find/create and edit bib records• Connexion Browser to create Local Holdings Records = Items• OCLC Label Program or Connexion Client to create labels

Fuller Cataloging workflow

From Client, Launch Local Holdings Maintenance

Fuller Cataloging workflow

Connexion Browser Opens, Create Local Holdings

Fuller Cataloging workflowApply Constant Datafor location and shelving location

Fuller Cataloging workflow

Paste in the call number and scan the barcode, then save the Local Holdings Record

Screen shots of Metadata – record manager January 2014

Metadata, editing LHR

Data Migration – Bib and holdings• Bib data and Patron and Circulation data transferred

relatively easily.• Holdings data: Horizon wanted to charge for extracting

data, but our Systems librarian could do it herself, at least for monographs, with the Horizon export utility

• For “multivolume monographs” & serials holdings we got a raw copy of our Horizon data, and used a consultant (AlphaG) to extract serials holdings (a few thousand dollars well spent), but 853/863 pairs would have been better

• Fuller used 856 42 fields for Tables of Contents, Donor “book marks”, and other related resources, but WCL displays these as full-text “view now” links, ignoring indicators

Data Migration – Serials Holdings• OCLC uses MARC Format for HoLdings (MFHL)

aka Local Holdings Record (LHR) but not well documented

• Fuller also extracted the serial pattern from Horizon into a note

Multi-volume Data Migration – 866/876 vs. 853/863/876

OCLC Data Staff are used to 866 ; WMS GUI creates 853/863 pairs; Try to get OCLC or an outside vendor to convert your data to 853/863

Questions or Comments?