Holding on holdings

Posted by laura on July 30, 2010 under Electronic Resources Management, Metadata, Standards | Be the First to Comment

I’m looking at incentives for making our serials holdings MARC standard compliant.   MARC Holdings Format Data, pronounced “muffed” I’m told,  isn’t supported very well within our ILS.   MFHD is held within check-in records.  It makes sense to a degree.  One needs coverage ranges when checking in journals.   The data is buried, however, in a place where most people using the ILS will not see it.  Customers or staff.  We would love to get it current, correct, and usable.

The biggest reason for standardizing is to make interlibrary loan work smoother.  We get requests for  “titles-not-owned” when OCLC indicates we own a journal but we don’t have a specific issue. This brings down our fulfillment rate.  That makes us naughty players in the shared resources game.   But what are the consequences of that?  I’m not quite sure at the moment.   Patrons beyond Caltech are important to us, absolutely.  Yet they fall lower in our priority queue than Caltech faculty, staff, and students.    When resources are limited we focus on projects with the biggest payoffs for our primary user group.

There are other good reasons for standardizing.  Machines manipulate standardized data better.  It’s a metadata truism.  Let’s ignore the real-world issues with interoperability that have been demonstrated over the years.  Those are really a result of human factors.   We all know that standardized data is not truly standardized.  See Naomi Dushay and Diane Hillmann’s excellent identification  problems encountered in sharing Dublin Core records.  But let’s live in an ideal world for a minute and say that we did get our data nice and clean and in a standardized format. All of a sudden we would have the means to re-use our data outside of our ILS.  Theoretically at least.  Much depends on the export capacity of our ILS.

It would be lovely if we could better automate maintenance of coverage ranges within our OpenURL resolver, for example.  I’m sure there are more rationales for holdings standardization that I haven’t thought about.  I’ve begun reviewing the literature.  We can’t make a decision to do a large conversion project based on all of these feel-good reasons, however.   The business case relies upon multiple factors: the state of our current data, the capacities of our ILS, the interoperability of our ILS and OCLC, and our staffing and budgetary resources.   All of these need thorough analysis.  So we’re holding on holdings at present while we gather information and ask hard questions.  Ultimately it comes down to answering the question, will the payoff be worth the investment?  Stay tuned.

Reviewing the ILS

Posted by laura on July 26, 2010 under Integrated Library Systems | Be the First to Comment

OCLC has released more modules for their “cloud-based” integrated library system.  This has lit our fire.  We’ve known for awhile that we need to review how we use our ILS and determine if there is a business case for retaining it or migrating to another option.  The OCLC option represents a sea-change in library automation.  It’s the only web-services based ILS in the current market.

It is time for us to stop talking and start doing.  We know how in a rough sense (needs assessment, functional requirements, review).  It’s the devil-y details which make the process intimidating.  The ILS is one of the largest expenses in a library.  Almost all daily work processes touch it.  It is a capital B big deal.   Any mistake will be costly.

So, we’re planning.  Something concrete will emerge shortly.  Meanwhile, I await the publication of this .  Guidance of any sort is welcome at this stage in the game.