Home » Publication Pattern Initiative » Survey Results

Publication Pattern Initiative

Survey Results: CONSER Members Not Participating in the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative Pilot

Summary of responses compiled by Jean Hirons (March 29, 2002)

CONSER libraries responding to this survey:

• Brown University
• Cleveland Public Library
• Columbia University
• Harvard University
• Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• National Library of Medicine
• New York State Library
• University of California, Los Angeles
• University of Maryland
• University of Texas at Austin

A. Your institution (to be completed by CONSER Operations Committee representative or other appropriate person)

1. What are the current barriers to your institution's participation?

5 of the respondents currently do not use MFHD or have an ILS so there is no expertise regarding the format and no benefit to contribute.

Staffing shortages and workflow considerations were other issues of major concern. One library cited union agreements as a problem in making new assignments.

Another library considers themselves too new and would like to concentrate on learning CONSER procedures first.

Other comments:

Aleph cannot store old pattern data and uses pairs of fields that are not completely compliant with MFHD.

NLM uses English captions for everything for its indexing and could not make full use of shared data.

No perceived direct benefit was a major concern for many.

2. Do you expect that you could contribute patterns and would be willing to in the next few years? Please explain.

2 libraries might be able to contribute within the next two years; another said they would if the project becomes successful. Most other respondents said no, or not soon due to the problems cited in #1 above.

3. How important to this decision would be the ability of your integrated library system to load patterns from OCLC (note: currently III and VTLS have this ability)

All respondents, except those already using III, said that this was critical and that they would be more likely to contribute if the possibility is there. One library suggested the ability to load patterns to OCLC via CatME, particularly when created by non-cataloging staff. MIT indicated a possible willingness to work with ExLibris on developing a loader.

One concern was expressed that patterns in OCLC records might be system-dependent and not able to be shared with all (JH comment: to my knowledge contributions are completely MARC 21 compatible and not based on individual systems)

4. What perceptions about pattern contribution would have to be overcome or clarified in order for your institution to participate?

Too costly, too time-consuming, no direct benefits, must fit naturally into the workflow; must be easy to do.

Patterns are not well-maintained and become inaccurate over time; costs of maintence would not be worth the effort; maintenance expectations need to be clarified.

Can acquisitions staff do this or must it be catalogers?

5. Do you think that pattern contribution should become a routine part of CONSER contributions (realizing that it may not be done by CONSER catalogers?)

Most replied that it could be if it fits naturally into the workflow, but it should not be mandatory. CONSER should suggest workflows (JH: we are working on this). Work might not be done catalogers.

Perhaps subscription agents should supply this data instead or in addition to CONSER libraries?

Only if benefits can be clearly shown.

B. CONSER pattern initiative (to be completed by Policy representative to CONSER, or Head of Cataloging, Serials, or Technical Services, as appropriate)

The long term goals of the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative are to standardize the creation of pattern and holdings data so that it can be shared among libraries and transferred to a new system. This requires that systems be MARC 21 compliant, that more libraries use the MARC 21 Holdings Format, and that we find long-term means of storing pattern and related holdings data for all to access.

1. In your opinion, how successful has the CONSER Initiative been in raising awareness concerning holdings and pattern data?

Most feel that the project has been reasonably or moderately successful in that it has raised awareness of vendors and libraries, that two vendors can load records, and that there are over 43,000 records containing pattern data. One response was that the impact was minimal. Non-participating CONSER members need to know more about the project and be kept up-to-date. One library said they were in the process of searching for an ILS and were glad to know about this as something to be alert to.

The SCCTP course is also helping to raise awareness. Mark of success will be when libraries routinely go to CONSER records to copy pattern data.

2. What areas would you like to see the Initiative take on or increase its efforts in in the next few years?

Encourage vendors to develop loading capability from OCLC records. Make OCLC's microenhancer capabilities more clear.

Encourage subscription agents to supply this data.

Work with other types of vendors (e.g., Serials Solutions) for electronic resources. Explore impact of electronic acquisitions on the need for this.

Expand training efforts to include workflow.

Upgrade provisional records

"The question of when a new publication pattern is needed has still not been definitively answered. It seems that the question of how many publication patterns it takes to cover the full lifespan of a given ceased serial depends on the use to which you need to put the holdings format data. If you wish to have issue prediction or collapsible/expandable data then the least little change in the issuance will cause us to need a new 853 field. Absent those expectations we could have far fewer publication pattern changes to create and distribute. Perhaps the user community should be surveyed on who wants to do what with the data. Then we would know how much detail we need to "sweat."" (UCLA)

"The CONSER Initiative should take a leadership role with MARBI to ensure that publication patterns not comprehended by or adequately addressed in the MARC21 Format for Holdings will be added/adjusted in a timely manner.

The present 2-year cycle for MARBI approval and publication of format changes is too long for such time-sensitive data as publication patterns. Serials management staff need the solutions as soon as possible after a decision has been made by MARBI.

The Initiative also has a role to play in focusing ILS vendors and the utilities on holdings/pattern needs and issues." (Harvard)

3. Where would you like to see pattern data stored in the future (e.g., CONSER records, separate files available via the Web, subrecords attached to CONSER records)

Most said that some type of subrecords seems preferable; one said that it would make it easier for non-cataloging staff to contribute and edit.

"If there were a way to store holding data as holdings data, then it would be easy for libraries to import the data to the local ILS. It is trickier for vendors to convert a string from within the bibliographic record to populate a record in a different MARC 21 format. It still will require programming by ILS vendors to permit insertion of a new 853 field into an already-started holdings record. By moving the data to a separate location or file, we open up the maintenance possibilities to a much larger pool of people than those who happen to have OCLC CONSER authorizations." (UCLA)

"Where pattern data is stored is not as important as making it available in a timely manner. The usefulness of changed pattern information would be greatly enhanced if updates could be automatically distributed to libraries that have already used the pattern." (Harvard)

4. How can the Initiative increase its outreach to system vendors, particularly your own, to make use of the CONSER pattern data?

Use survey results to emphasize users' demands.

Serial vendors should store this data in their system so it could be cut and pasted.

It would be easier to convince vendors to make loading available if it could come from a separate file.

Make the benefits to the vendors clear.

"Libraries are limited in the influence they may have with individual vendors on ILS enhancements. CONSER should look to MARBI and to staff in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office at the Library of Congress to influence the shape of future ILS developments in this area." (Harvard)

5. Further comments on the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative or the Pilot.

"What if the Pattern Initiative pursued not only creation of the 853s but also included the actual published issues (863s)? Then a library starting a serial subscription, possibly including a backfile, could import the entire boilerplate holdings record and simply delete the fields reflecting items not owned. It seems like publishers could be the purveyors of an official record of what set of pieces they issued. If that were made available, tech services staff would benefit so much!"

"If it is made as a routine part of the CONSER contributions, it may have an impact on the CONSER contributions, especially of those smaller libraries that have limited human resources."

"This is a very important program! The data created will be even more appreciated as more and more ILS vendors implement facilities that make use of pattern data."

"We can see potential for use of this data in predictive check in, claiming missing print publications, or building item holdings statements, in some cases. It is not clear, however, how this initiative fits into the merging electronic resources environment."

 

Top of Page