PCC Utilities Wish List

[web version of letter sent to the OCLC and RLG, PCC representatives by PCC Chair Larry Alford, March 10, 2001]

Herewith, in priority order, is a compilation of the "utilities wish list" for your consideration. This list developed as a result of a presentation made by the OCLC representative at the November 2000 PCC Policy Committee meeting. Both the CONSER and BIBCO At Large meeting at ALA Midwinter spent a part of their sessions compiling wish lists for functions not only for the new OCLC system but also for possible incorporation into the RLIN structure. This process was continued at the PCC Participants Meeting and then through the PCC discussion lists.

BIBCO/NACO/SACO

1. Validation of headings on bibliographic records; linked authority control*

   When a bibliographic record is input, the system should tell the cataloger whether or not the headings are supported by authority records. The ability to view the authority by clicking on the name would also greatly assist in the identification of authors as well as allow the use of the cross reference structure in supporting bibliographic searches by the end user. However, a NACO participant commented that "If linked authorities is at the top of the wish list for OCLC changes, I hope and trust that all the implications for how all of us do business will be thought through in designing a system that fulfills that particular desire. ... I became more aware of the problems that undifferentiated name records cause for institutions who try to use automation in their local authority control schemes. Of special concern are the problems that come with 'divorcing' names from such records and re-establishing them as unique headings."

   *Inherent in this wish is the need for authority modules to keep pace with bibliographic database software upgrades in order that members may work within the same platform to create authority records.--Note added May 1, 2001

2. Record distribution between OCLC and RLIN

   This is a reprise of the record exchange discussion which has taken place since the inception of the BIBCO Program. In 1998 the Steering Committee issued a statement to the effect that this was "an unrealistic goal." (Cf. Statement on the PCC website). Nonetheless, this topic continues to come up for discussion. One participant commented that: "Lack of record sharing has been a major complaint for a long time. Many years ago there was talk about an LSP for bib records. If BIBCO records could be distributed in the same way in which authority records are, the problem of record distribution would be eliminated." Another commented that "there is a master record concept to the CONSER program. The program's objectives are important enough for us as a community to agree that the record will be a national record that at least the anointed may update. Similarly, if a BIBCO record were a national record rather than belonging to one institution with some rights to enhance in OCLC or supplement by clustered records in RLIN, we might not have to argue about records that twinkle or not. We ought to have the same bibliographic records in both utilities." The asynchronicity between the two files causes extra work for members. If this cannot be done, a member searching in one utility, if nothing is found, should be able to re-direct the search to the other utility.

3. Batch-loaded BIBCO records to overlay other records in the OCLC.

   Of great importance to BIBCO participants is the ability for records which are batch-loaded to overlay or merge with records in the OCLC database regardless of cataloging level. This item is a reaffirmation of the need for "OCLC batch loading enhancements to support PCC record transfer and encourage Program growth" as stated by the newly reconstituted Task Group on OCLC Batch Loading. Comments from participants include the need to assure that this programming should be "smart enough to do a merge of common and copy-specific information" with other expressing that "I'm also dubious about the ability of an overlay program to identify and retain only the useful data in the incoming record, and to reject the rest." There was also discussion over whether BIBCO should adopt CONSER's "master record" approach, with customization residing in the local database.

4. SACO and classification workflow online in the utilities.

   Members ought to have through their utilities the same workflow option as the current NACO work stream. This would allow all work, review, and revision to be done online without the need for re-keying at any point. Once reviewed locally or at the national level the SACO proposal would be contributed to LC and thence could go directly into the LC subject editorial review process. In combination with Wish no. 9 below this would allow other OCLC or RLG participants to search the heading immediately upon input and would prevent much duplication.

   The same should hold true for classification searching and proposal. In many cases, a BIBCO record has a classification number in a scheme other than that used by another BIBCO library. In order to use that record, the other BIBCO library must input an additional classification number. OCLC should give credits for BIBCO members who provide an additional classification number to records.

5. BFM: Revision of headings on bibliographic records in the utilities' databases.

   Implementation of global update in the utilities' bibliographic databases would eliminate the need for individual reporting by each institution. It is recognized that there are some limitations on the practice of this, e.g., breaking out a newly unique heading from a non-unique authority record. While OCLC has been able to provide some relief upon modification of extant headings RLG and LC should also be able to provide similar updating capabilities in order to keep bibliographic and authority records in synch inasmuch as is possible without the need for participants to bear the brunt of reporting BFM.

6. Series numbering should file/sort in the utilities as PCC Task Group has recommended for vendors of local systems.

   Support for series sorting through the entire numbering is desirable. Also useful would be a mechanism which supports disregarding the designation in the series $v in its sort of the series. See also Recommendations 3 and 4 of the Final Report of the BIBCO Working Group on Series Numbering which echo this item.

7. Ability to import records from remote databases into the OCLC database.

   Implementation of this application would give OCLC a Z39.50 function similar to that already available through the RLIN "gateways".

8. More search capabilities of the MARC 21 tagging in records, including the 007/008 fields.

   The work involved in tagging and delimiters for data in fields should have a pay-off to specialized searches in acquisitions, cataloging, bibliographical, and reference services.

9. The ability to see all in process authority records in OCLC, as members can do in RLIN

   This would mean abandoning the separate institutional "save" files OCLC currently maintains in favor of a single authority file such as RLIN maintains, in which pending (or in-process) authority records are seen by other institutions as well as produced (contributed/verified) authority records.

10. Retain a user-friendly interface

    Members expressed a fear that searching, filing, and display characteristics currently seen in OCLC would be disposed of in favor of a CORC-like display. This would lose the functionality and value of OCLC to users.

11. Bigger records

    It was pointed out that the old limits on size of records have been technically outdated for some time now, and certainly should not be continued in a new system.

CONSER

The following are grouped by category rather than by priority. Some are no doubt much easier to implement than others and if they can be implemented soon, they may take priority. All are important to CONSER.

Linking-related

1. We want the ability to link to external databases, such as jake or a potential ISST (International Standard Serial Title) database.
2. We would like OCLC to explore the ability to automatically create a link from one bibliographic record to another using the relevant entry fields and system numbers. This would be used in the 7XX linking fields.
3. We want the ability to make better use of existing links in records to bring together related records in catalogs. This may be a local system issue rather than a utility issue; however, there is no reason why utilities could not also present the complete "family" of titles using the 780/785 fields that would bring together the various title changes of a serial.

Multi-part/multi-dimensional records

1. We want the ability to create a multi-view record that could accommodate the complete pattern/holdings data and importation of this data to local systems. This record would be a historical record containing all patterns/holdings relevant to the serial.
2. We want to explore the feasibility of a multi-dimensional record that accommodate multiple versions, or hierarchical records such as a master conference record with individual brief records representing each conference.

Maintenance-related

1. We want the ability to batchload maintenance transactions. This will make it possible for more libraries to maintain CONSER records from internal databases or as non-OCLC users.
2. We want the ability to batch lock and replace groups of records. For example, to change the URL for the 50 journal records from an aggregator.
3. We would like OCLC to consider changing its update service to include all CONSER transactions, not just those that upgrade the level of the record. If this were possible, CONSER libraries could always have the latest version in their catalog and this would make batch loading of maintenance more feasible. The major problem is that maintaining the CONSER record in OCLC does not maintain it in anyone else's catalog.
4. We would also like to find better ways to maintain URLs outside of the bibliographic records, whether this means using PURLs or some other mechanism.

Long-range

For your consideration only, we discussed the possibility of a "virtual record." The concept is that a local catalog would always display the OCLC/RLIN record with local data layered on top, so that the record viewed would always be the most current. Changes that affect the serial itself would only be made to the master record and would be visible to all who have claimed it. We realize that this is a bit far-fetched but we think that it is worth thinking about in the long run. Perhaps something for the Research Institute to give thought to at some point in time?