Survey on Batch-Loading Options for PCC Contributions

Results and Recommendations

Compiled by Louise Ratliff

Rev. May 21, 1997

Introduction

In March 1997 a survey was sent by Michael Kaplan, Chair of the PCC Standing Committee on Automation, to members of the PCC Executive Committee requesting information about whether they might want to batch-load authority and bibliographic records to either or both of the bibliographic utilities. The survey document was also sent to: members of the PCC Standing Committee on Automation, Columbia University, the large libraries that belong to the RLG Strategy Focus Group, and to Ruth Haas to share with her PCC SC Auto task group on CONSER batch-loading. Responses were received from 14 libraries: UC Berkeley, NLM, Indiana, Maryland, Stanford, Cleveland Public, Eastman School (Rochester), New York State Library, NYPL, Florida, Cornell, NLC, MIT, and Harvard.

Executive Summary

Of the 14 respondents, 8 institutions indicated an interest in using FTP to contribute either NACO or BIBCO records to the utilities. Several of them are currently either using FTP or testing it (NLM, Cornell, Harvard); others are very interested in trying it soon, when their local systems permit (Stanford, Eastman School). All indicated a desire to send different types of MARC records in the same stream, and have the receiving system determine which records are processed. Several institutions stated that monetary credits for contributed records are important, and would be considered in a decision about whether to implement batch loading. Four institutions were not interested in FTP, and two did not respond to this question.

Interest in FTPing records is strong and growing. As local systems are upgraded with more facile editing capabilities and the ability to export records in USMARC format, institutions become more interested in performing cataloging and authority tasks in the local environment.

It behooves us, therefore, to continue working with LC, OCLC, and RLIN to develop their capabilities of accepting both authority and bibliographic records via FTP on a timely basis. From this survey, the most benefit in numbers would come from the processing of BIBCO original records, followed closely by NACO records. Upgraded records from existing BIBCO records are fewer in number, and given the problems of batch-loading updates, would seem logically to have a lower priority.

Summary of Results

In general, responses to the survey indicated a strong (and growing) interest in having the ability to FTP authority and bibliographic records to OCLC, RLIN, and LC.

Of those with a desire to FTP records:

Of those responding, 10 institutions perform some type of online cataloging directly on OCLC and/or RLIN. Two institutions (NLM and Cornell) send some records via FTP, Florida copies NACO records in real time to OCLC, and NLC sends CONSER records on tape to OCLC.

Respondents who perform online work on the utilities cited as advantages:

Disadvantages are:

NACO Records

Contribution methods:

* Numbers were reported by 6 of the 11 respondents. Florida "copies" in real-time from their local system to OCLC.
** Was 4, but 2 (NYPL and Cornell) are switching to OCLC soon, so I included these 2 in the OCLC category.
*** Includes Berkeley (100-200/mo.), who plans to move to OCLC; NLC requests are keyed by LC.

Observations:

Two institutions, NYPL and Cornell, are moving away from RLIN online to OCLC online; Berkeley plans to move from MUMS online to OCLC online.

BIBCO Records

Contribution methods:

* Includes 2500 original and 500 enhance records from Harvard; includes 600/yr. from NYPL, which is moving from RLIN to OCLC.
** Plans to move to OCLC online.
*** NLM FTPs their CIP records.
# Stanford expects to FTP 250/mo. soon to OCLC and RLIN.

Observations:

RLIN can batch load BIBCO records, and two of the respondents are moving away from using RLIN online: NYPL just began using OCLC online, and plans to send monthly tapes to RLIN; Stanford contributes about 5 records a month online to RLIN, but would like to send 250 original records a month via FTP to LC.

OCLC cannot currently load BIBCO records in batch mode.

Interest in FTP

Eight of the 14 respondents expressed interest in sending authority and bibliographic records via FTP. Five of the eight provided more details about the type, quantity, and destination of records they would send:

Of these 5 institutions, credits are an issue with only one of them, Eastman. NLC is not sure about giving up credits; and the other 3 do not consider it an issue.

Relevant information from outside of this survey

According to Larry Dixson (Network Development and MARC Standards Office at the Library of Congress) in an email message he sent in February of this year, LC has already implemented the exchange of NACO records via FTP with OCLC and RLG, with the British Library soon to follow. In addition, implementation discussions have begun with the National Library of Scotland. With this technical infrastructure in place, NACO FTP capability could potentially be extended to other contributing sites, depending on technical details and management agreements.

In April, according to John Levy (Serial Record Division, Library of Congress), OCLC succeeded in receiving 12 serial bibliographic records FTP'd from NLM. The records were then distributed to LC via tape in the normal manner, and loaded into MUMS. The next step is for LC to develop an FTP link from OCLC, so that records can be received on a daily basis. As economic pressures increase on us all, FTP will become more desirable since it will centralize cataloging locally and eliminate double-keying or working in 2 databases. Utilities need to have FTP capability in place, at least for new-to-file records, so that institutions can continue to contribute to the national databases.

Finally, Michael Kaplan has indicated that Columbia has tested a batch load of BIBCO records to OCLC, but without being 100% successful. Harvard is waiting for OCLC to test a small BIBCO file.

Recommendations

Interest in FTPing records is strong and growing. As local systems are upgraded with more facile editing capabilities and the ability to export records in USMARC format, institutions become more interested in performing cataloging and authority tasks in the local environment. Those responding institutions who do not plan to change their local systems seem to prefer working directly online in a utility. In this study, the latter category is in the minority.

It behooves us, therefore, to continue working with LC, OCLC, and RLIN to develop their capabilities of accepting both authority and bibliographic records via FTP on a timely basis. Daily batch loading of records would seem to be a minimum standard, while online real-time loading would be most desirable. From this survey, the most benefit in numbers would come from the processing of BIBCO original records, followed closely by NACO records. Upgraded records from existing BIBCO records are fewer in number, and given the problems of batch-loading updates, would seem logically to have a lower priority.