- Agenda for today’s meeting: approved
- Meeting Notes for 2/25/2013: approved with minor corrections
- Meeting Notes for 2/11/2013: still unavailable
- Next call is scheduled for 3/25/2013; it will be FSU’s turn to take notes
2. FLVC Update:
- Ellen announced that Cory Stokes has declined the Executive Director offer and Don Muccino has accepted it. The Members Council met February 28 and March 1. It has been decided that phase one of the ILS consolidation will be to move the university libraries’ database and the college libraries’ database to a single physical server but with two sets of configuration tables. Concern was expressed about response time since there have already been complaints about the slowness of the current merged university database. New hardware is being ordered and testing will be done to try to ensure good system response time. Mary Ann feels that the college database will not negatively affect response time for the university libraries.
- The current issues with response time need to be documented and reported. We have a huge database and the indexing of authority control changes has been assigned a lower priority. The possible future merge of the college and university databases is not foreseen for at least a year to 18 months and will depend on what the market has to offer at that time.
- Ellen announced the following upcoming meetings: 1) Members Council on Distance Learning and Student Services Meeting, May 21-22, in Orlando, and 2) Members Council on Library Services, June 3, in St. Petersburg. There will also be 5 regional meetings, which is a carry-over from the practice of CCLA. There was discussion of whether the meetings would be of interest to university librarians. Ellen confirmed that there will be presentations by university librarians and that for this round of meetings staff from the former FCLA will be attending—Ellen, Wendy, Daniel, Mary Ann and Elaine. Each of them will attend a regional meeting to report on a given topic, such as Mango. Also attending will be Bill Covey, head of the Gainesville office, and also Claire Dygert, who is working with the Collections/eResources Task Force. The agenda should be sent out soon.
3. Data Loading:
- Marcive: Mary Ann reported that FGCU records were being loaded as this meeting is going on. The development of load specs and testing is being done in stages so various SULs are in various stages of approving their specs and testing. Mary Ann has found that each SUL has different needs so she is working individually with each library. When she gets loads working for the individual libraries, she will start on a new project of setting up the parameters for loading electronic-only federal documents. That will probably entail a common sort routine for everybody.
- Serials Solutions & MarcIt: Elaine reported that Serials Solutions loads are up to date and she is now working on cleaning up the MarcIt records that got OCLC numbers added erroneously during USF’s reclamation project. After those records are cleaned up, she will work with USF to identify their load parameters so that she can commence regular MarcIt loads as is done with Serials Solutions.
- GenLoad: Daniel reported that the backlog of requested GenLoad profiles has been cleared except for five. Since they are now down to the level of routine work, they will no longer be reported in the weekly data loading report.
- Purchased TOCs: Betsy reported that UF has been waiting to load tables of contents because they understood that CSUL was going to buy them for all SULs. It was agreed that Claire will move forward with working out a purchase agreement with the vendor. There was additional discussion of whether it was CSUL or FLVC that would be purchasing them. Ellen will check and report back in two weeks.
4. SBTF RDA Task Group Update
- Jimmie had sent out an email earlier today summarizing the new MARC fields and subfields for RDA and how Aleph reacts to them. She would appreciate comments on the document, particularly where the new fields should be indexed. Deadline: next week.
5. Workflow Changes and Discussions due to Shared Bib Implementation
- PDA records: Sue discussed the problems that FIU is having with data loads matching on PDA records that the inputting libraries do not wish to share. FIU had posted a summary of the problem plus four possible solutions about which more information is needed.
- The first possible solution is to load the PDA records into the discovery layer rather than into Aleph. Mary Ann said that she has been getting a lot of push back from collection managers because they would have to search two places to see what’s in their ordering queue.
- The second possible solution involved removing or moving the ISBN. Mary Ann said that with Coutts, the ISBN is sometimes the only match point. Mostly the vendor is putting the ISBN in an 024 field but sometimes it is in an 020 field.
- The third possible solution is for FLVC to make sure that all PDA bibs have the new status field of DISCOVERY RECORD and to write a script for P_File_90 so that it would not match on records with that status. Mary Ann said that whether this could be done by FLVC is not so much a technical issue as a workload issue. She didn’t know who would have the time to do the global changes and write the script. Sue felt that doing this work should be a priority so that batch data loads can once again be done into the shared bib database.
- Betsy asked if this group can help set priorities for FLVC. There was a broader discussion of how priorities get set. Ellen said there is a spreadsheet and the process of setting priorities is being discussed. She hopes that someday SULs will be able to look at a list to see where a particular project is on the list. Betsy and Sue agreed to start a list of problems whose resolution will make bib sharing more efficient. Susan Heron thought that first there should be an Elluminate session to hash out the issues. Susan will organize this session.
- OCLC numbers on batchloaded records: Betsy mentioned that there had been discussion of this issue on the listserv but no resolution. Some libraries think that OCLC numbers should be stripped out of bibs from vendors that don’t get their bibs from OCLC. Often these OCLC numbers come on bibs purporting to be for e-books but the OCLC number is actually in OCLC on a bib for a print book. Sue said that FIU had recently loaded bibs for Sabin e-books. They had spot checked the records and found that the OCLC numbers are for e-book records. They would regret stripping or even moving these OCLC numbers when the OCLC number is a primary match point. Sue would like SULs to evaluate new packages on a case-by-case basis. Daniel said that due diligence must be done to make sure that a given package would not cause problems in the database. However, case-by-case evaluation of packages is pretty much what has been done in the past. Betsy said that UF agrees with that approach.
- Protection of fields upon overlay: Daniel recalled that on the previous call he had said that he would look into whether the recommendations of the Metadata Subcommittee had been implemented. After the call, he found that all the recommendations had not been implemented when exporting from OCLC Connexion. He has now implemented all the others except for one issue that he would like to discuss further with Metadata. Right now he is continuing to protect any field with $5. He wondered if Metadata wants him to override $5 protection for particular fields.
- Susan Massey said that this was the subcommittee’s recommendation and that the field-by-field decisions were recorded in Appendix III of the Shared Bib Cataloging Guidelines. She asked that all SULs look at the Appendix and let Metadata know if there is any field slated not to be protected but that still should be protected. Removing blanket protection provided by $5 was the one thing Daniel had not implemented.
- It was pointed out that the Metadata Subcommittee, renamed the Bibliographic Control and Discovery Subcommittee, did not feel that it was authorized to meet. The Authorities Subcommittee has been meeting. Susan Heron agreed that the group could meet now and select a chair. Susan Massey pointed out that Brian Falato had been the vice-chair so he could convene the meeting. Daniel said that he would be more comfortable discussing a major change such as the one proposed if he could discuss it further with the group.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45. The next meeting is scheduled for 3/25.