I get the vision of where we are going in terms of the semantic web, RDA, FRBR, etc. Believe me, I want to be there as much as anyone. But I still cannot for the life of me understand how we will get there. To paraphrase Janet Swan Hill, I need the intervening steps mapped out and I do not seem to be hearing those. Or else, I am missing them, which is entirely possible ...
Thanks to Georgie Briscoe for her interesting program on quality control in our catalogs! Hopefully we can pursue Barbara Bintliff's suggestion of a new column in TSLL to share our strategies for cleanup projects to catch the errors that Georgia described to us. Look for her article on her research project in an upcoming LLJ.
It was exciting the way the program Q&A portions often produced ideas like this that tech services law librarians could tackle to achieve a desired end. My concern is whether we have the time and energy to make them all a reality. After all, the themes I heard this year remained: budget and staff shortfalls, cross training, justification of what we do to administration (usually in terms of measurement of data), etc. And of course it is the year of RDA, so we are wondering how to grapple with that. How little sleep can tech services law librarians operate on? I guess we will find out!
The meeting was exhausting because there was so much content to absorb in such a short amount of time. I extend my sincere thanks to TS and OBS for their hard work in providing that content. And thanks especially to my committed and enthusiastic colleagues who make up those SISs. You are all amazing!
Philadelphia 2015: TS-SIS and OBS-SIS in the City of Brotherly Love
Showing posts with label bibliographic control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bibliographic control. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Demystifying Batch-Load Analysis: What You Need to Know About Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records
When: Sunday, July 13, 2008, 4:15-5:15 PM
*Coordinator: Ellen McGrath, University at Buffalo
*Moderator: Kevin Butterfield, College of William and Mary
*Speaker: Yael Mandelstam, Fordham University
This program was standing room only–-well, actually a number of people were sitting on the floor, but you get the idea, it was popular!
There are a number of vendor-supplied record sets of interest to law libraries, including: Making of Modern Law (MOML), LLMC-Digital, BNA, CALI, HeinOnline Legal Classics, HeinOnline World Trials, and LexisNexis/Westlaw Cassidy collections.
Yael Mandelstam got right down to the nitty-gritty and showed us how she analyzes batches of vendor-supplied bibliographic records before she loads them into Fordham’s catalog. The importance of the “before” part became evident when Yael described the situation with the original batch of MOML records. Many law libraries loaded them, only to discover that the bibliographic records for the electronic versions overlaid the records for the microfiche versions by mistake. Oops … there were a number of nodding heads in the room, which I took to mean some of those present had been burned in that manner. But never again, as Yael gave us valuable advice about how to keep that from happening.
Before getting down to specifics, Yael cautioned that “this technique is not meant to replace proper authority control, use of URL checkers, etc.” She makes use of two readily-available tools in her analysis: MarcEdit (a free editing utility available for download at http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset/marcedit/html/) and Microsoft Excel (spreadsheet software). She emphasized repeatedly how essential it is that you save a copy of your original file of records before you start rearranging it and that you save each iteration of a file.
The PowerPoint handout Yael prepared is excellent, so I am not going to spend time here on details you can more easily see there. It is available at: http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/Batchload+Analysis
The approach to record set analysis was presented in three steps:
* step 1: Examine several individual records
* step 2: Count fields in file
* step 3: View isolated fields
The first step is important and should almost go without saying. Step 2 is a quick way to verify the number of occurrences of certain fields. For example, if you have 100 records in your batch, there must be 100 each of required fields, such as the 245 (title) and 856 (URL). If there are less, that is a big red flag! The “What’s wrong with this picture?” examples on the slides are very revealing.
I especially like the subtitle on the slides for step 3: The power of eyeballing. The value of isolating fields for analysis became clear immediately when each individual field was removed from its record and grouped together with its counterparts. When all the same fields are sorted together, the errors and inconsistencies truly do just jump out at you—amazing!
Yael shared helpful tips on how to cleanup those errors and inconsistencies using the global update capabilities of MarcEdit. Unfortunately it is not possible to view the changes in MarcEdit before you apply them, so she recommended doing that in your ILS instead. She concluded by giving a general overview of the work of the TS-SIS Task Group on Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records (http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/committees/cataloging/vendorbibrecords/) which has setup a wiki (http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/) in order to share the results of such batch-load analysis.
There wasn’t much time for questions: Should a batch be analyzed every time you are ready to load it? Yes. But there were a few comments, one of which was that MarcEdit cannot be used with some ILSs unless the whole database is extracted. The session closed with a comment about the fact that these batches are creating many duplicates for the same content in our catalogs. The aggregator-neutral record approach for e-resources (both serials and monographs) was mentioned, but naturally that raises other complexities for which there is no easy solution at present. Many thanks to OBS and TS for sponsoring this excellent program!
*Coordinator: Ellen McGrath, University at Buffalo
*Moderator: Kevin Butterfield, College of William and Mary
*Speaker: Yael Mandelstam, Fordham University
This program was standing room only–-well, actually a number of people were sitting on the floor, but you get the idea, it was popular!
There are a number of vendor-supplied record sets of interest to law libraries, including: Making of Modern Law (MOML), LLMC-Digital, BNA, CALI, HeinOnline Legal Classics, HeinOnline World Trials, and LexisNexis/Westlaw Cassidy collections.
Yael Mandelstam got right down to the nitty-gritty and showed us how she analyzes batches of vendor-supplied bibliographic records before she loads them into Fordham’s catalog. The importance of the “before” part became evident when Yael described the situation with the original batch of MOML records. Many law libraries loaded them, only to discover that the bibliographic records for the electronic versions overlaid the records for the microfiche versions by mistake. Oops … there were a number of nodding heads in the room, which I took to mean some of those present had been burned in that manner. But never again, as Yael gave us valuable advice about how to keep that from happening.
Before getting down to specifics, Yael cautioned that “this technique is not meant to replace proper authority control, use of URL checkers, etc.” She makes use of two readily-available tools in her analysis: MarcEdit (a free editing utility available for download at http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset/marcedit/html/) and Microsoft Excel (spreadsheet software). She emphasized repeatedly how essential it is that you save a copy of your original file of records before you start rearranging it and that you save each iteration of a file.
The PowerPoint handout Yael prepared is excellent, so I am not going to spend time here on details you can more easily see there. It is available at: http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/Batchload+Analysis
The approach to record set analysis was presented in three steps:
* step 1: Examine several individual records
* step 2: Count fields in file
* step 3: View isolated fields
The first step is important and should almost go without saying. Step 2 is a quick way to verify the number of occurrences of certain fields. For example, if you have 100 records in your batch, there must be 100 each of required fields, such as the 245 (title) and 856 (URL). If there are less, that is a big red flag! The “What’s wrong with this picture?” examples on the slides are very revealing.
I especially like the subtitle on the slides for step 3: The power of eyeballing. The value of isolating fields for analysis became clear immediately when each individual field was removed from its record and grouped together with its counterparts. When all the same fields are sorted together, the errors and inconsistencies truly do just jump out at you—amazing!
Yael shared helpful tips on how to cleanup those errors and inconsistencies using the global update capabilities of MarcEdit. Unfortunately it is not possible to view the changes in MarcEdit before you apply them, so she recommended doing that in your ILS instead. She concluded by giving a general overview of the work of the TS-SIS Task Group on Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records (http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/committees/cataloging/vendorbibrecords/) which has setup a wiki (http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/) in order to share the results of such batch-load analysis.
There wasn’t much time for questions: Should a batch be analyzed every time you are ready to load it? Yes. But there were a few comments, one of which was that MarcEdit cannot be used with some ILSs unless the whole database is extracted. The session closed with a comment about the fact that these batches are creating many duplicates for the same content in our catalogs. The aggregator-neutral record approach for e-resources (both serials and monographs) was mentioned, but naturally that raises other complexities for which there is no easy solution at present. Many thanks to OBS and TS for sponsoring this excellent program!
Monday, July 07, 2008
Demystifying Batch-load Analysis Program
Demystifying Batch-Load Analysis: What You Need to Know About Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records
Co-sponsored and co-funded by OBS-SIS & TS-SIS
When: Sunday, July 13, 2008, 4:15-5:15 PM
Where: OCC-E146
Handout available at: http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/Batchload+Analysis
Description: The availability of vendor-supplied bibliographic records for batch-loading into our local catalogs presents new challenges: How should my library evaluate the quality of vendor-supplied MARC records before acquiring them? What role can the TS-SIS Task Group on Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records play in this process? This program will introduce ways to use readily available tools to analyze batches of MARC records. It will help libraries that have purchased access to packages such as MOML, LLMC, BNA, CIS, WLX, etc. and are considering how to provide access to them through their catalogs.
Coordinator: Ellen McGrath, University at Buffalo
Moderator: Kevin Butterfield, College of William and Mary
Speaker: Yael Mandelstam, Fordham University
Learning outcomes:
1. Participants will be able to identify quality control issues and problems associated with the batch-loading of vendor-supplied bibliographic MARC records
2. Participants will be able to analyze and modify batches of MARC records using tools available in their libraries
Co-sponsored and co-funded by OBS-SIS & TS-SIS
When: Sunday, July 13, 2008, 4:15-5:15 PM
Where: OCC-E146
Handout available at: http://tsvbr.pbwiki.com/Batchload+Analysis
Description: The availability of vendor-supplied bibliographic records for batch-loading into our local catalogs presents new challenges: How should my library evaluate the quality of vendor-supplied MARC records before acquiring them? What role can the TS-SIS Task Group on Vendor-Supplied Bibliographic Records play in this process? This program will introduce ways to use readily available tools to analyze batches of MARC records. It will help libraries that have purchased access to packages such as MOML, LLMC, BNA, CIS, WLX, etc. and are considering how to provide access to them through their catalogs.
Coordinator: Ellen McGrath, University at Buffalo
Moderator: Kevin Butterfield, College of William and Mary
Speaker: Yael Mandelstam, Fordham University
Learning outcomes:
1. Participants will be able to identify quality control issues and problems associated with the batch-loading of vendor-supplied bibliographic MARC records
2. Participants will be able to analyze and modify batches of MARC records using tools available in their libraries
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Highlights of a Hot Topic
The Technical Services Special Interest Section wisely chose the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control to be the focus of its Hot Topic session. Fortunately for TS-SIS, the Chair of the Working Group, Jose-Marie Griffiths, Dean and Professor, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was a VIP for SEAALL and could be in attendance at the TS Hot Topic. Richard Amelung ably presented the report for which I will blog highlights.
Many crucial questions were part of this session. For example, the question of how to design a catalog for a spectrum of users from the highly proficient to the clueless (my choice of words)is one that desperately needs answering. Another question that resonates in my mind is does the web really organize itself? And should authority work change its focus so that catalogs indicate who authors, editors, and creators aren't, in other words employ differentiation?
Other new ways of viewing our work include pursuing streamlined standards. Consulting other related information communities about standards is an option. However, the right communities need to partner with librarians for bibliographic control; we need to work with those who have the same goals as we do. Streamlined standards ideally means less time spent tweaking records. There appears to be a low level of trust of shared records.
Resources for Description and Access (RDA) has been in development for years. RDA needs to be marketable. Institutions need to adopt it or it will not be economically successful. The recommendation is to start using it and adapt it as we go along rather than spend increasing amounts to massage RDA to perfection.
A dramatic moment in the program came when the question was posed: is the Working Group a political cover, is it steered by LC? Richard Amelung answered that it was not steered by any group. In fact, he noted a lack of push for the radical. The impetus for the group came from the library community which wanted to move in a different direction. Dean Griffiths commented that the charge was that of the group itself and that LC will not be present at the deliberations at the end of August when the Working Group meets to synthesize their findings. Two outside people will help write the report. Moreover, library organizations named the members of the Working Group; LC did not.
TS is to be congratulated for selecting a stellar Hot Topic. The room was packed and the content of this meeting was rich indeed!
Many crucial questions were part of this session. For example, the question of how to design a catalog for a spectrum of users from the highly proficient to the clueless (my choice of words)is one that desperately needs answering. Another question that resonates in my mind is does the web really organize itself? And should authority work change its focus so that catalogs indicate who authors, editors, and creators aren't, in other words employ differentiation?
Other new ways of viewing our work include pursuing streamlined standards. Consulting other related information communities about standards is an option. However, the right communities need to partner with librarians for bibliographic control; we need to work with those who have the same goals as we do. Streamlined standards ideally means less time spent tweaking records. There appears to be a low level of trust of shared records.
Resources for Description and Access (RDA) has been in development for years. RDA needs to be marketable. Institutions need to adopt it or it will not be economically successful. The recommendation is to start using it and adapt it as we go along rather than spend increasing amounts to massage RDA to perfection.
A dramatic moment in the program came when the question was posed: is the Working Group a political cover, is it steered by LC? Richard Amelung answered that it was not steered by any group. In fact, he noted a lack of push for the radical. The impetus for the group came from the library community which wanted to move in a different direction. Dean Griffiths commented that the charge was that of the group itself and that LC will not be present at the deliberations at the end of August when the Working Group meets to synthesize their findings. Two outside people will help write the report. Moreover, library organizations named the members of the Working Group; LC did not.
TS is to be congratulated for selecting a stellar Hot Topic. The room was packed and the content of this meeting was rich indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)