IO Cataloging Congress
Minutes
Tuesday, November 19, 1996
IUPUI, University Libraries, Room 1116
1. Horizon Circulation Proposal (Gago, Charbonneau)
The advantages outlined in the above document were reviewed. The problems
and issues to be resolved were then discussed one by one ...
Problem 1: Availability of Windows version of Circulation, Staff PAC, and
cataloging modules.
Discussion: Will we have to commit before a Windows version is
actually received and reviewed? Gary said that we will probably have to decide
by the end of November. It is his understanding that this is Ameritech's top
priority.
Consensus: This is more of an area of concern for Circulation than
Cataloging.
Problem 2: Circulation downtime to move from NOTIS 6.0.1 to 6.3.1.
Discussion: Ideally, the downtime should be between the Spring
semester and Summer Session I. The libraries are down systemwide on very few
days.
Consensus: The Cataloging Congress has no problem with this item.
Problem 3: Loading of non-circulating unlinked item records.
Discussion: Gary said that he does not believe there is an inherent
problem with loading unlinked item records. Several agencies expressed the
desire to have a list of these items in call number order ASAP so that pre-load
cleanup can occur. Those unlinked items in circulation at the time of the
cutover can be created as Fast-Adds. Other libraries said they have so many
unlinked items that these records will have to be loaded. Further discussion
was held until Agenda Item 2.
Consensus: See Agenda Item 2.
Problem 4: LMS OPAC display of circulation information.
Discussion: This is a crucial issue for the public. The key issue is
how will the public know if an item is checked out. Also, when it says
the "problem should only be short term," how short is "short term?" Currently,
there is nothing to test, and it is not certain how often during the day the
batch program could be run. There was some concern about how quickly items
for immediate circulation would be available. Gary suggested that these
items could be skeletally cataloged in Horizon with an item record attached and
then overlaid with a fuller record from LMS during the daily batch process.
Consensus: This item is more of a concern for Public Services and
Reserves staff; Catalogers seem to have the ability to work around this
problem.
Problem 5: Local printing of bills and notices.
Discussion: Some branch libraries may have to share laser printers. It
was pointed out that we should express our needs, not what we can live with.
Consensus: This item is a Circulation problem.
Problem 6: Horizon printing is on demand.
Discussion: We must remember that reports will no longer be run
automatically; we will have to produce them ourselves.
Consensus: The Cataloging Congress has no problem with this item.
Problem 7: Risk to database integrity involved in running LMS OPAC and
Horizon Circulation module.
Discussion: The main problem with a 24-hour delay will occur when
an item is circulated before it is overlaid from LMS. In such a case,
duplicate records might be generated.
Consensus: Agencies will have to examine their workflow to prevent
such problems. Some cleanup is inevitable; the only question is, how much
will there be?
Problem 8: Using NOTIS temp loc to indicate which items are on reserve.
Consensus: This item will have to be addressed.
Problem 9: Pseudo-patrons.
Consensus: This is essentially a Circulation problem.
Problem 10: Security in Horizon.
Discussion: Circulation staff need to access the cataloging module to
perform certain functions. While they are in the cataloging module, it is
possible for them to alter their own cataloging records and those of other
libraries.
Consensus: The Cataloging Congress strongly recommends that the
security in Horizon be strengthened to prevent this sort of thing from
happening.
The IO Cataloging Congress does not feel it can endorse the Horizon
Circulation Proposal because of the following reasons:
a) an inadequately-defined time schedule;
b) lack of a good estimate of the number of hours that would be needed to
write NOTIS programs, since these hours could instead be devoted to working
on Horizon;
c) the points that have been mentioned in the above discussions;
d) in general, not enough information to make a rational decision.
2. Conversion of NOTIS unlinked items to Horizon (Charbonneau)
Continuation of the discussion which began under Problem 2 of Agenda
Item 1. Gary distributed the document "Conversion of Unlinked Items to
Horizon: Issues" (11/19/96). The main points are summarized below:
a. Unlinked items will still retain a circulation function in Horizon.
If they are not converted, Circulation staff will be burdened with the task of
creating Fast-Add records whenever someone wants to borrow an unlinked
item.
b. There is no such thing as an unlinked item in Horizon. Items can only
exist if they are attached to bib records.
c. Horizon bib records can be skeletal, even to the point of having only
a title. If unlinked items are converted from LMS to Horizon, they would be
converted as skeletals.
d. The author fields from LMS unlinked items should not be loaded to
prevent serious authority control problems. Alternately, the loader could
perhaps be modified to move author information at the end of the title field.
e. Unlinked items will show up in the PAC only if we index them.
Otherwise, they will only be accessible to staff by barcode number, which is
unacceptable; access by call number is needed as well. When call numbers
are indexed, titles are usually indexed as well. The advantage to indexing the
titles is increased accessibility by both staff and the public. The
disadvantage is that the title indexes in the OPAC might be cluttered with
Fast-Add records.
Alternately, a special staff-only index for these records could be created to
keep them out of the OPAC.
f. The decision about the conversion of unlinked items can be made on a
processing unit-by-processing unit basis, or possibly by a location/sublocation
basis. Individual sites will not be locked in by a systemwide decision.
Discussion: In Horizon, Fast-Add records will not be indexed on an
item-by-item basis; all or none will be indexed. Cataloging may be able to
tweak the record to make it viewable by staff and/or the public. The
advantages and disadvantages of indexing the Fast-Adds/unlinked items were
reiterated--indexing them may make them more accessible to the public, but
the brief records could clutter our title index. Another option is to create a
separate index for them so that at least they can be identified. In any
event, it is clear that cleanup will be needed, either before the load or
afterwards.
Recommendations:
1) Each processing unit will make its own decision about
converting the unlinked items.
2) We would like a separate index for the Fast-Add/unlinked items
for staff.
3) The title field on unlinked items needs to be loaded in the
249 field (not the 245) just like Fast-Adds.
4) John Pillans will provide lists of unlinked item records
in call number order by processing unit will be generated by agency and then
by location for interested cataloging agencies.
3. Union Catalog in Horizon (Charbonneau, Gago, Shepherd)
Gary will meet with analysts from Ameritech November 20-21 to prepare
preliminary specifications for consortia functionality. The developers can
then use these specs to determine how long development will take; as it is,
they have no basis for knowing. It is recognized that more security is
needed. The concept of record ownership is still absent from Horizon and
needs to be addressed before implementation. It is Gary's understanding that
each "agency" will own one record (e.g., IP & CO will own one record, BB, KO,
et al. will own one record, etc.) Each location within that agency would
have the ability to update its agency's record. This has serious security
implications.
4. Status of Mainframe (Charbonneau)
UCS says mainframe assessment is done in May and December. When
December's assessment is made, Gary will forward this information to the
Cataloging Congress. It was suggested that more statistical information be
included in documents discussing Horizon to justify the University's decisions.
5. Holdings Display in Horizon/Copy Records For Every Title in Horizon
(Charbonneau, Gago)
A discussion of the MHLD display will be postponed until a later meeting.
Gary distributed a handout illustrating several types of bib record/call number/
circ status displays. In Horizon, copy records are not necessary to create an
item record, they are optional. In the WUI display, the absence of a copy
record will cause the location, call number, and circ status to display at the
top of the screen. The presence of a copy record will cause this information to
display at the bottom of the screen. At present, though, most of the efforts
are being directed towards developing WebPAC, not the WUI. Alterations to this
display still need to be made, but it does not seem acceptable to see the
status of only one volume of a multivolume work. Currently, with WebPAC, the
presence or absence of the copy record does not seem to affect the display.
Discussion: Should there be a copy record for every item? If there is
not, we may have to get use to looking for the call number in 2 places, top
and bottom of the screen, in the WUI environment. Can this be a local
decision? This may result in some inconsistency in the way information is
displayed systemwide, but presently there is too much that is unknown to be
certain. It was pointed out that in the long run it may be more labor intensive
to create copy records as needed than to create them all up-front. It was also
suggested that we could ask for an enhancement to the program to have a
copy record automatically created at the point of acquisition.
Consensus: Currently, it is IUPUI's decision. No decision has been
made yet. The other agencies will wait and see.
6. Local Cataloging in IUCAT (Turchyn)
A question was raised as to how locally-cataloged items could be
identified to show that there is no OCLC record. A note in the copy record
would be useful and appropriate wording for this note will be developed and
added to Carol Hixson's local cataloging proposal. The local cataloging
proposal was approved, as amended above.
7. Authority Record Reference Structure (Collee)
The Authority Control Unit has ceased making local authority records for
subject subdivisions that follow pattern headings in order to allow them to do
more retrocon work.
8. Loading the LC Authority File
Marty Joachim said that we will need to consider how many authority
records will be downloaded at what cost. It was also asked if we are willing
to wait "x" number of months to download an authority record we ourselves
have created. This topic will be tabled for discussion at a later time.
9. 539 Field (Papakhian, Russell Bucknum)
This field needs to be validated if we wish to use it. It is an OCLC-
specific field, not a USMARC field. It was decided that the Format
Documentation Team will ask Alex Gul, UCS, to have the field validated.
10. Secretary of IOCC
Rick Ralston agreed to serve as Secretary of the IOCC.
11. Future Meetings and Agenda Topics
The date of the next meeting will be determined after more information
about the union catalog functionality in Horizon is available. Topics for the
next meeting will include:
a) MHLD displays
b) Loading of the LC authority file
c) MeSH problems in Horizon
The Cataloging Congress will also forward to Ed Stockey the resolution
adopted at the last meeting which said that the 856 field should be added to
the keyword index in LMS.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Long
IU School of Law--Indianapolis