New MeSH deconstructed headings

Written by Joan on March 24, 2016. Posted in Blog

In 2001, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) provided instructions for deconstructing MeSH subjects to conform to NLM practices.  However, this practice was not widely embraced by libraries using MeSH. Periodic surveys conducted by NLM determined that half of the libraries preferred pre-coordinated subject headings, while the other half preferred faceted headings.  As a result, NLM continued to distribute bib records with pre-coordinated headings, but used faceted terms in-house.

MARCIVE watched these developments to determine what services were desired by libraries.  Over time there was an increased interest in faceted headings so we developed a profile option for our MeSH customers.  Since October 2005 MARCIVE customers have been able to specify whether they wanted pre-coordinated or deconstructed MeSH processing.

Beginning with the December 2015 distribution of new records in CATFILE and SERFILE, NLM subject terms (MeSH) will be distributed with topical subjects recorded in 650 $a or 650 $a $x; geographic subjects recorded in 651 $a or 651 $a $x; and publication type/genre terms record in 655 $a.  In January 2016, the entire CATFILE and SERFILE databases were released with these updates made to all the records.  NLM recommends downloading the full update to have local data consistent with the NLM files.  Catalogers in other libraries are encouraged to follow the NLM practice when assigning MeSH.

How does this now affect our authorities processing customers with MeSH headings?  In December of 2015 we modified our processing to automatically deconstruct MeSH subject headings for all customers.

Example:

Old form (with string)
650 12   $a Health Policy $z Africa $v Congresses
650 12   $a Health Policy $z Caribbean Region $v Congresses
650 22   $a Cross Cultural Comparison $z Africa $v Congresses
650 22   $a Cross Cultural Comparison $z Caribbean Region $v Congresses

New form (deconstructed)
650 12   $a Health Policy
650 22   $a Cross Cultural Comparison
651   2   $a Africa
651   2   $a Caribbean Region
655   2   $a Congresses

We encourage our customers using MeSH headings to contact us with any questions or comments regarding the new format.  Your input is welcome!

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS and Mary Mastraccio, MLS.

Presentation on Data Remediation for Consortium

Written by Joan on February 19, 2016. Posted in Blog

Libraries migrating to shared environment will be interested in the upcoming presentation given by Michael Cohen from the University of Wisconsin libraries: “Collocating the Collective: Third Party Database Remediation in an Alma Consortium” to be given at the ELUNA conference on May 6 at 9 am.  This conference will be held at the Cox Convention Center in Oklahoma City.

The Wisconsin libraries previously were on individual Ex Libris Voyager systems, and merged their bibliographic databases into a shared Alma consortial database.  After the merge, MARCIVE performed data remediation which included authorities processing and RDA conversion on over 8.5 million records.  The project was completed in January 2016. This presentation will discuss the highlights of that journey—including the decision making process, project configuration, file management logistics, affected cataloging policy, and lessons learned along the way.

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS

Why do I get these old GPO records?

Written by Joan on February 10, 2016. Posted in Blog

Why do I get these old records?

If your library receives GPO records from us via one of our subscription services or the Catalog Record Distribution Project (CRDP), you may have wondered from time to time why examples of cataloging for fairly old titles arrive in what would seem to be a current cataloging service. The reason is that, in addition to creating new catalog records, GPO also often has occasion to update older records. One thing we see quite often is new cataloging for old titles that have become available online. When these new records are created for the online version, GPO staff normally updates existing records for tangible versions of the titles to include fields that link the tangible version records to the new online version records. The files Marcive receives each month as the source for our GPO cataloging services include records that have been created by GPO in the previous month as well as records that have been updated. When the time comes to select a library’s records, we choose all of the records that match your criteria; age is not normally a concern.

If you get only new records from us, there usually won’t be too many of these, but if you get changed records as well there could be quite a few at times.

Sometimes these older records are useful and may fill gaps in your catalog, but often they are a distraction. Perhaps you already have cataloged the titles in question, or have withdrawn them from your collection. Either way, the arrival of these records can cause some extra work.

If older records are causing problems for you, it is possible for us to filter them out for you. Simply contact us and ask that records for older tangible titles be excluded from your files in the future, and let us know how old is too old. Most libraries requesting this exclusion have us exclude records for titles from five or more years ago, but the choice is yours.

Do you wonder about some of the records you get or don’t get through your Marcive GPO cataloging service? Whether you get our profiled record services or Documents Without Shelves, or participate in the CRDP, don’t hesitate to ask us about it. We’ll be glad to look into what you are getting and make adjustments that should help, or explain what is happening so that you can decide how you want to handle it.

Written by Jim Noël, MLS
2/9/2016

Why Do RDA Conversion?

Written by Joan on May 19, 2015. Posted in Blog

At the recent Ex Libris Users of North America in Minneapolis, Mark Sanford from William Paterson University spoke about his project to convert the library’s legacy bibliographic data to RDA compliance.  Now all their data is more unified, and we will do the same work on new cataloging records that they send to us for processing.

➔    Why was this needed?  Some reasons include the fact that their discovery layer had RDA requirements, and there was the potential to use RDA 33X and 34X fields to improve format facets.

See Mark’s presentation here.  Please feel free to contact him for more information on their individual experience.

A good number of libraries do this type of work at the point of migration to a new system in order to showcase it in its best light.  Migrating to Alma?  Or already up on another new system?  This work has been successfully performed in Ex Libris Aleph, Ex Libris Alma, Ex Libris Voyager, Follett Destiny, Koha, III Polaris, III Millennium, III Sierra, Sirsi Dynix Horizon, Sirsi Dynix Symphony, etc.

Want more information, including a preliminary quote?  Send your inquiry to [email protected] or call us at 800-531-7678.

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS

A Tale of Two Libraries

Written by Joan on April 28, 2015. Posted in Blog

presenters

At the recent IUG (Innovative Users Group) Conference in Minneapolis, two very different libraries had the opportunity to tell their stories about their RDA Conversion experiences.  Both use the III Sierra system, did a backfile project with authorities processing and free RDA conversion, and both use MARCIVE for ongoing authorities maintenance.  But that’s where all the similarities end.  “A Tale of Two Libraries: RDA Conversion from an academic and a public library perspective”  details diverse reasons for doing RDA remediation on legacy data, and the planning involved for such a project.

Dana Miller from University of Nevada at Reno spoke about her academic library’s project.  They are a long-time MARCIVE customer with a large database of over 1.3 million bibliographic records.  Lori Thorrat of Cuyahoga County Public Library is a brand-new customer from a very high-profile, medium-sized public library in Cleveland, Ohio.

The speakers did an excellent job explaining the funding, system preparation, profiling, and outcome of their individual projects.  See the academic experience here, and the public library experience here.

Please feel to contact these libraries with any questions about their experiences.  Need a quote and/or further information?  Please contact us at [email protected]!

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS

LCGFT Updates

Written by Joan on February 10, 2015. Posted in Blog, General

Library of Congress has announced several big steps forward in adding to the Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT). General genre terms were approved by LC just before ALA Midwinter 2015. The authority records were distributed to MARC Record Distribution Service subscribers on the Tuesday that many conference attendees were still making their way home from snowy Chicago. Music genre terms are being reviewed by the Library of Congress and will hopefully be approved by the end of February. The literature terms are in the queue for review, with anticipated approval in early March.

Although MARCIVE assisted LC and the various ALA/ALCTS/SAC Working Groups in making the MARC records for these terms, we have to wait like everyone else for the Library of Congress to officially approve the terms and then distribute the records in their weekly files to us.

With the approximately 1,000 general, music, and literature genre terms being approved, there will be a noticeable difference in the MARCIVE NewMatch records received by participants. As the records are approved and distributed, these records will be supplied to libraries based on the usage in their catalogs. These new genre records will be included in the authority records MARCIVE supplies to you, if:

  1. The term is in your history file of unrecognized terms;
  2. The term matches a temporary MARCIVE (shg) genre record;
  3. The term is used in a newly processed bib record.

Libraries with the NewMatch service routinely have their unrecognized terms reviewed. Whenever these terms match a newly established term, the new authority record will be supplied. The records will not be supplied if:

A library opted to not include genre terms in authorities processing, or;

  1. They do not have NewMatch option, or;
  2. The genre terms were matched to GSAFD.

Notification customers will receive the new LCGFT authority records whenever these terms match to the temporary MARCIVE genre records. These are records provided by MARCIVE to validate genre terms before LC began creating genre authority records. We are tracking these terms, so when they are established in LCGFT we will supply a delete record for the MARCIVE genre record previously supplied, and replace it with the LCGFT record. These temporary genre records are identified by a “shg” prefix in the control number. There are genre-like terms in LCSH used as the basis for some of the MARCIVE genre records for which there will never be a replacement in LCGFT.

Each library will have to decide how they want to handle these “local” authority records. Libraries are welcome to continue to use them, but it would also be appropriate to review these and replace any with nationality, language, or other demographic qualifiers with the unqualified LCGFT term.

Any bib records sent through Overnight Authorities Processing can be matched against the current LCGFT file and receive matched authority records.

If you do not have one of these services or you have a split between genre thesauri and would like to have assistance with making changes, please contact your MARCIVE representative, or send an email to [email protected].

Written by Mary Mastraccio, MLS

MARCIVE Assists LC in Creation of LCGFT Authority Records

Written by Joan on December 18, 2014. Posted in General

Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT), is replacing the former Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc. (GSAFD).  While many libraries still use GSAFD terms in their catalogs, this controlled vocabulary list is no longer updated by the American Library Association.  LCGFT provides a live, developing international standard for genre and form access to individual works of fiction, drama, poetry, humor, and folklore, etc. in all formats. Subject headings describe what a work is about, while genre/from terms describe what a work is.

For example a subject heading of 650 _0 $a Western films is a work about Western films.

A genre heading of 655 _7 $a Western films $2 lcgft is a work that is a Western film.

In March 2015 the Policy and Standards Division (PSD) will approve approximately 390 genre/form terms for literary works.  MARCIVE played an important role in this venture, as we created MARC authority records for the proposals from a Word document provided by the Working Group on LCGFT Literature Terms.  We also created records for 175 “general” genre/form terms, which are schedule for approval in January 2015.  Not stopping with only literature terms, MARCIVE went on to create 563 records for music genre terms, which PSD plans to approve in February 2015.

The generation of these authority records by MARCIVE saved the Library of Congress and the Working Groups hundreds of hours of manual labor. This will significantly decrease the time libraries must wait for their approval and distribution. The addition of over 1,000 genre terms to the LCGFT list in early 2015 will noticeably improve management and retrieval of materials in any library collection.  MARCIVE customers with Notification or NewMatch Services will automatically receive any of these authority records if their history file reflects their use.

Written by Joan Chapa, with contributions from Mary Mastraccio and Carol Love.

What changes are really made in a RDA Conversion project?

Written by Ligia Groff on December 1, 2014. Posted in General

Technical services staff often has to either 1) create a proposal for database cleanup projects or 2) create an analysis of what was accomplished in the project.   Either way, it is to provide justification for expenditures that are sometimes considered unnecessary by anyone not in Technical Services.

Illustrating why a RDA conversion project is needed is often a hurdle. It’s not as easy as pulling together circulation statistics. Kirk Doran of Dickinson University (currently use SirsiDynix Symphony) created a slideshow that gives clear-cut examples of what was accomplished in a project involving automated authorities processing with a RDA conversion. His examples show how RDA conversion projects will prep your database for today’s information environment and make your OPAC more user-friendly to patrons. Click here for the link!

Written by Ligia Groff, MLS

Special thanks to Kirk Doran, Technical Services Librarian at Dickinson University for allowing us to share his presentation.

Why didn’t all my 260 fields get converted to 264 fields during RDA conversion?

Written by Joan on December 1, 2014. Posted in Blog

We have heard this question a few times now, and it’s a valid one. LC’s Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has recommended against an automated conversion of the 260 fields to 264 if the record is a serial or integrating resource. It is difficult or impossible to program this reliably. Since MARCIVE follows PCC recommendations, records coded as serials or integrating resources will not have the 260 changed to 264. It IS acceptable to manually change these locally.

PCC additionally recommends not changing the 260 for multi-volumes items. After reviewing records and doing extensive testing, MARCIVE is excluding records with date type [008/06] m, c, d, e, k, i, q, or u in the programming used to convert 260 fields to 264 fields. This is being done to avoid the risk of creating incorrect 264 second indicator values.

However, we are sensitive to our customers’ individual needs and can force all 260 fields to 264 fields upon request.

For more information about the 264 field, see the PCC guidelines about this field.

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS

Batch Cataloging without a Subscription: Excel Spreadsheet to MARC Records

Written by Joan on December 1, 2014. Posted in Blog

MARCIVE has offered cataloging services since 1981. Did you know we can provide full MARC records from your Excel spreadsheet, with no annual minimums or subscription fees?

This service is perfect for the library that:

  • Has purchased a large set of resources and only received an Excel spreadsheet from a vendor (e.g. Overdrive).
  • is run primarily of volunteers with no cataloging experience, such as a church or small school library.
  • received a large donation of books from a personal collection.
  • is looking for an economical and fast way to upgrade their database to a MARC-based ILS.

If you supply us with an Excel spreadsheet with ISBN numbers, call numbers, and location, we can match those records in a batch process, and supply you with full MARC records for only $.27 per record! Don’t worry if your spreadsheet has more or less fields, let us take a look and we’ll let you know what we can do.

Our service can also provide:

  • Smart barcode labels
  • Authority records
  • MARC record enrichment (TOC, fiction/biographies, summaries)
  • Reading notes (Accelerated Reader, Lexile® Measures, and Reading Counts)
  • Book label sets
  • Catalog card images
  • Book catalog

No matching record? No problem! There are two options:

  • Search on your own. Sometimes, the information in the record is not sufficient to safely make a match in an automated process. You can compare your original list with the records/labels received or use the Book catalog to manually search MARCIVE WebSelect for all the no matches.
  • Have us map the records to MARC for you. We can map the metadata to the appropriate MARC fields for you to simply load into your ILS.

For more information, contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected]

–written by Wanda Leasman and Patricia Harwood

havequestion_LFT