July 31, 2017

Our new Comprehensive Notification Service (CNS) has many good benefits and one, in particular, was illustrated with the recent quarterly re-processing of a customer’s bibliographic file.

It was noted that 97.9% of their bibliographic records would be returned to them because of one or more changes made.  Earlier this year, the MARC Advisory Committee made the recommendation to remove the use of a Parenthetical Prefix
“(uri)” in MARC21 linking subfields when the identifier is in the form of a web retrieval protocol.  This change was implemented in our processing, and impacted this customer’s records.  A small percentage of records were not returned, only because we had already previously processed them through Overnight Authorities Service, with the new programming already in place. Ultimately, 100% of their records were affected, bringing them up to current practice.

As national standards change, and we incorporate those improvements into our work, CNS libraries will reap the benefits when the bib file that we have retained for them is entirely re-processed at a frequency of their choice.

For more information on how CNS can provide benefits to your library, go to https://home.marcive.com/blog/new-comprehensive-notification-services-cns

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS

July 31, 2017

We have added the FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) vocabulary to the list of vocabularies we process in authorities processing!  For a few years now, FAST headings have been included in bib records without significant benefit. MARCIVE now offers review and maintenance of FAST headings as an automated service!

FAST is available as Linked Data, and MARCIVE can add the URIs to subfield $0 that link to the term at no additional cost with authorities processing.

There are a variety of ways we can handle FAST headings:

1. Ignore them.
2. Delete them.
3. Force them to Library of Congress Subject Headings [LCSH 6XX_0] so they are processed as LCSH/LC-NAF.
4. Match the FAST heading [6XX_7 $2fast] against LC.  Then flip the term and source coding if recognized, otherwise leave as FAST.
5. Examine all FAST [6XX_7 $2fast] fields against the FAST database, and report out any changes, validations, or unrecognized FAST fields.
6. We can supply URIs or control numbers to bib records in the subfield $0.  If a subfield $0 is already in the incoming field, we will make sure that it matches the associated authority record.  We can also ensure it is in the form requested  (such as a control number) and will be changed to a URI.  If the term is not recognized but a subfield $0 is already there, it will be retained.

This processing can be added to customer’s profiles at no additional cost!  If the library is interested in this service, please contact [email protected]

Written by Ligia Groff, MLS

February 23, 2017

Now we have an alternative way to keep your catalog up to date after the initial authorities processing/RDA Conversion project has been completed, through Comprehensive Notification Service (CNS).

We will retain both a copy of the matching authority records we supplied as well as the updated bibliographic records.  You should continue to send us new cataloging through Overnight Authorities Service on any time frame desired—daily, weekly, monthly, etc.  There’s never a minimum order, the work is done overnight, and updated bib records are posted the next business day for FTP retrieval, along with any requested reports.  The results of this processing are added to both the retained bib and authority files.

Then at the frequency of the library’s choosing, we will re-process the bibliographic records using all the same specifications, returning to the library only the changed bibliographic records, any NEW authority records, as well as authority records changed or deleted by LC, along with any reports.

Why would a library choose this subscription instead of Standard Notification Service?

CNS is a desirable method of maintaining records if your library’s ILS or library service platform does not have the function to fully update the corresponding bibliographic record with the corrected access point.  Sometimes the system has the capability but has difficulty converting the entire string in an access point.  CNS keeps a copy of your bibliographic records and the authority record files provide by MARCIVE.  The library chooses how often to update:  Quarterly, Semi-annual or Annual.  Pricing varies depending on the size of the bibliographic file, and how often you request the update. We ask you to list preferred dates for the bib updates.

What’s included with the Comprehensive Authorities Notification Service?

1.     Flip of access points to current LC practice.  This includes the update of access points that were not recognized when we did the initial processing.
2.     Inclusion of any NEW authority records on matched access points.
3.     Inclusion of any CHANGED authority records on access points that first matched during the initial processing, and any authority records deleted by LC.  It additionally includes differentiated authority records which were formerly undifferentiated.
4.     Undifferentiated-Differentiated.

In identified bib records, the access point will now match to a new authority record and the bib record will be changed.  Note:  several sources are used (e.g. 670 field, VIAF record, etc.) to verify a proper match.

5.     Partial matches that become full-string matches.
6.     Terms that change tagging.
7.     Fields that reflect changes in RDA.

What’s NOT included in Comprehensive Authorities Notification Service (CNS)?

If any type of enrichment (TOC, Summaries, Fiction/Biography data, Lexile or Accelerated Reader) is a part of your profile, that data will not be added during the re-processing of the bibliographic records during CNS.  This only happens during Overnight Authorities Service, or as a stand-alone project.

Commonly Asked Questions ABOUT CNS

1.     It’s time for my first update, and I haven’t yet sent any new records for processing, but I want them included.  What should I do?

MARCIVE Response:  Go ahead and send the file now, just as you normally would through Overnight Authorities Processing.  You’ll be charged the standard rates for this work.  These bibliographic records will be included in the update and will be added to the retained bib file.

2.     It’s time for our update, and our systems librarian is out on medical leave.  Can we re-schedule?

MARCIVE Response:  Yes.  Let us know when you are ready for this work.  Remember that you have pre-paid for the subscription and your updates need to occur within the subscription year.

3.     We have performed a large weeding project in our library and deleted a number of bibliographic records.  How do we let you know what we have deleted?

MARCIVE Response:  There are two ways to do this.  We can provide directions for sending us the control numbers of the bibliographic records to be deleted, and they will be removed from your history at the quoted rates.  The alternative method is to send us your entire bib file again, and we will replace your retained bib file with the new one.  Contact your Marketing Representative for a quote.

4.     We’re completing our profile with MARCIVE, and are trying to decide which Notification subscription is best for us.  Can you help us choose?

MARCIVE Response:  CNS was created in response to those libraries stating that while their ILS or LSP could update the main bib access point in a string using an updated authority record, often it could not update it if there were subfields included.

If your system can reliably perform this function, then we would suggest you choose the Standard Notification Subscription. Authority records are retained in your “history file.”  Also, we retain any unmatched headings for future updates through the NewMatch option.  You send new cataloging to us through Overnight Authorities Service, and any authority records produced are compared to your history file, and only those new to you are distributed.  These new authority records are added to your history file, which continues to grow.  With this subscription, you’ll rely on your local ILS or LSP to use the monthly files of changed/deleted authority records to update the associated bib records.  The advantage to this subscription is that because you get monthly updates, your catalog will be more current and in sync.

If your system has an issue with using an authority record to update an entire access point string, or there are problems running authority updates on a monthly basis, then CNS would likely be the better option.  Your entire bib file will be completely refreshed at the time interval of your choice and will include any new standard bibliographic processing functions that we have added.  The library does need to be aware that any access point that is processed through authorities processing and RDA conversion may overlay and therefore remove any in-house editing unless internal protections have been put in place.

5.     We are planning to do authorities processing/RDA conversion in preparation for migrating from a legacy system to ExLibris Alma.  We won’t be able to or need to do any ongoing authority work, will we?

MARCIVE Response:  According to reports from Alma users, there is an internal mechanism to automatically link bib access points to an external authority file.  However, this doesn’t always work as well as expected.  While Alma users don’t have the need for authority records, we can still process new cataloging through Overnight Authorities after the initial project has been performed, and more importantly, refresh the bib file on a periodic basis through CNS.  This frees the cataloging staff from having to continually confirm that bib access points are indeed being updated.  Additionally as described above, the library will benefit from any new options that have been developed as a result of RDA and other new cataloging standards and implemented for this service.

Further questions?  Would like some examples of changes provided through CNS? Give us a call at 1-800-531-7678 or email us at [email protected], and we will be happy to discuss your options and provide pricing.

Written by Joan Chapa, MLS

At the recent ACIG (Authority Control Interest Group) Meeting at ALA Annual 2016 in Orlando,  Mary Mastraccio from MARCIVE, and Rosemary Groenwald from the Mount Prospect Public Library presented on genre and the direction of library data with relationship to topical vs. genre terms.  Rosemary gave some statistics and numbers for the many new LCGFT terms that have been created in the last year.  These terms replace terms (sometimes exactly, sometimes with variation) that have been topical (150) in the past. New 155 authority records are being created, and there often is an issue of the ILS being able to merge 150 to 155.  Some of the issues discussed were how to make these conversions, how to fix the bib records, and what data is already in the records that can be used to accomplish this parsing of existing data.  Mary continued with a discussion of things libraries should consider, and things that a vendor could do to move data to the new fields.  She illustrated how information currently stored in a long topical data string (genre, medium of performance, audience, creator, etc.) must be split into separate fields that will be linked to authoritative databases, depending on the type of information.  She pointed out situations in which the existing data is in conflict, and some of the issues with processing the data.

Mary’s PowerPoint presentation can be found here

If you would like more information on how we can handle genre access points for your library catalog, please send an inquiry to [email protected].  Or give us a call at 800-531-7678.

Written by Carol Love

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.

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 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

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

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

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