Category Archives: Technology

– software
– hardware
– tools and systems

Metadata, Operations, Technology

The Ebook MARC Record Working Group

Introduction

The Ebook MARC Record Working Group has been an enjoyable, interesting, and especially productive Collections Services collaboration with the numbers to prove it. The working group formed in early 2023 to plan and prioritize a series of projects to improve DUL’s ebook MARC record policies, workflows, lifecycle management, and documentation.

The Duke libraries jointly hold over 3.29 million ebooks in their collections, and managing ebook records is a workflow that depends on multiple departments within Collections Services. This includes ebooks acquired monographically (via GOBI, international publishers, and other suppliers) by Monograph Acquisitions, ebook packages acquired by E-Resources & Serials Acquisitions, the oversight of bibliographic record quality and several specific local record projects by Resource Description, and the batch loading and systematic processing of ebook records by Metadata & Discovery Strategy. Because ebook workflows are so collaborative by nature, bringing colleagues from each of these departments together into regular meetings made communicating and creating a shared understanding of workflows, handover, and issues much more manageable and successful.

Ebook Working Group Members

  • Leeda Adkins (Metadata & Discovery Strategy)
  • Heather Baker (Metadata & Discovery Strategy)
  • Stephen Conrad (Monograph Acquisitions)
  • Alaina Deane (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions)
  • Jessica Janecki (Resource Description) – Co-convener
  • Xiaoyan Song (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions)
  • Abby Wickes (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions) – Co-convener

Ebook Working Group Advisors

  • Virginia Martin (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions)
  • Jacquie Samples (Metadata & Discovery Strategy)
  • Natalie Sommerville (Resource Description)

Setting the stage

When the working group formed in early 2023, DUL was several months away from the exciting announcement that we would implement Alma in summer 2024. We were still using Aleph and the Ex Libris 360 knowledgebase with 360 MARC services for ebook access management, with the expectation of one day implementing FOLIO. The working group was charged with mediating a number of ongoing issues among these systems and the vendors and publishers supplying ebook records with various contexts and caveats. The library relied on the 360 knowledgebase and 360 MARC as often as possible, but this was not always a viable approach. Some vendors would not partner with Ex Libris, or the metadata was unacceptably slow to be added to the 360 services (especially for current content.)

Because of these limitations, some ebook records were managed locally in Aleph by intention or necessity. Additionally, Aleph contained many legacy ebook records that were redundant or inaccurate. There was very little institutional knowledge or documentation of these local records, or whether the ebooks had eventually become available in the 360 systems. Since Aleph is a legacy system that was not designed for e-resources, it could be difficult to uncover these ebook records proactively without knowing what to look for. This led to problems with duplication or stale, outdated, and inaccurate information in older local records. The working group would often only become aware of a batch of local ebook records if a patron found an ebook catalog result with a broken link or other incorrect information that was a barrier to access.

Getting to work

Charged to investigate an array of known issues from the group’s advisors, the working group began assessing where to start:

  • Document, at a comprehensive level, Duke University Libraries Collections Services workflows, for eBook MARC record workflows that intersect with all aspects of the lifecycle (transforming, loading, auditing) of all eBook records from any source. Documentation should be accessible to all library staff.
  • Codify policy of acceptability for eBook records supplied by Ex Libris and other vendors, articulating clearly what is an acceptable level of completeness, what local changes to records are in scope, and circumstances under which DULCS will not load title-level records.
  • Assess and investigate feasibility of migrating legacy and on-going loads of vendor-supplied records to 360 MARC.
  • Determine timeline for making eBooks available through local loads, including developing a policy regarding acceptable lag time for availability of 360 MARC records.
  • Identify issues that are tangential but outside the scope of the Team and make brief recommendations as to who/how they might be addressed.

After reviewing this list and some of the ongoing problems known to each department, the group prioritized documenting workflows, codifying a policy for managing local ebook record access when 360 MARC was not an available option, and systematically identifying and cleaning up local ebook records in Aleph with the goal of transitioning as many as possible to 360 MARC and clearly documenting ebook records that could only be managed locally.

Accomplishments

To make progress on these three goals, the working group met approximately every other week to identify records for cleanup, identify workflows for documentation, and consider nuances for a local load policy. These regular meetings had the additional benefit of leading to a broader shared understanding of each department’s role in the ebook workflow, including the opportunity to learn about minor problems in one department that could surface for other departments, such as unexpected delays with 360 MARC loading that might lead to patron confusion on AskTech. Routine communication also made highly complex, interdependent problems much easier to tackle. The working group’s policy is available for review in Box, the documentation progress is available in the Collections Services wiki, and the group’s ebook record cleanup project work resulted in the removal of almost 250,000 duplicate or error-ridden local records, as well as the addition of over 33,000 records that were never available in the catalog. (Please note, this includes ebooks as well as primary source material from several Gale databases the working group was also asked to review.)

Alma and future projects

The ebook record cleanup was a major benefit when implementing Alma in July 2024, since so many older local records were removed from Aleph and did not migrate old problems into the new system. The established communication and broader understanding of issues was also an asset during the early months of Alma when the library experienced some growing pains with e-resource linking in the Books & Media catalog and while setting up and establishing new workflows, such as GOBI import profiles. Although the working group will revisit the local record policy in light of inevitable workflow changes in a new system, we are optimistic that much of the core philosophy of managing local records will still be applicable. Now that the library has been working with Alma for a few months, the working group is taking advantage of enhanced functionality for some additional project work. Creating sets and running jobs is an extremely helpful and powerful tool that the group is already considering for a project to identify and review certain sets of local records that migrated from Aleph, and creating local collections will be a much more robust way to manage local records than tracking them in a spreadsheet. Alma will present innumerable learning opportunities for everyone at the library, but the Ebook Working Group is here for it.

Operations, Spotlight, Technology

Alma in Practice: Teams Leads of Collections Services

In the Collections Services division, there is a small, but mighty group of staff members who lead and encourage other staff, are an important part of planning and operationalizing workflows, and who do all this while also doing front-line work.  This group is composed of six team leads whose responsibilities span acquisition of print and online resources, managing discovery of and access to that large constellation of resources, and preparation of materials for library shelves.   What better way to end the three-part Alma series than by sharing team leads’ reflections on implementation and go-live.  Two common threads throughout the reflections team leads shared for this post were gratitude for the deepening of relationships within and across teams, as well as the importance of maintaining an iterative mindset as we all try out new workflows and functionality in Alma.

 

Challenges and opportunities are two sides of one coin.  Implementing a new system came with a lot of opportunities, but was not without challenges. Let’s focus on challenges first, and then we will talk about the opportunities that team leads leveraged before and after going live in Alma.  To facilitate going live, the previous system, Aleph, had to sunset on June 10 as described in a previous blog post.  Focusing on what could be done during the space between two systems was a significant pivot from the normal production-oriented approach to work, especially during the month of June when Collections Services is normally sprinting toward the end of Duke’s fiscal year.  Staff with acquisitions responsibilities had to end the financial year much earlier than usual in order to sunset Aleph.  Staff in other departments were also busy trying to wrap up data migration and cleanup projects before Aleph sunsetted.  Focusing on what staff could do, rather than what they could not do was a challenge facing team leads during this pivot point.  Other challenges were present, too, and required team leads to lead through uncertainty.  Notable among these was an  electronic resource migration issue caused by corrupted data.  At one point, it was not clear whether the issue could be addressed systematically (thankfully, it could be), or whether frontline staff were facing an extensive project post go-live.  Alma’s multiple functional options coupled with limits on what could be tested pre-go live also caused uncertainty.  Some decisions on workflows and practices were made immediately before going live in Alma and could really only be tested after the new system came up.  After go-live, it took time to develop clarity on the relationship between downstream and upstream work in the Collections Services lifecycle and to understand more fully how Alma handles certain data types like data about item records for physical resources.  Work, in general, took a little more time to do as team leads and a small group of Alma early users worked to get other staff, including student assistants, up to speed.

Now, on to the rewards side of the coin.  Team leads cited a variety of rewarding experiences pre- and post-go live, many of them closely tied to the challenges that were discussed above.  Staff working on describing resources that are new and unique or distinctive to Duke University Libraries collections were able to leverage the larger ecosystem in which they work.  Because a substantial portion of this work occurs in the OCLC WorldCat system, these staff members were able to continue creating catalog records during the period between Aleph and Alma. Though there were limitations on Alma testing and decision-making prior to going live, a certain amount of training and practice was still possible, and teams made headway on developing workflows, decisions, and documentation.   Team leads noted how nice it was to reap the benefits of training and practice once Alma went live and it was possible to perform daily tasks.  Team leads and other Alma early users were also ready onboard other staff.  It was evident from the ebb and flow of physical materials through Collection Services spaces that operations had successfully resumed– from receiving a recently-ordered resource into our workflows to describing it, to printing the all-important spine label that allows library users to find books on the library shelves.  Check out a recent video from Duke University Libraries that shows how the Littlest Blue Devil finds a book in the stacks.  Teams working with electronic resources were also able to resume daily tasks and work to provide the best user discovery experience for the Libraries’ millions of electronic resources while staff in other library units worked to sync the Books & Media Catalog with Alma.  The biggest reward during this period of planning for go-live, getting up to speed in Alma after going live, and resuming operations was the colleagues we work with every day.  Team leads cited gratitude for their teams, for the generosity of colleagues in answering questions, and for the opportunity to learn more about how different workflows in Collections Services overlap.

Against the backdrop of generally increasing proficiency in navigating Alma’s interface and options, team leads have many aspirations for the first six months in our new system.  A number of these cluster around best uses of Alma.  Team leads are eager to make the most effective use of  Alma functionality as possible.  They want to maintain an open mind about changing workflows and processes in a way that uses Alma’s built-in functionality to its best advantage.  One team lead described go-live workflows as “Plan A” workflows that will evolve as we use and familiarize ourselves with the system every day.  Alma presents new opportunities for tracking movement of physical items across library locations effectively, using batch processing to update call numbers, leaning further into functionality for reporting and updating sets of data.  It also presents a new opportunity for a truly integrated system that can manage both print and electronic resources. This integrated functionality and how best to leverage the new possibilities for electronic resources management is top of mind.

Threaded throughout all team leads’ challenges, rewarding experiences, and aspirations is the desire to continue building on the communication and teamwork that has marked Alma implementation in Collections Services.

Collections, Projects, Technology

Introducing the E-Resources Access & Troubleshooting FAQs

Earlier this year, Amelia Rodarte and Zhaneille Green began a project to create an E-Resources Troubleshooting FAQ knowledge bank. They decided to make a resource for Duke University Libraries (DUL) front-facing library staff who troubleshoot e-resource access issues of varying complexities.

E-Resources Access and Troubleshooting FAQ Homepage

 

How did we start?

We conducted research to see what DUL troubleshooting resources existed, what type of tools other academic institutions used, what existing literature stated, and what the previous findings of DUL access and discovery working groups were. We also wanted to hear from our colleagues, so we sent out surveys and conducted interviews, which helped us decide on the type of questions and issues that affected our patrons and library staff. After synthesizing our research, qualitative, and quantitative results, we selected the best available tool for our project.

Our tool of choice was the previously untouched Springshare LibAnswers FAQ tool. It allowed us to create an internal staff knowledge bank  of questions and answers to solve common and uncommon e-resource questions and issues. We’ve also assigned topics and keywords to each FAQ so users can search for what they need.

IR Troubleshooting Meme

Why make it?

In the world of e-resources, our access can be affected by who owns what, how long we’ve licensed a resource, whether we keep any access to a resource if we stop renewing the license, etc. We created this resource because while Duke University is affected by the usual suspects, it also has its own e-resource access nuances.

 

Currently, the FAQs with the most views are:

You will notice that all four cover general access information and specific access nuances. Our entire list of FAQs is a mix of e-resource information and Duke-specific access issues. We wanted to demystify some aspects of e-resources for our colleagues. For example, some librarians might not be aware that DKU patrons lost access to specific resources after licensing negotiations.

Use Cases

Here are some different ways DUL library staff can use our FAQ resource for:

  • Troubleshooting e-resource access issues
  • Adding it to new staff orientation packets
  • Referring to it for current information on access changes

Where do we go from here?

We have a maintenance plan to update our FAQs. Amelia and I plan to review our FAQ list every six months. We will also keep adding new FAQs and updating the current ones when needed throughout the year.

Where can you find it?

You can find the E-Resource Access FAQs at Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions – Collections Services.

Metadata, Operations, Technology

Alma July Update

Remember the late-May post about sunsetting the system that runs the back end of the catalog and multiple discovery portals at Duke? That post concluded with a promise to provide late-July reflections from members of the  Collections Services division on work that led up to sunsetting our previous system, Aleph, and launching our new system, Alma.

Screenshot of the Alma ILS with an arrow pointing to the total number of bibliographic records.

Well, July passed in a flurry of go-live activity. This activity happened on the heels of much work  leading up to flipping the “on” switch for Alma on the morning of July 10, 2024. By noon that day, Duke University Libraries was once again open for business with a new system. Collection Services staff were already busy at work in Alma by that time and have been busy this month ensuring that access to electronic resources continues to work reliably, advising on data syncing between Alma and the Books & Media catalog, populating the system with budgets for ordering library materials, updating catalog records singly and in batch, and scanning items into system process types that allow for granular tracking and routing— among many other things! The unifying feature of all this work is that it took and will continue to take teamwork across the whole Collections Services division. Stay tuned for the next Alma post that will close the loop on the late-May post and present staff reflections on work time during the period between Aleph and Alma, what was most rewarding (and most) challenging immediately before and right after go-live, and what we hope we learn about Alma during the first six months with the system.

Metadata, Projects, Technology

The MADS and LSC Workflow Partnership

What is the MADS partnership and how did it start?

Kristina Thomas

MADS, which stands for Metadata and Discovery Strategy, is a department that works in Collection Services in Smith, Bay 10. I work in the LSC  (Library Service Center) as a Senior Library Assistant, where I’ve been for a little over a year. In the LSC, which is off campus, it can be a bit difficult to work with librarians a lot. We’re an offsite storage facility and we don’t see many of them. Dracine Hodges, who is the Associate University Librarian for Collections Services, and Jacquie Samples, who is the MADS department head, developed the idea of the workflow partnership. They worked with the LSC manager, Marvin Tillman, and the Associate University Librarian and Director of Financial and Facility Services, Jameca Dupree, to begin a workflow partnership that would help both the LSC and the MADS department.

As an employee at the LSC, I go over to Smith once a week. I work closely with the MADS team, particularly Jacquie Samples and Heather Baker, on record cleanup, checking records in CaiaSoft and Alma research/implementation. It’s good for our departments to work together because, over at the LSC, we do have a lot of experience in CaiaSoft. It’s also helpful for me because I’ve learned a lot about Aleph and Alma, the new software that DUL is migrating to. A full migration occurs in the summer of 2024. I have also been Alma certified and take notes/knowledge learned about Alma to my LSC coworkers. It’s been a mutually beneficial partnership as we continue to do record cleanup and transition to Alma.

How has MADS helped you become better in your position?

I’ve certainly become more knowledgeable during my time in MADS. I’m not accustomed to working in Aleph Cataloging and I had no knowledge concerning Alma. It was good to be on this team that directly works in Alma. It has helped to keep me on track as we continue the transition. I’ve also learned about several jobs that are completed by the MADS team in software that I didn’t have much experience in, so I’m getting to learn something else that is newer territory. I’ve also worked on record cleanup, assigned remote storage IDs and looked at collection codes, all in Aleph Cataloging. During my time here, I’ve also become more comfortable working with people outside of the LSC in CaiaSoft and I’ve really accepted my role and become more confident in explaining the software and being able to confidently answer questions. Being offsite in the LSC made me feel a bit distant from the other libraries, so constantly corresponding with these librarians has been extremely beneficial for me. I’ve also learned a lot about Alma. I feel more prepared for the migration than I would’ve had this workflow partnership never happened.

What were your challenges and what did you feel most confident about going into this workflow partnership?

I would say that I felt confident about everything that I have worked on in the LSC. This includes all our CaiaSoft functions. I had already met Jacquie and we had an informative conversation, so I felt comfortable because I use CaiaSoft every day. I felt comfortable being able to answer CaiaSoft questions or check items in CaiaSoft and look for item reports. I also felt comfortable in Aleph Circulation as these are both software that are used daily in the LSC.

My biggest challenge was that I don’t work on the same jobs that the MADS team works on. I also didn’t have the same knowledge. They work with Metadata. MARC fields and the terminology are different, so I felt a bit out of the loop. They are, of course, also very knowledgeable in Alma and I was really starting out so I didn’t feel as if I could contribute very much. I now believe that it has become mutually beneficial because I’m learning that our workflow connects both of our software and examines the relationship between them. We can both answer each other’s questions. They were also extremely nice when it came to pacing and stopping to explain things or answer any questions that I may have.

What have you enjoyed the most about this workflow partnership?

For me, it’s a great learning experience. I’ve learned a lot about other software that I’ve become more accustomed to using. I’ve been able to learn a lot about what they do in Metadata. I’ve gotten to work on the other side of Aleph that I never worked in before. As a librarian, it’s good to have knowledge of software, even if you don’t constantly use it. I’m confident that this knowledge will be beneficial as I move forward in my career. I also believe that it has helped me with professional communication skills. As for the LSC, it can be a challenge to uphold communication with other librarians at Duke. We don’t come into contact with them that often so coming to Smith has strengthened that communication and it broadens my interests as well.

What do you hope to achieve going forward?

I hope to learn as much as I possibly can. I’d like to be a well-rounded librarian. It’s important to take the time to work with other groups of people and learn their perspectives. I hope to continue working with the MADS group as well as other groups and librarians around Duke, and even outside of Duke. It’s been a great learning and networking experience. It will help me continue to grow and learn as a librarian. I also hope that my interest and knowledge continue to broaden, and more workflow opportunities are available for me in the future.

As for this MADS group, I hope to continue working with them, even after the implementation of Alma. I hope to be able to continue communicating with them and that this partnership opens up more opportunities here at Duke where I get to work with more people.

Technology

Our New Collections Services Documentation Portal

Depending on how much you use the DUL Collections Services Documentation Portal (CSDP), you may or may not have been surprised to see this alarmingly yellow banner at the top of the page when recently visiting the space:

Yellow banner text from the header of the Duke Wiki that says: "DukeWiki spaces have migrated to https://duke.atlassian.net/wiki Please login with your netid@duke.edu"

Our old space migrated to a cloud environment in a (mostly) seamless transition to a space that looks and feels very much like the old pages. The layouts of both the “Open to All” and “Staff Only” pages should be familiar to users of the previous documentation portal, and hopefully users find the new spaces easy to navigate. The new public page can be found here, and the staff-only page is here. While the old wiki has a link directing visitors to the new space, it is a good idea to update any bookmarks as soon as possible in case the re-directing link disappears at some point.

The CSDP continues to be a valuable resource for Collections Services staff as well as external users, housing over 300 pages of documentation. The pages are regularly reviewed and updated, which means fewer errors due to outdated information, faster updates on improved processes, and easier training for new employees. Upkeep of the CSDP will be critical in the coming months as we transition from Aleph to Alma and update our documentation accordingly.

If you have not yet visited the new documentation portal, we encourage you to browse the pages. If you are Collections Services staff and encounter any issues, please use the online ticketing system to let us know. For users in CS logging into the DUL staff-only site, you will need to use the netID version of your email address to trigger the Shibboleth log in, not the alias version. It should be formatted as netid@duke.edu.

Overall, the transition has been successful, and we appreciate the contributions of CS staff as we look forward to this year of big changes in Collections Services.

Community, Metadata, Projects, Spotlight, Technology

A Year in MADS: Heather Baker

Heather Baker

In August, Heather Baker, Metadata Associate at Duke University Libraries (DUL), celebrates her one-year anniversary as a full-time member of the Metadata & Discovery Strategy (MADS) team in Collections Services. Before the pandemic, Heather worked as a practicum student, volunteer, and intern on the MADS team, and she now contributes as an official Duke employee. We asked Heather to share some of her experiences with us from her first year.

In what areas did you feel most successful this year?

I think I succeeded in becoming an integral part of the MADS team and taking on tasks so that my fellow team members could focus on time-sensitive projects. Fortunately, MADS has been incredibly supportive and offered their time and expertise whenever I have needed it.

If I had to pick one project that was the most gratifying, it would be a cleanup project that I completed of close to 1.5 million records. While it seemed daunting at the outset, I successfully tackled it and recently checked it off my to-do list. The project involved reviewing and updating internal notes on item records, and it gave me an interesting glimpse into the library’s history. Many notes offered a timeline of a book, for example, “this book was lost in 1977 but has been found.” Some notes were so old that it was difficult tracking down anyone who might remember what those notes meant. One of my favorite notes said, “mysteriously appeared on shelf.” That’s a mystery that will likely never be solved. Overall, I was able to make these records a little bit cleaner, which is always rewarding. I also enjoyed a few book hunts through the stacks—many records had conflicting data, and an item that displayed as “lost” to patrons was actually on the shelves. Those items are now back in the circulating collection.

What did you find most challenging?

What is so interesting about MADS is that we don’t concentrate on only one process or project. There is always something new to do, and it might be completely different from what I worked on last. My challenge has been reminding myself that I will continually be presented with unfamiliar tasks and that it’s okay to feel like a beginner even after I’ve been here for a year.

What areas did you focus the most energy on?

My focus has been on data cleanup when I’m not working on routine tasks. I enjoy the meticulousness of record cleanup, and it feels good to know that I’m improving the discovery layer with each record I touch. And data cleanup has been a great way for me to learn a variety of Aleph and Aleph Reporting Center (ARC) services. It’s fun to narrow down what I’m trying to accomplish, figure out the logic of how to do it, and then find a way to execute using Aleph and ARC. I’m not always successful the first (or second, or third) time, but I enjoy the trial and error, and I have a great support system in MADS with many decades of combined expertise.

Did anything surprise you about Duke, Collections Services, or your team?

I’m surprised at how the novelty of coming to work every day has not worn off, and I think part of the reason is because I haven’t met anyone in Collections Services who appears to not like their job. In my experience it’s rare for an organization to have staff who all seem to genuinely enjoy what they do, and it makes for a great atmosphere to work in every day.

What have you most enjoyed about working in MADS?

What I’ve found most challenging has also been what I’ve most enjoyed. The new experiences that I have weekly, if not daily, make for an exciting list of projects, and as a team we enjoy figuring out solutions to new problems. It has also been great completing some less urgent projects that the team had not been able to get to in the past. The small but mighty MADS team gets the job done!

Another thing that I love about MADS is that there is never a shortage of book recommendations. My to-read list has grown considerably since I started. And chances are that someone on the team has read whatever I’m reading, so there’s always someone to discuss it with.

What do you hope to achieve in the coming year?

I’m looking forward to helping in any way I can with the Alma migration. It’s exciting to make such a major change and have everyone learning a new system at the same time. I’d also like to focus on bringing the Collections Services Documentation Portal up to the standards of Duke’s latest Web Accessibility Guidelines. Thanks to a fantastic DUL Libraries Summer Camp session on writing alternative text and helpful Duke staff, I feel ready to do what I can to improve the quality of our Collections Services resources.

 

Metadata, Operations, Technology

CIP at DUL: Taking one for the Team

A Cataloging in Publication record (CIP record) is a bibliographic record that the Library of Congress provides to publishers. It is included on the verso of the title page of the book, facilitating the processing of the book by libraries and book dealers. The Library of Congress also distributes these records weekly, in machine readable form, to large libraries, bibliographic services, and book vendors around the world.

Publishers submit applications to the Library of Congress (LoC), and the LoC creates the CIP records for the books, which are then sent back to the publisher. This is a service offered to publishers at no other cost than sending a complimentary copy of the books summited for CIP to the LoC. Only U.S. publishers are eligible to participate in the CIP Program. To qualify for the program, every publisher must have a list of at least three titles by three different authors, and these titles must have been acquired by a minimum of 1,000 U.S. libraries.

The program was established in 1971. A year later the LoC partnered with the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to provide CIPs. Through the years, other 32 United States libraries have joined the CIP Partnership Program of the LoC.  Duke University Libraries (DUL) joined in 2008 and agreed to provide the CIPs for the books published by Duke University Press (DUP). In most cases, the partner library catalogs the books published by its own institution. For many years the CIP Program focused only on print publications. From October 2011, the program broadened its scope to include titles published in electronic and print format simultaneously. All partners libraries are NACO and BIBCO members, thus guaranteeing the quality of the cataloging.

When Duke joined the CIP Partnership Program in 2008, the Library of Congress provided a Windows based Text Capture and Electronic Conversion (TCEC) application called On the Marc. This software was developed by Library of Congress’ staff to produce MARC21 records from electronic data. The   manuscript files submitted by publishers provide the source of the electronic data for the CIP records. On the Marc was configured specifically for use with the OCLC Connexion cataloging client.  After the cataloger completed a preliminary record using On the MARC, the record was sent to the OCLC Connexion client, where the cataloger completed the full cataloging of the ECIP. Afterwards, the record (or records) were uploaded to a Duke University server directory as an OCLC Connexion “Local Save” file and harvested by the LoC.

In May 2019 the LoC CIP Program launched a new, more user-friendly, customer service application, the PrePublication Book Link (PPBL).

Dark-mode screenshot of PPBL sidebar

Things work slightly different in PPBL.  The publisher, in our case DUP, submits the CIPs applications that are then picked up by one of the two, at the moment, cataloguers at DUL in charge of creating the CIP records. In the PPBL app, “My Group’s CIP” includes all active CIP applications of the institution, and “My CIP” includes all active CIP applications picked up by each individual cataloger.

Table of CIP application from an institution

The information included in the CIP application is the Library of Congress Control number (LCCN), title, status, priority (This will be used to indicate the CIP is a RUSH request by the publisher this field, 1-Critical.), subject, assignment group, assigned to, print month and year and date it was created.

CIP application form screenshot

The CIP Program requires that a single galley file in PDF be attached to the CIP Request in PrePub Book Link.

Dropdown menu with "full cataloging" marked with red arrowPPBL MARC editor screenshot

Once the cataloger accepts the CIP application, she changes the status to full cataloging and proceeds to open the MARC Editor in a new browser tab, where some editing is available (e.g.  adding the 505 table of contents).

MARC record downloaded to computerRecord import dialog box

After that, the record is downloaded to the computer and, from there, imported to OCLC to complete the cataloging.

Export of file settings in ConnexionRemoval of fields in export in Connexion

Once the bib record is completed following the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) guidelines, we export it to a file created specifically for that record using the LCCN, and delete the MARC field tags 001, 003, and 049.

Back in the PPBL, we upload the record using the Partner Cataloger MARC Upload feature and ingest the record in the catalogue VOYAGER of the LoC. If all works well, a success message will be displayed. At this point, we are ready for the final steps in the process: adding the Call number to the PPBL and sending that information to Dewey, the next assignment group, by changing the status from “full cataloging” to “Dewey”. By clicking “save” once the status has been changed to Dewey, the CIP is automatically deleted from the side of the PPBL that we have access to.

There are significant differences in workflow between On the Marc and PPBL:

Flowchart of On the Marc and PPBL workflows

In On the Marc the cataloger sent the bib record directly to OCLC. Once they were ready, she saved them on a specific file to be harvested by LoC.  By contrast, in the PPBL application, the records are downloaded to the computer and imported to OCLC; once they are completed, they are again downloaded to the computer, and uploaded by the cataloger, one by one, to the PPBL and to the VOYAGER catalog.

As far as editing is concerned, the PPBL app constitutes an improvement but there remains quite a bit of editing to be done in fields like the 505.

TOC content input screenTOC generation confirmation screen

For example, the software allows us to remove common words like “chapter” but we still have to remove and edit the text. In addition, some diacritics don’t translate well and the order of the title / author sometimes needs to be flipped manually, like in the example below.

Diacritic mark that needs to be fixedFixed diacritic example

The improvements from On the Marc to PPBL may seem unexciting. It is hard to imagine many of you bewildered by the specifics of the changes outlined above.

Questions about the usefulness of this enterprise may remain. After all, what is the point of what seems a rather convoluted process of information sharing. The answer is simple: to provide, through the coordination efforts of the Library of Congress, a public good in an efficient, decentralized fashion. Each record we upload to CIP is a high quality contribution to the rest of library world. Jointly, we cooperate, helping each other and staying true to the mission of organizing the dissemination of knowledge as presses are ready to share it with world.