Category Archives: Technology

– software
– hardware
– tools and systems

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.