TO: OULUG Members (OCLC Union List Users Group)
FROM: Johanna Bowen, Chair
DATE: 8 January 1993
RE: Minutes of the Meeting held at ALA, San Francisco, 30 June 1992
NOTE: Next Meeting will be at ALA, Monday, 25 January 1993, 8 - 10 pm
Location will be in ALA Program as an UNO [Unofficial] Event
AGENDA FOR MIDWINTER:
1) Report from OCLC, Linda Arnold from Resource Sharing
2) Planning for program at Annual Meeting in New Orleans
3) General discussion of Union Listing problems etc.
4) Report on study of ILL-L discussions about Union Listing
Serials Union List Off-line Products Discussion
A discussion of the current off-line products revealed that there
are two main uses of off-line products: (1) creation of local
lists of titles and holdings and (2) the promotion of resource
sharings.
Some of the activities mentioned by attendees were:
-- Two CD-ROM orders for statewide CDs were planned (Kansas and
NY).
-- General consensus was that CDs were not economical for small
union lists but would be very cost effective for large systems
with wide distribution.
-- Some tape users are producing their own CD product for mem-
bers.
-- Overall, the use of tape has grown. The use of fiche is drop-
ping, and paper off-line products appear to be holding their
own.
PRISM Union List System
Discussion of PRISM Union Listing and possible enhancements to
functionality:
-- OCLC is investigating having union listing integrated with
cataloging activities.
-- Friendlier display of holdings information.
-- Labeled displays.
-- 4-character code display.
Off-line Products Suggested Enhancements
-- Ability to order off-line products by format.
-- More flexibility or options for the appearance of off-line
products in the future.
-- 3-letter codes translated into name of institution
Online Use of Union List Summary Information
Discussed what we know of the desires of resource sharing ILL
staff who use these union lists. It was reported that the ILL-L
listserver had a heated exchange in which union lists were praised
and defended.
Union Listing and the USMARC Format for Holdings Data
Discussed the topic of the future conversion of OCLC LDR holdings
formatted data into MARC Format for Holdings. We expect that the
866 will carry all the information currently in the LDR. MARC
holdings requires parallel 853 and 863, and the current data would
not support building both fields. Users were encouraged to exam-
ine the 866 subfields to reassure themselves that "free text" did
not mean that all previous information would become a text string.
The future LDR probably will have the current information mapped
in the 866.
Future of Union Listing
Concern was expressed by many of those present for the future
integrity of data in the union list. Many of the union lists
were built with state or government funded projects. Maintenance
has not been consistently supported. As libraries contract,
cancel and adjust subscriptions in response to cutbacks in fund-
ing, LDR corrections are necessary. At the local level, it
becomes a question of resources. Libraries should be allocating
resources to correct data in their local system as well as the
national system.
When the group looked forward and addressed the projected viabili-
ty of union lists, there seemed to be unanimous agreement that for
at least ten years, there would still be a union list. One par-
ticipant in the discussion wondered if the union lists would all
be still in OCLC in ten years. Another participant said the
threat of EDI and document delivery systems was overrated.
Regionally Approved Notes
The consensus was that consistency within a union list group is
more important than consistency nationwide. No one at the meeting
had complaints to voice or report from ILL users of the union
lists that minor variations in language affected usefulness. For
example: "Latest 10 years in:"
hard copy
print copy
bond copy
paper copy
ILL users of the list have not been complaining if they encounter
any of those notes, because it is not a problem to interpret any
one correctly.
Automated Maintenance of Local Data Records
A discussion of the feasibility of export/import capability for
LDRs:
1. Cannot be done easily
2. Must be done by two groups: OCLC and all the vendors who sup-
port local systems.
3. The problem is very basic. In order to successfully transfer
holdings updates electronically, the library must first have
supporting programming done by the vendor which formats data
so that OCLC can accept it. OCLC cannot be expected to adapt
import programs to accommodate any future form that data could
be transmitted in.
4. OCLC representatives explained that an additional numeric
identifier unique to each LDR would be necessary for the
complex task of maintaining unique data on the national data-
base via tape or electronic transfer. It was explained that
an OCLC number as we know it is inadequate, because any li-
brary could have 4 LDRs attached to a bib record.
Other Topics Discussed
Future cataloging of serials will be enriched by the fact that as
of May 1992, tape loading members have had serials cataloging
added to the OLUC as well as monographs.
Concern was expressed again about inclusion of computer files in
the union list. If the computer file record is encoded "s" at the
Bib lvl, then the LDR holdings will be included in current
off-line products.
OCLC Resource Sharing would like to hear from anyone currently
working with off-line products from OCLC union list and the USMARC
format for holdings. If anyone is working with these forms of
data, please contact Resource Sharing at OCLC to relate your
experiences and/or needs for the future.
Recorded by,
Johanna Bowen, Serials Librarian
SUNY Cortland
bowen@snycorva
