Suggested Priorities for Bibliographic, Holding, and Item Record Maintenance

Originally authored by the Consortial Cataloging and Authority Control Committee (Fall, 2005)

Revisions and new projects by the I-Share Cataloging and Authority Control Team
(December 2009 through November 2011)

Newest projects added April 17, 2012

Introduction

Voyager’s pre-packaged reports, the I-Share shared SQL and shared macro web sites, and other resources offer a number of tools to help maintain our individual library databases. I-Share library staff have expressed an interest in a prioritized list of database cleanup activities so that they may focus on most urgent needs first. The following list is the I-Share Cataloging and Authority Control Team’s consensus on this question. The list is arranged in four categories: general good practice, then projects that should be done frequently, those that should be done occasionally, and those that should only need to be done once. Within each section, projects are listed in order of importance.

The projects listed here are believed to be of general interest to a number of libraries. It is recognized that individual libraries may have unique needs for projects based on their particular history, and are encouraged to adopt their own priorities, as well as develop queries and the corresponding maintenance procedures as needed. Libraries are responsible for correcting records as appropriate in their local Voyager database.

This document is based on queries and macros that are available at the time of writing. Because new queries and macros are regularly added to the shared SQL and Shared Macros pages, the list will expand from time to time.

For the fall 2009 revision of this document, ICAT adopted a set of “conceptual priorities” to help both the team in their assignments of priority order, and the user of this document decide on the relative importance of one project over another. These conceptual priorities have as their core the goal of “reducing patron annoyance,” and are described below.

#1 Delivery. These projects correct data problems that prevent efficient charging at the circulation desk, the placing of requests, or the efficient processing of requested items -- the patron has already identified the item she needs, and wants to get out of the door with the materials in hand with minimal difficulty at the circ desk. These projects are in the “Frequently” category, and at the top of that category.

#2 Locating. These projects correct data problems that prevent the patron from finding the item, already identified as desired, within the library or on the web, in the case of e-resources. These projects are in the “Frequently” category, but follow the Delivery-type of projects.

#3 Discovery. These projects correct data problems that will help the patron’s searching activities. These projects are in the “Occasionally” category, in priority order by these subcategories:

(3A) Data problems that prevent overall access in the local database, the I-Share Union Catalog, and/or other public interfaces (such as VuFind).

(3B) Adding/correcting access points to bibs in this order: titles, subjects, authors, control numbers, then “other,” including data elements such as language and format used for sorting/limiting.

(3C) Eliminating duplicate records in local databases or in the I-Share Union Catalog.

(3D) Enhancements to description or projects to bring records up to MARC standard coding, when the MARC coding errors don’t cause problems with a higher priority above.

#4 Legacy system data problems, that in theory once fixed should not recur. These projects are in the “Once” category, and use the same conceptual priorities as above.

Projects added in August 2011 are labeled as “<NEW 08/2011>”' projects added in November 2011 are labeled as “<NEW 11/2011>”; projects added in April 2012 are labeled as "<NEW 04/2012>".

For the December 2010 revision, an appendix was added to provide estimated run times for each of the SQL queries cited in this document. Note that there are several factors that affect the time it takes an Access query to run, so the timings in this appendix are just estimates. But it is hoped that they will help library staff with their implementation of the various maintenance projects described in this document.

Also for the December 2010 revision, some of the existing Shared SQL queries were revised or split into multiple queries to make them more efficient to run. The descriptions of these queries were revised in this document, and they are labeled “(REV. 12/2010).” Please note that the changes to these queries were made after the CARLI_reports_2009.mdb file was issued, so staff will need to copy the revised (and sometimes new) queries from the Shared SQL page to take advantage of the new queries.

Many of these projects are based on queries that can be found in the Local Catalog Maintenance section of the I-Share “Shared SQL for Reports in Voyager” web page <http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/secure/sql.html>. This webpage is secured, but should be able to be accessed without restrictions from I-Share campus IP addresses. To access this page from off-campus, enter your institutional affiliation and personal Voyager patron record barcode number at the prompts.

To run these queries on your personal workstation, you will need to install MS Access and the appropriate version of ODBC drivers. Instructions for configuring ODBC as well as an installation program are available from <http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/secure/execute.html#oracle10g>.

Your local information technology staff may be able to help with ODBC installation. If catalogers are not able to run these queries personally, other library staff who use MS Access may be able to run them for you; or, as a last resort, you may ask CARLI staff to run the queries for you by having your library’s I-Share Liaison submit a Work Request Online (WRO).

Some of the projects can be greatly facilitated through the use of Macro Express macros to correct the records using the Voyager cataloging client. Like the Shared SQL web page, there is also an I-Share Shared Macro web page at <http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/secure/macros.html>. This page is also secured. It includes instructions for downloading and using the Macro Express software, as well as postings of individual macros for a variety of cataloging tasks. All of the macros described in this document can be linked to from the above URL, and navigating to the “Macros for the Voyager Cataloging Client” section, then navigating to the appropriate type of record that each macro edits.

Some of the projects can be facilitated by using Voyager’s Pick and Scan functionality. More information about using Pick and Scan is available in the Voyager 7.2 Cataloging User’s Guide, chapter 7.

Some of the projects suggest that downloading fresh copies of bibs from OCLC may be an effective fix. One technique for doing this using the Connexion client’s batch processing options is described at <http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-serv/mem-train/090430cat/090430JW_RepairorTrade.pdf>.

Project Table of Contents

General good practice

G1. Use all of Voyager’s validation options in the cataloging client

G2. Consider implementation of OCLC’s Bibliographic Notification service

Projects to do Frequently

F1. Eliminate duplicate item barcodes

F2. Correct barcodes that do not contain the right number of digits, or add active barcodes to item records that lack them

F3. Eliminate “error” item type code

F4. Revise item record variable fields containing double quote character

F5. Resolve cases where item types are not consistent with an item’s location

F6. Resolve conflicts when item records have permanent locations different from the location in the MFHD

F7. Evaluate bibliographic records without MFHDs