<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Ellen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks so much for your reply. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>You are correct about the number
of workflows bogging down the system. We need the fewest number of workflows
possible. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I get the idea other
institutions base their decision on strategic planning-type initiatives. But strategic
planning is, most likely, strongly influenced by economics, for most places.
But I could be wrong. Joan would know more about that than I.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Patricia<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
yul-naco-bounces@mailman.yale.edu [mailto:yul-naco-bounces@mailman.yale.edu] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Jaramillo, Ellen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 21, 2008 12:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [yul-naco] Task Force to assess Latin Script Inputting
costs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>hi Patricia--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>re: your question:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>2. Do any Roman script catalogers in this group have
previous experience cataloging directly in OCLC…?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>yes, in the mid 90s i used to catalog directly in OCLC,
using the CAT-ME Plus software. i think that i was the only cataloger
doing that at the time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>re: "B" in your document--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>" Workflow tasks: These workflows would be drafts only,
based on the work during the “costs and ease-of-use study” above.
Adoption of a policy to fully implement direct inputting in OCLC would
necessitate more extensive policy creation, and detailed workflow
analyses. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>1. Draft a Latin-script original cataloging workflow for material
coming from acquisitions, or curatorial units.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>2. Draft a Latin-script copy cataloging workflow for
material coming from backlogs, acquisitions, or curatorial units.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>3. Draft a Latin-script copy cataloging workflow for material
that has been batchmatched, and thus already has a record in Voyager.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>4. Draft a Latin-script copy cataloging workflow for
material with vendor records in Voyager. " <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>i think that the more variations that we introduce to our
workflow tends to bog down the work (more pipelines=more obfuscation=more time
spent per item). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>i'm also wondering how the "triage" would be
accomplished; how would staff know whether an item coming into their team needs
copy or original cataloging, or whether its been batchmatched or has a vendor
record--until they open up that bib. in Voyager? (were you thinking that
Acquisitions or the curatorial units could route those items differently, or
somehow mark them with what kind of record there is? if not, and staff
need to look at the bib. in Voyager to determine what kind of treatment each
item requires, i wonder if we need to establish four separate workflows. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>and just curious--what's going into determining the cost
variations between cataloging in Voyager and in OCLC? have
any of our peer institutions done any similar cost analyses?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>-thanks, ej. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
yul-naco-bounces@mailman.yale.edu [mailto:yul-naco-bounces@mailman.yale.edu] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Thurston, Patricia<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 21, 2008 11:06 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> yul-naco@mailman.yale.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [yul-naco] Task Force to assess Latin Script Inputting costs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Good morning. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>From the CMS 2008/2009 Goals:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Goal 1, Action 10:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>10. Assess the cost variations between working in Voyager
and working in OCLC, for Latin script materials, both copy and original
cataloging. [May-Jun. 2008, Joan Swanekamp will appoint Task Force]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>As I recall, Meg had asked Joan to ask us to include this
goal, because inputting directly into OCLC might be the best workflow and
management strategy sometime in the future, if we should ever choose to
participate in OCLC WorldCat Local, or other similar Next Generation OPAC OCLC
projects. JOAN, and others: Please let me know if I am in error here. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Last week Joan asked me to write a draft charge for this
task force, and consider what tasks we needed to do to accomplish the action
above. Attached is a rough draft. I have three requests:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>1. What have I left out? What should I change? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>2. Do any Roman script catalogers in this group have
previous experience cataloging directly in OCLC, besides myself? Please let me
know. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>3. Would anyone like to volunteer for this short term task
force? Any Roman script NACO catalogers are welcome. If there are any non-Roman
script catalogers who would like to volunteer, I would say "yes",
although we will not be testing parallel script inputting as part of this task
force's work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I am writing NACO catalog librarians, as we already have
experience inputting directly into OCLC, as well as in-depth cataloging
experience, thus saving us some valuable training time. We should probably
review the OCLC policies for bibliographic record creation and editing, and we
need folks who can learn these policies quickly.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I am also attaching a time-study draft I was originally
thinking of using for assessing the costs of adding non-Roman script fields. I
think I got an earlier version from Matthew who was going to do a similar
survey for electronic cataloging. Then CMS had two months of survey overload,
and the idea of having yet another survey was highly unpopular. We need to edit
this survey for the current task force, but I'm including the older version
here, along with the draft charge. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Many thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Patricia Thurston<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Assistant Department Head, Catalog & Metadata Services<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Team Leader, Slavic & East European Cataloging<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Sterling Memorial Library<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Yale University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Phone: 203-432-8424<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Fax: 203-432-7231<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>