[yul-naco] Task Force to assess Latin Script Inputting costs

[Jaramillo, Ellen]

hi Patricia--
re: your question:
2. Do any Roman script catalogers in this group have previous experience cataloging directly in OCLC...?
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.

re: "B" in your document--
" 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.
1. Draft a Latin-script original cataloging workflow for material coming from acquisitions, or curatorial units.
2. Draft a Latin-script copy cataloging workflow for material coming from backlogs, acquisitions, or curatorial units.
3. Draft a Latin-script copy cataloging workflow for material that has been batchmatched, and thus already has a record in Voyager.
4. Draft a Latin-script copy cataloging workflow for material with vendor records in Voyager.   "

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).
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.

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?
-thanks, ej.




From: yul-naco-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [mailto:yul-naco-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Thurston, Patricia
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:06 AM
To: yul-naco at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: [yul-naco] Task Force to assess Latin Script Inputting costs

Good morning.

>From the CMS 2008/2009 Goals:
Goal 1, Action 10:
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]

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.

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:

1. What have I left out? What should I change?
2. Do any Roman script catalogers in this group have previous experience cataloging directly in OCLC, besides myself? Please let me know.
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.

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.

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.

Many thanks,

Patricia Thurston
Assistant Department Head, Catalog & Metadata Services
Team Leader, Slavic & East European Cataloging
Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University

Phone: 203-432-8424
Fax: 203-432-7231

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/yul-naco/attachments/20080721/30f7f202/attachment.html