Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Preprocessing Materials for a Remote Storage FacilityBrian DobreskiCatalog [email protected]
2
Syracuse University Library Background
—Set of 5 libraries across campus of Syracuse University, upstate New York
—Voyager ILS, with centralized Cataloging Department
—3.8 million print holdings—Like many libraries, we need space!—Selectors and faculty work together to determine
criteria for storage
3
SULF(Syracuse University Library Facility)
Near campus 1.2 million item capacity High density Inventory system: Generation
Fifth Applications LAS Opened Fall 2012
4
Why Can’t Items Go Directly to Storage? For request and
retrieval to work:—All pieces must be
barcoded, front upper left corner
—All barcodes must tie to a record in LAS and an item record in Voyager
—All records must have a SULF location in Voyager
—All associated bibliographic records must meet criteria for discoverability
5
What is Preprocessing? Check each piece for acceptable
bibliographic, holdings, and item record in Voyager, correct if needed
Adjust location of barcode if needed
Route to Preservation if in noticeably poor condition
Set record locations to ingest waiting-area (Hawkins Warehouse next to SULF)
6
Catalog Problems Encountered Incomplete Retrospective Conversion
—Retro started at SU in early 1990s—Some materials still lack bibliographic records—Some journal materials lack barcodes and item
records
“Zombie” Items—Items previously withdrawn, but found on shelves—Usually journal runs
7
Catalog Problems Encountered Bound-With Problems
—Bound-withs are tricky—Print: usually preceding/succeeding journal titles
in one volume—Microfilm: same thing, but many on one reel
Multiformat Records—At one time, SU utilized a single record approach
for print, e-, and microform manifestations—Journals, theses, dissertations most commonly
affected
8
Catalog Problems Encountered Inventory Control Issues
—Items in wrong physical location—Barcodes in wrong location on item
Human Factor—Preprocessing can be time consuming—Errors during preprocessing—Even catalogers make mistakes…
9
Solutions Preprocessing
Checklists—Standards for
discoverability are higher now than during initial retro
—Checklists devised for each format, collection, showing required metadata
—Ensure bibliographic record in OCLC
—Particular consideration given to serial formats
10
Solutions Know When to Trust Reports
—Multiformat “disintegration” can often be done without any items in hand
—Work through ahead of time based on report
Know When Not to Trust Reports—All physical withdrawals must go through a
cataloger—Initial location changes must go piece by piece,
using Pick and Scan, sometimes Location Changer
—Final SULF location added during ingest at SULF
11
Solutions Cataloging Onsite
—Preprocessing is a very manual process
—Items needing preprocessing are in a variety of physical locations
—Working onsite prevents strain on delivery system, and alleviates some deadlines
12
Solutions Communication with Collections
Department—What to do with “zombie” items, other
unexpected finds?—These are not decisions for catalogers to make
Communication with SULF staff—Use of “End of Day” files to verify item records,
locations—Delivery service of problem items—Site visits to SULF—Defend the gates!
13
Where We Are Now Over 160,000 items
ingested (journals, monographs, microfilm, manuscript collections, drawings)
Onsite work at Carnegie Library and Hawkins will finish this summer
Preprocessing activities will focus on humanities and social sciences journals at Bird Library
14
Outcomes Increased access to materials in storage
Increased catalog accuracy—SULF catalog error rate at ingest: < 1%
Uncataloged monographs = opportunities for RDA training
Increased visibility of cataloging staff
15
Takeaways Preprocessing can be seen as an
extension of retrospective conversion—It helps to know about how retro took place at
your library
In some situations, the manual approach is best, if possible
Communication is vital—Particularly between cataloging and facility staff
