Presented at Georgia COMO conference on October 5, 2016 as part of Technical Services Interest Group pre-conference workshop.

1. GEORGIA COMO Conference
October 5, 2016
GIL
GALILEO Interconnected Libraries
Cooperative Cataloging in
the Zone

2. • Single catalog for all GiL libraries
• New and different workflows
• New methods of electronic resource management
• Batch loading from GALILEO for all libraries in a single load
• Option to include digital content in Alma
• Integration of cataloging & acquisitions workflows
Best Practices Topics to Consider

3. • Many decisions required for cooperative cataloging with single Catalog
/ Single Bibliographic Record
• Different mindset for cataloging when using one catalog for GIL
• Accept that workflows will change
• Decide what happens in each zone
• Who does what
• Development of new policies that function for all
• Quality of vendor records
• What kind of support or functions needed at consortium level
New Environment Challenges

4. Team Leads: Adam Kubik, Clayton State University
Debra Skinner, Georgia Southern University
Sandra Bandy, Augusta University
Kayla Barrett, Georgia Archives
Qian Cui, Georgia State University Law
Matt Frizzell, Georgia Institute of Technology
Guy Frost, Valdosta State University
Kelly Holt, University of Georgia
Neil Hughes, University of Georgia
Jenifer Marquardt, University of Georgia
Britni Williams, Albany State University
Susan Wynne, Georgia State University
Sean Purcell, GIL Support Resource
Functional Project Teams
Cataloging Team

5. • Role
– Develop policies & procedures for cooperative work in Alma
– Seek input from catalogers in GIL
– Post proposed polices in Alma Project Wiki for approval
– Policies become guidelines for working in shared bibliographic environment
• Focus
– Policies
– Best Practices / Day One
– Authority Control in Alma
Cataloging Team Functions

6. Guiding Principles for Collaboration in a New
Library Management System
RACL agreed on these at the June 23, 2015 online meeting.
Direction for GIL

7. Together, the 30 USG Libraries have over 7 million unique titles (over 17
million volumes) available to students, faculty, researchers, and our
global community of learners (in addition to our GALILEO resources).
The USG vision of “One Statewide Library” allows for an extensive, yet
efficient collection in times of increasing library costs and economic
constraints. The following principles should guide the investigations,
discussions, and recommendations related to how we implement our
next system and how we work together to ensure a core collection of
resources and services needed for teaching, learning, and research at all
USG institutions.
Principles of RACL Guidelines

8. RACL Guidelines
• Power of collaboration
– Collaboration provides the most significant opportunity to improve library services
for our students, faculty, and staff.
• Change at this point needs to be transformative
– Reduce the duplication of work across the system, and enable staff to work more
efficiently.
• Manage all materials in the same interface and workflows
– Integrate the processing of electronic, digital, and print materials into the new
system and eliminate the duplicate data entry required by disparate systems.

9. RACL Guidelines
• Rethink workflows to gain efficiencies
– Take advantage of next generation system capabilities to design better workflows
and update out-of-date practices.
– Eliminate redundancies, so we can deliver cost effective services and reallocate
scarce resources to other priorities.
– Take time to explore and consider new workflows. Be open to new approaches and
innovative solutions.
• Look beyond the individual library for efficiencies
– Take full advantage of shared systems.
– A shared bibliographic file (Alma Network Zone) will provide the greatest
opportunity and flexibility for sharing resources and sharing services.
– Use configuration options for consortia that facilitate sharing data, sharing
resources, and sharing services and avoid duplication of effort.
– Where possible, use a common set of policies across the system.

10. RACL Guidelines
•The Orbis Cascade Alliance has stated this focus extremely well:
•Do things once
•Do things the same
•Do things together
•Facilitate/enhance resource sharing across GIL, beyond GIL, and as practical
beyond Georgia
•Facilitate integration with other campus and USG systems (authentication,
financial, learning management, etc.)
•Focus on best practices, library standards, and ongoing staff development

11. Are we there
yet?

12. Alma Project Wiki
Network Zone Policies
Cataloging >
Network Zone Policies
The Cataloging and Metadata Team is working on recommended policies to cover the following issues. Links are provided where draft
recommendations have been worked out.
Please note that draft policies are subject to change as the Cataloging and Metadata Team continues its work, as well as based on feedback
received from the overall Alma Implementation Team and other interested stakeholders.
Alma Cataloging Overview
1. Zones in Alma PROPOSAL
2. Cataloging Quality Control PROPOSAL
Alma Network Zone Policies
1. Choice of NZ or IZ for bibliographic records. PROPOSAL
2. Choice of New Bibliographic Record or Addition of Holdings in NZ (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)
3. Managing Metadata in the NZ
a) Upgrading and Merging Records in the NZ (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)
b) Batch Changes to NZ Records (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)
c) Suppression of Records in NZ (Susan Wynne & Kelly Holt)
4. Bibliographic Standards
a) Cataloging Floor Bibliographic Standards PROPOSAL
b) Standard Bibliographic Utility (Debra Skinner)
b) Language of Cataloging PROPOSAL
c) Minimum Brief NZ Records PROPOSAL
d) Subject Access in the Network Zone Policy. PROPOSAL
Network Zone Policies

13. • Defines purpose and functionality of each zone
• Overview rather than comprehensive
– Institutional Zone
– Network Zone
– Community Zone
Draft Proposal: Zones in Alma

14. The Institutional Zone or IZ houses the holdings or inventory for an
individual library as well as bibliographic records for resources that
cannot be or are not intended to be shared. Each library in the USG
consortium has an IZ.
Institutional Zone

15. The Network Zone houses one common bibliographic record for
resources owned by all libraries in the USG consortium. Individual
libraries can add a new record if one does not already exist in the NZ
and add holdings to records that already exist in the NZ. One NZ is
shared by all USG consortium libraries.
Network Zone

16. The Community Zone comprises the Alma Knowledge base as well as
Library of Congress authority records. The CZ is primarily used to
populate portfolios for electronic packages and databases. One CZ is
shared by all libraries using Alma as their library management system.
Community Zone

17. • GIL Libraries aim to provide exceptional service to their community. A
significant element of that service is providing an efficient and
effective catalog of our resources. Consortium members will work
together to provide quality control, consistency, and reliability in the
catalog by following policies developed to guide each institution
working toward this common goal.
• These policies set out principles regarding working in the Network
Zone that GIL Libraries members must follow. They are designed to
meet national standards and best practices while facilitating work in a
shared system. When there are no specific policies, libraries should
act in line with these principles.
Draft Proposal: Cataloging
Quality Control

18. • GIL Libraries add all bibliographic records to the Network Zone
• Exceptions to policy examples:
– Records with vendor metadata not allowed to share
– Records for equipment circulation, inventory, room reservations
– Host records for bound with materials
– Records for “On the fly” created at circulation
– Records for PDA/DDA (prior to purchase)
– Records for personal copies on reserve
Draft Proposal: Choice of NZ or IZ

19. • Specifies minimum standards for completeness and content
designation
• Provides expectations regarding quality, reducing need for editing
and re-editing of records
• Exceptions:
– Order records
– Alma CZ records
– Marcive shipping list records
– Retrospective conversion materials
– Vendor records when there is no choice
Draft Proposal: Cataloging Floor
Bibliographic Standards

20. • Records for ordering purposes go in NZ- created or imported
• Brief records used when complete record is not available in NZ, CZ, or
OCLC
• Must search NZ before creating brief record
• Minimum Requirements
– ISBN or appropriate standard number (020)
– Title (245 $a)
– Statement of responsibility if available (245 $c)
– Publisher or equivalent (264 $b)
– Date of publication – may be approximate (264 $c)
– Format (300, type, bibliographic level, or note)
Draft Proposal: Minimum NZ
Brief Records

21. • GIL libraries must use English as language of cataloging
• Refers to language of descriptive cataloging, not the language of the
resource
• Coded in MARC field 040 $b eng
• Possible area for metadata cleanup!
Draft Proposal: Language
of Cataloging

22. • GIL uses select group of thesauri for subject access
• English language terms
• Indicators for thesauri retained
– Second indicator 0 – Library of Congress Subject Headings
– Second indicator 1 – Library of Congress Children’s Literature Subject Headings
– Second indicator 2 – Medical Subject Headings
– Second indicator 7 – Keep English language access points; remove other
languages
Draft Proposal: Subject Access
in the NZ

23. • Separate records = national standard
• Each manifestation of title has a bibliographic record
• NZ will have legacy single records
• GIL must use separate records but not required to convert migrated
single records
• Exceptions
– Government documents
– Established practices – Georgia Newspaper project (print/microform)
Draft Proposal: Single vs. Separate
Bibliographic Records

24. Draft Proposal: Content Standards
for Local Extensions
Introduction
Most libraries have data of local importance in Voyager that needs to be preserved in
the new Alma environment. This data can be preserved by moving the data to a
prescribed field and appending $9 LOCAL at the end of the field. This process should
be used for information that serves an institutional purpose but that is not appropriate
for the Network Zone.
Examples include gift notes; special collections and archival materials notes;
information that pertains to a specific copy (i.e. signed by author); and data that may
not conform to national cataloging standards for inclusion in the network environment
such as locally assigned subject terms. A table of local fields for use by GIL libraries
has been developed for reference in adding local information.

25. Table with list of MARC fields where data of local importance may be stored.
Any locally important data that is currently stored in these fields can be preserved in a
local extension by moving it to the indicated field, and appending $9 LOCAL at the end
of the field.
It is not expected or intended that all instances of these fields will be mapped into a local
extension in Alma. Local extensions are to be used for the preservation of data which
serves an institutional purpose, but which would not be appropriate in the Network
Zone. Reasons that data would not be appropriate in the Network Zone include:
- The data is for internal staff use
- The data only applies to a local copy of the resource
- The data does not conform to national cataloging standards for inclusion in a network
environment
Draft Proposal: Local Field
Migration Mapping

26. • Table with list of MARC fields defined for use of local extension data in
Alma
• Examples:
– Local Extension in Alma – 590 (local public note)
– Defined for use as per MARC tag – 590 (local public note)
– Local Extension in Alma – 591 (other archival materials note)
– Defined for use as per MARC tag 544 (other archival materials note)
Draft Proposal: Local Extension
Field Definitions

27. • Choice of new bibliographic record or addition of holdings in NZ
• Upgrading and merging records in NZ
• Batch changes to records in NZ
• Suppression of records in NZ
• Standard bibliographic utility
• Alma profiles for record import/merge and normalization
• Provider neutral record standard
• Content standards for electronic resources managed at the system level
Proposals in Development

28. • Day One – What do we need to be able to do
– Will post to Wiki as developed
• An ongoing committee to develop Best Practices
– Much will be developed after Go Live in Alma
Best Practices for GIL Libraries and Day
One Procedures

29. Debra Skinner
Coordinator of Cataloging
Interim Department Head, Collection & Resource Services
Zach S. Henderson Library
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA 30458
dskinner@georgiasouthern.edu
Alma Wiki
https://sites.google.com/site/usgalma2017/cataloging/network-zone-
policy
Thank you!