Possibilities of a union catalogue for Kenya libraries
1. Possibilities of a Union
Catalogue in Kenya: An update
Tito Wawire
Peter Mwangi Gichiri
Beatrice Amollo
Presented on behalf of UN-WB-UL Union catalogue committee &
Koha Kenya Community
2. Background
• In May 2011, a presentation titled ‘Open Source Software for
implementation of Union Catalogue for Kenya ‘ was presented
in a meeting sponsored by the Goethe-Institut, Nairobi on
‘Modalities of establishing a union catalogue for Kenyan
libraries and the standardized integration of local content into
that catalogue’ held in Nairobi for librarians from various
library categories.
• One of the resolutions was that the same presentations be
made at a UN-UL-WB meeting that was to be held in the same
month - 19th May at KCA. The presentation titled ‘Union
Catalogue for Kenya libraries’ was well received by the
participants.
3. • From this meeting, a team was proposed to look at
possibilities of implementing a UC in Kenya.
– The use of an OSS was appreciated by all, however the
participants tasked the technical team to come up with a
model that would incorporate all libraries regardless of the
various Integrated Library systems.
• A proposal to this effect was prepared and submitted to
the National Council of Science & technology through
UN-UL-WB for funding consideration.
4. The proposal rationale
• Kenya lacks a national union catalogue or integrated
national bibliographic network that links the many types
of libraries that exist in the country.
• It is quite difficult to identify what has been published in
Kenya and to accurately determine which publications
are held in other libraries.
• There is duplication in cataloguing especially of material
that is found in more than one library.
5. A research study by Libraries Automation Status
project team
member conducted
in May, 2011
revealed that…… • Most libraries are automated
• Most libraries have catalogue data in electronic form
Library Information Management
Z39.50/SRU/SRW protocols
Systems in use
Support
Koha
Libsoft
Sirs Mandarin
Amlib
Percentage Inmagic Yes
Liberty3 No
Weblis
ABCD
Vubis Smart
0 10 20 30 40
• Majority libraries(87.5%) could share their data
• Libraries can share bibliographic data.
• All systems support z39.50,SRU or SRW
6. Availability of catalogues on the web
54
52
50
Percentage
48
46
44
Yes No
Most library users search their institutions
catalogues
OPAC search by library categories
Cross-searching other libraries in Kenya is
100 rare. Why? – The need for a union
80 Catalogue
60 Frequently International catalogues are fairly popular.
40 Occassionally Why? Possibly MARC records download
20 Rarely
0 Never Inclusion of a choice menu for each library
Your Own Other International Other Union in the web interface.
Library Libraries in Libraries Catalogues
Kenya
Include feature for parallel searching of all
or selected libraries
Include international catalogues in the
virtual catalogue
7. Different Methods of consultation
70.00%
60.00% • Need to include features to support
50.00%
inter-library loans as a priority.
Very likely
40.00%
•
Likely
30.00%
Unlikely It would be important to cluster
Not at all likely
20.00%
libraries in geographical locations
10.00%
0.00%
Visit the library, if Visit the library, Use inter-library Buy items if Take action as
it were in the even if it were not loans (ILL) available citation details
same in the would be enough
neighbourhood neighbourhood
Contribution of the Virtual Union Catalogue
90.00%
80.00% Union catalogue will contribute to a
70.00% great extent the quality of information
60.00%
search
50.00% Enormously
40.00% To a great extent
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1
8. Target group for the union catalogue will
comprise of libraries within:
• Academic Institutions (Tertiary level)
• Research institutions
• KNLS
• Special collection libraries
• Members of KLA and KLISC that are not covered in the
first four groups.
9. Why a Union Catalogue?
• Libraries today have to deal with physical, digital and
licensed collections – all at the same time.
– With this kind of setup, the union catalogue will help the
libraries achieve better, richer, shared collections and
economies of scale in services and exposure.
• The union catalogue is becoming more closely tied with
local systems
– using local resolvers to connect users directly with full
text, accessing the local catalogue for circulation
availability and passing users to local reference services.
10. Apart from resource sharing, the benefits of the UC
to libraries include:
• Facilitates cataloguing and improves the speed of cataloguing
amongst participating libraries.
• Result in production or supply of quality, bibliographic and authority
records.
• Development and maintenance of mutually acceptable standards.
• Development of a more coordinated document supply service.
• Development or increase in joint collections, printed and electronic
ones.
• Links to a wide range of document suppliers and electronic journals.
• Ongoing discussion, planning and programming among participating
libraries.
• Likely formation of a national bibliographic network
• Reduction in acquisition and cataloguing expenses.
11. The benefits to the library users include:
• It is easier to confirm the existence of an item from a wide
collection in one search or a click of a button;
• Accurate information about the item location is established
from the union catalogue, since this is provided in the
catalogue.
• Confirmation of the availability of required information at those
known locations;
• Getting the required information at the precise time of need;
and
• Ascertaining the licensing controls and authorization of the
collections in the union catalogues.
12. Some Examples:
• OCLC's WorldCat
• Research Libraries UK's Copac
• Library and Archives Canada's Amicus
• South Africa's SaCat
13. Project Objectives
Main objective
• To design and implement a suitable union catalogue that will
facilitate resource sharing and promote uniformity or
conformity within a national bibliographic network of libraries
in Kenya.
14. Specific objectives
• To set and implement standards for authority control and
assignment of mutually accepted descriptors for the national
bibliographic network.
• To develop system for document supply and resource sharing
in order to provide library users from all participating
institutions with appropriate information
• To promote consistent indexing of information that will enable
users to perform consistent searching of records from
multiple libraries, at any given time.
15. Expected Outputs
1. An open source software based national union
catalogue/portal that links libraries at all levels in Kenya.
– The OSS option will be particularly helpful to upcoming libraries.
– Libraries that do not wish to migrate or use the proposed OSS will be
able to link to the union catalogue virtually using SRU & Z39.50
protocol.
16. Expected Outputs
The union catalogue will possess features of a next generation
catalog
• Single point of entry for all library information.
• Web interface.
• Enriched content.
• Categorized searching.
• Relevancy.
• Recommendations/related materials.
• User contribution.
• RSS feeds.
• Integration with social network sites.
• Persistent links.
17. Expected Outputs
2. National bibliographic standards manual
– It is essential that every member library provides accurate and
standard data by using agreed upon bibliographic standards.
– Local standards to suit the specific needs and requirements of
database containing locally produced information material will have to
be agreed upon.
19. Why Open Source?
Disillusionment with current vendors
Open source is seen as a solution to:
◦ Allow libraries to have more flexible systems
◦ Lower costs
Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with mergers and
acquisitions
Open source is beginning to emerge as a mainstream option.
No vendor lock in.
20. Protocols for the union catalogue
• Z39.50 also known as ISO23950 is a protocol that enables
search of and retrieval from remote databases.
– Z39.50 applications search remote databases that are connected to
internet using the TCP/IP transportation protocol.
– This protocol has been widely used in library systems and it has greatly
impacted on the way library systems interact.
21. Protocols for the union catalogue
• Search and retrieve web service (SRW) and search and
retrieve URL service (SRU) are web services-based
protocols, an improvement of Z39.50 that are built for
querying internet indexes or databases and returning search
results.
22. Standards to be considered for the Union
Catalogue
• Standards for Exchanging Catalogue Records
– MARC21
• Describing library resources and access standards
– Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), Resource Description and
Access (RDA)
• Controlled Vocabularies
– LCSH, MeSH
• Classification Schemes
– LC, DDC, Sears, UDC, NLM
• Holdings
– MARC21 Format for Holdings Data, ANSI/NISO Z39.71 Holdings
Statements for Bibliographic Items
23. Project Methodology
• The project will be conducted in phases.
– The number of phases will be determined by the number and types of
participating libraries.
– These phases will be precluded with data collection to establish status
of the libraries.
• Questionnaires will be distributed through online means and o personal
contact where necessary.
24. Phase One
• Hold workshop or meeting to sensitize libraries about the
project.
– Agree on standards & protocols
• Conduct training of cataloguers
• Set up union catalogue of 1st group of libraries
25. Phase Two
• Demonstrate union catalogue and discuss challenges if any, in
preparation for expansion (Workshop)
• Expand union catalog to second group of libraries.
• Set mutually accepted standards for publishing of a National
Bibliographic Manual
– (One day seminar – one physical and follow up virtual discussions)
26. Phase Three
• Union catalogue to include all the other participating library
clusters
• Subsequent phases of the project will focus on publications
from public and middle level colleges’ libraries; with an object
of forming a comprehensive Bibliographic Centre.
27. Schedule of Activities for one year
ACTIVITY ONE YEAR
M1-M2 M3-M4 M5-M6 M7- M9- M11-
M8 M10 M12
Needs analysis
Collect information about existing library
databases
Cluster interested libraries into groups e.g.
academic, special, public and research
Analyze metadata formats and standards adapted
by the participating libraries
Develop/Agree on mutually accepted standards
(Workshop)
Install and set up union catalogue hardware and
software (phase one)
Print and circulate manual
Upload UC/ Host for Internet
Demonstration
Training of cataloguers workshop
Launch union catalogue
Receive bibliographic data from libraries
Submission of membership fees from participating
institutions
28. • Funding requested will be used for training, UC web hosting
and purchase of physical requirements.
• The team proposes to host the project in one of the
participating libraries’ premises for the initial one year.
29. Finally……
• There is great potential to share more data within
consortia.
– This necessitates a new layer of standards.
– The participating institutions must accept to adapt certain
common standards and norms to ensure professionalism
and conformity.
• The libraries that decide to merge their records or
decide to use a single point for access to all their
collections will be forced to compromise to ensure
that standards are set and implemented to ensure
uniformity and ease of access for the final users.
30. • Exposing library data collectively on a national or
international scale will require the participating libraries’
commitment to provide a cohesive delivery and
reference service to the target users.
Kenya lacks a national union catalogue or integrated national bibliographic network that links the many types of libraries that exist in the country. This has made resource sharing and standardization a challenge for the libraries. A large number of the libraries do not even adhere to international cataloguing standards. There are no standards set for cataloguing of material containing information that is unique to the country. It is quite difficult to identify what has been published in Kenya and to accurately determine which publications are held in other libraries. There is duplication in cataloguing especially of material that is found in more than one library.
National bibliographic standards manualIt is essential that every member library provides accurate and standard data by using agreed upon bibliographic standards. Since the computer cannot distinguish between good and substandard cataloging, each library has to accept the responsibility of abiding by the standards. Participating libraries will have to agree on the standards to adapt for naming and classifying. Local standards to suit the specific needs and requirements of database containing locally produced information material will have to be agreed upon.
Z39.50/SRU/SRWZ39.50 also known as ISO23950 is a protocol that enables search of and retrieval from remote databases. Z39.50 applications search remote databases that are connected to internet using the TCP/IP transportation protocol. This protocol has been widely used in library systems and it has greatly impacted on the way library systems interact. A key example of Z39.50 protocol application is the Library of Congress gateway that links to over 400 library catalogues. The protocol has also been adopted by commercial databases, museums and government information centres.The advantages associated with this protocol include; searching multiple catalogues or databases with one single user interface, searching multiple catalogues or databases with one search, obtaining results from multiple servers are in a standard format that can be combined, possibility of using results by a client, e.g. for copy cataloguing or for creation of a bibliography and ability to order items ordered or requested through Inter-Library Loan. Search and retrieve web service (SRW) and search and retrieve URL service (SRU) are web services-based protocols, an improvement of Z39.50 that are built for querying internet indexes or databases and returning search results. Although they are implemented differently, both SRW and SRU are similar, since they both define a similar set of commands (known as "operations") and responses
Z39.50/SRU/SRWZ39.50 also known as ISO23950 is a protocol that enables search of and retrieval from remote databases. Z39.50 applications search remote databases that are connected to internet using the TCP/IP transportation protocol. This protocol has been widely used in library systems and it has greatly impacted on the way library systems interact. A key example of Z39.50 protocol application is the Library of Congress gateway that links to over 400 library catalogues. The protocol has also been adopted by commercial databases, museums and government information centres.The advantages associated with this protocol include; searching multiple catalogues or databases with one single user interface, searching multiple catalogues or databases with one search, obtaining results from multiple servers are in a standard format that can be combined, possibility of using results by a client, e.g. for copy cataloguing or for creation of a bibliography and ability to order items ordered or requested through Inter-Library Loan. Search and retrieve web service (SRW) and search and retrieve URL service (SRU) are web services-based protocols, an improvement of Z39.50 that are built for querying internet indexes or databases and returning search results. Although they are implemented differently, both SRW and SRU are similar, since they both define a similar set of commands (known as "operations") and responses
1. Library Standards for Exchanging Catalogue RecordsThe exchange of catalogue records between libraries, either as individual records or as a batch process, requires a common language to encode the cataloguing information. MARC (Machine Readable Cataloguing) is the most common standard used by libraries.Best practice is to use a scheme that creates efficiency in the exchange of library catalogue records.2. Describing library resources and access standards for librariesProviding a standard way to transcribe and describe attributes of library resources creates catalogue records that are consistent in form. The content standard for libraries, "the Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR") provides a consistient way to transcribe an author when used as a accent point. e.g. <last name, first name>. Best practice is use the standard designed for use in the construction of library catalogues. 3. Controlled VocabulariesControlled vocabularies provide an "authorised" terrm when it it is possible to have variant spellings, and concepts, to describe an entity ...Best practice is to use a controlled list of names 4. Classification Schemes Best practice is to use a standard classification scheme e.g. Dewey, Library of Congress Classification 5. HoldingsHoldings statements describe the location of an item or similar group of items of a library. The New Zealand National Union Catalogue contains the holdings of more than 280 New Zealand libraries.Best practice is to use the standard designed for use in the description of holdings statements.
There is great potential to share more data within consortia which necessitates a new layer of standards.The participating institutions must accept to adapt certain common standards and norms to ensure professionalism and conformity. To successfully implement the union catalogue in Kenya, a good number of librarians will have to be willing to implement the necessary policy changes and adapt the necessary standards that will facilitate the interoperability of systems both between a union catalogue and their local systems and between the union catalogue and global services and data stores.The libraries that decide to merge their records or decide to use a single point for access to all their collections will be forced to compromise to ensure that standards are set and implemented to ensure uniformity and ease of access for the final users.
