Transition from RLIN to OCLC— the Yale Experience

1. Transition from RLIN to OCLC—the Yale Experience Sarah S. Elman East Asia Library Yale University March 23, 2007

2. Timeline June 2006 • News of OCLC/RLG merger announced. • Some CJK cataloging staff started to experiment with OCLC Connexion. Oct. 2006 • All NACO contributors at Yale were trained to use Connexion for creating and updating authority records.

3. Timeline (continued) Dec. 2006 • General OCLC Connexion training by NELINET for all non-Roman cataloging staff. • In-house documents were prepared to address non-Roman-specific issues. Jan. 2007- • Most cataloging is done in OCLC. • Use RLIN21 for: serials record maintenance, records needing enhancement, and titles not found in OCLC.

4. Remaining Issues • Institutional records • Will load RLIN records as institutional records even though Voyager is our database of records. • Will likely do a reclamation project to include records not currently in RLIN21. • Enhance authorization • Will apply for enhance authorization shortly.

5. Major Differences Between OCLC & RLIN Records • Order of parallel fields • RLIN: Romanized fields precede CJK fields. • OCLC: CJK fields precede Romanized fields.

6. Major Differences Between OCLC & RLIN Records (continued) • Spacing • RLIN’s old practice: Space between CJK words. No space before/after subfield codes. • OCLC: No space between CJK words. Space before/after subfield codes—system supplied.

7. Major Differences Between OCLC & RLIN Records (continued) • Missing/invalid CJK MARC-8 characters RLIN: Use geta. • OCLC: Use romanization in brackets.

8. Major Differences Between OCLC & RLIN Records (continued) • Reprint note • RLIN: Use 534. • OCLC: Use 500. • CJK fields without paired Romanized fields. • RLIN: Can be done by using $6 before $a. • OCLC: Has to include a parallel field containing angle brackets, e.g., 500 <>.

9. Strengths of Connexion • More search options and user-friendly search interface. • Faster response time. • Authority search is easy and free of charge. • Easy to verify authorized headings. • Ability to link bib records to authority records—Control Headings. • Ability to copy existing authority records.

10. Strengths of Connexion (continued) • Since CONSER records reside in OCLC it’s easier to find more up to date serial records. • Can move paired fields or a block of fields up and down. • Can identify institutions easily by placing cursor over organization codes in 040. • Subfield mnemonics are directly linked to the MARC format document. • Has both online and local save files.

11. Strengths of Connexion (continued) • Ability to reformat and validate the record before saving or update. • Can view multiple records using the pin command. • CJK E-Dictionary is very useful to convert non-MARC-8 records. • Other helpful features: Constant data, text string, macro keys, spelling checker (English), and system-supplied data, etc.

12. Shortcomings of Connexion • Cannot pick records from specific libraries for copycataloging. • Quality of master records uneven. • Many records lack call numbers—institutions use 090 instead of 050 for call numbers? • Selection of subject headings in some records not as good as RLIN records. Many records contain non-LC subject headings.

13. Shortcomings of Connexion(continued) • Many records created based on non-standard cataloging practices: qualifiers in Chinese, CJK fields paired with English fields, notes in CJK scripts rather than English, etc., as well as quality control issues.

14. Shortcomings of Connexion(continued) • Need more editing to upgrade records since the master records have not been enhanced. • Some parallel fields have to be linked manually. • No access to individual library’s records yet.

15. Shortcomings of Connexion(continued) • MARC Format help is not convenient for a quick verification—it goes to a Web site instead of providing brief information immediately. On the other hand, it provides more detailed information if needed.

16. Thank You Comments?