OCLC Streamlined WorldCat Holdings (Reclamation) Project 2022

Owned by Elizabeth Miraglia, created
Last updated: Apr 29, 2022 by Cathleen Lu
5 min read
Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Status

decided

Description

 

Decision summary

 

Owning group

RM-CMOS

Approver

N/A

Consulted

Campuses, E-resources subteam

Informed

Campuses, E-resources subteam

Decision-making process

 

Priority

 

Target decision date

Mar 31, 2022

Date decided

Mar 31, 2022

Recommendation

  • Campus participation is a fully local decision

  • Records/OCLC numbers should come from campus IZs

  • Campuses should not opt to add new records to OCLC

  • Campuses should exercise extreme caution when considering whether to submit OCLC numbers from CZ records

    • Many CZ records have print OCLC numbers in them. If those records/OCLC numbers are sent to OCLC it will result in campus holdings being set on the print record

  • Campuses should not participate in the project if they do not want OCLC to delete holdings from any records

    • OCLC will delete holdings for any record in the WorldCat database that is not submitted (i.e. they cannot be deleted for one format vs. another). For example, if a campus sends only records/OCLC numbers for their print holdings, all of their holdings will be removed from e-resource records

    • Campuses that just want to add holdings symbols to records should do this via DataSync

    • Campus RM groups should consult with local Discovery and ILL groups before deciding whether to allow holdings deletions, especially for e-resources

  • OCLC blocks holdings removal for any record with LHR attached and will send a list of those records to participating campuses for review. Campuses can then return this list and specify if holdings should be removed from all the records on the list or specify which records should have holdings removed.

  • RM-CMOS will issue further guidance about how to process/load the files that OCLC sends back after the reclamation is finished

  • Campuses that do participate in the project are encourage to reach out to another for help with file preparation/questions

Reasoning

RM-CMOS did not see any benefit in asking each campus to go through the reclamation process. While OCLC can process data from an Alma NZ, it is more complicated and requires more coordination than using data directly from an IZ. In addition, since the UCs have already implemented system-wide WorldCat updates, there is no need to get updated copies of records from OCLC.

Another reason to make this a local decision is the “delete” aspect. OCLC will delete holdings symbols from any record in their database for which a campus does not submit a record/OCLC number. There are a lot of implications for this in terms of e-resources given the varying utilization of the Alma CZ at different campuses. Depending on how a campus gathers their data, they may wind up having their holdings symbols removed from a significant number of e-resource records in OCLC if they participate in the project. RM-CMOS recognizes that different campuses have different levels of bandwith to handle this kind of risk and this also bolstered the decision to leave participation up to campuses.

 

Tracking

Campus

Decision

Considerations/Notes

Campus

Decision

Considerations/Notes

UCSD

Will not participate

We don’t feel confident that we’d send all of the right numbers and don’t want to unset holdings on a bunch of stuff that we do hold

Bandwith

Have used Data Sync before so feel more comfortable with that down the line

UCI

Will not participate

Bandwidth

There are potentially too many problems with possible deletions.

UCR

Will participate

OCLC# only
All unsuppressed records w/ OCN except CZ-linked records and a few other groups of records we find problematic

UCSC

Will participate

OCLC# only

Print records tagged Publish bibliographic

Print records tagged publish holdings only

E records that have valid OCN, are not linked to CZ, not subscribed content

CDL/SCP

Will not participate

After listening to campuses’ feedback and discussing with OCLC, SCP decided not to participate to OCLC Streamlined WorldCat Holding Project for the following reasons: 

  • Campus concerns about switching to one SCP holdings symbol vs. ten individual ones, includes impact on ILL, misleading representation in first search, possible impact on shared print, and/or other unforeseen factors. 

  • SCP met with OCLC representatives and we learned that: 

    • We are unique in our agent account, which allows UC to have two sets of symbols: campus own symbol vs. xxxer symbol managed by SCP (usually other consortium agent accounts have the same set of symbols for members).  Changing to a single symbol this would not be reversible without undertaking a very complex project.

    • Services the streamlined project provides should already be supported by OCLC Data Sync. SCP’s DataSync profile can be used to submit local holdings for deletion as needed. OCLC is looking into how agent account holdings can be deleted and updated via OCLC Record Manager for us. 

  • SCP may still use the SCP IZ to bring records with current 10-campus “er” OCLC holdings into the NZ. 

  • SCP is new to Alma and need to learn more about what it can do for us.

UCLA

Will not participate

The challenges involved with multiple holdings symbols and e-resources seem to outweigh any benefits. We will focus on accomplishing our goals with Data Sync or other processes.

UCSF

Will participate

We’ve had intervals from transfers/deaccessions where holdings weren’t properly set/removed so using this as an opportunity to clean some of those up

OCLC# only

All unsuppressed records w/ OCNs except CZ-linked records

Background

https://www.oclc.org/oclc-forms/en/worldcat-holdings-update-project.html

Information from OCLC (correspondence with Carrie Morrison and Jody, February 2022):

  • Documentation about how matching occurs: https://help.oclc.org/Metadata_Services/WorldShare_Collection_Manager/Understand_record_processing/Matching_to_records_in_WorldCat#Matching_for_data_sync_collections

    • Clarification: if requested, pure OCLC number matching can be done (i.e., no fuzzy matching)

  • Records without OCLC numbers - OCLC will attempt to match every record that passes validation, regardless of the presence of OCLC number. If a match is found, then that OCLC number is inserted into your record in the first 035 field. If no match is found, and you requested no adds, then processing for that record is complete, and will be reported to you as an exception.

  • Institutions will get a file back. Detailed information about My Files and sFTP reports: https://help.oclc.org/Metadata_Services/WorldShare_Collection_Manager/Understand_record_processing/Matching_to_records_in_WorldCat#Matching_for_data_sync_collections

  • Deprecated OCLC numbers - OCLC uses the current OCLC number and all numbers in the 019 fields to recover a match before moving on to full matching

  • NZ considerations - It would be possible to pull records from the NZ to cover all the libraries in the group, but in that case there would need to be holdings information embedded into and exported with the bib records. In most Alma consortia they’ve worked with, the preference has been to use IZ records. Each library can have its own separate Streamlined Holdings Registration (SHR) collection, if needed. But, as long as the holdings info is exported in the bibs, they could set up a single Group SHR collection to process the records for all of the libraries, using a group OCLC symbol for processing.

 

Options Considered

 

Option 1

Option 2

 

Option 1

Option 2

Description

Standardize: Every campus has to either participate or not participate

Localize: allow campuses to choose while still providing guidance

Pros

Shared documentation/processes

Acknowledges different campus needs

Less overhead for RM-CMOS

Allows for collaboration without rigid standardization

 

Cons

Not feasible for all campuses

Not desirable for all campuses

Extensive coordination for procedures

Significant overhead for RM-CMOS

Possible unforeseen impacts on the NZ? [minimal]

Not every campus will have recently updated holdings

Questions to consider

  • For this option: “Adds new records when a matching record is not available (optional)” should RM-CMOS recommend campuses not pursue?

    • What would happen to records submitted that don’t have OCLC numbers in the 035?

      • See above

  • How is OCLC matching? If there is an 035 OCLC number present in the local record, will it match on that record only, or is OCLC doing fuzzy matching?

    • See above

  • Is there any chance large numbers of records that we don’t want will find their way into the NZ?

  • Will campuses get a file back from OCLC and if so, what should they do with it?

    • Yes, they will get a file back. RM-CMOS would need to discuss what to do with these

  • How reliable is the “removes innacurate holdings” part?

  • Will this increase multi-matches during the WorldCat Updates process and if so, is that a problem?

  • Due date to sign up is May 31 but OCLC has said they to have limited spots, UCs probably want to decide before May

  • Any risks to making this a local decision: aka, we don’t all have to sign up?

  • How much guidance should/can RM-CMOS provide?

  • What about CZ records?

  • What about items sent to an RLF?

  • How will LHR be dealt with?

  • What about ER? There are a lot of complications and complexities.

  • Offshoot question - RLF holdings? UCSC and UCSD remove RLF records from their catalogs.

 

Action Log

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

RM-CMOS discussion

 

 

In progress

RM-CMOS recommendation to UCLAS Ops

 

 

 

The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu