[DCRM-L] OCLC cataloging subscription

Wed Feb 14 10:51:32 MST 2024

Adding to Zoe's comment, it's not only training time or morale that might suffer, it's that any alternative may be slower than on Connexion. We recently migrated to TIND, a cloud-based system, which is spectacular for many things but the pits for cataloging. The record editor is cumbersome—for example, it splits every subfield into a different line, and I have to pick up superscripts, &c. from the web. And, cloud-based processing is just slower. Another vote in favor of having a solid, feasible alternative before ditching Connexion. (Good luck finding one.)

______________________

Deborah J Leslie [cid:9b51d746-b90e-45f2-a84f-3a75d9aa7268] , M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | Opinions her own

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Dobbs, Zoe via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:04
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Dobbs, Zoe <zoe.dobbs at yale.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC cataloging subscription

Hi Jennifer (and all),

Although I’m not a great lover of OCLC I’m not very familiar with the alternatives, so in general I can't conceive of cataloging anything without OCLC, much less special collections. I'm thinking specifically about the "database of records held by other libraries" aspect, and others can enlighten me about other viable options since I’m still relatively new to the profession. I imagine that finding specific editions/states/printings/etc., depending on how you catalog, would require both a well-populated database and robust search functionality – and even OCLC’s could be better (looking at you 510 fields).  In terms of record creation and editing, OCLC products are far superior to Alma at least from what I’ve heard (we haven’t migrated to Alma yet). Even Voyager cannot easily support the creation of records with non-Roman scripts that require paired fields, which is why we currently catalog those in Connexion.

Unrelated to the actual functionality of OCLC vs. others, I think one also needs to consider not only the cost of any alternative, but also the cost of staff training on that alternative and the cost of low morale or staff defections that might result from cancelling your OCLC subscription. Those are also real costs that need to be borne when undertaking any major change such as this.

Zoe

--

Zoe Dobbs

she/her/hers

Catalog/Metadata Librarian

Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library

Yale University Library

zoe.dobbs at yale.edu<mailto:zoe.dobbs at yale.edu> | 203.432.5098

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Christine DeZelar-Tiedman via DCRM-L
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:58 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Christine DeZelar-Tiedman <dezel002 at umn.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC cataloging subscription

I answered more generally on the Alma list, but in terms of special collections cataloging, I can't imagine trying to do that in Alma. In particular, searching for records with Alma's very limited external search options would be a nightmare. The availability of macros, and the methodology for entering special characters and diacritics, is also much more robust and efficient in OCLC Connexion.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM MacDonald, Jennifer via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Like many institutions, we are going through budget cuts. My administration is considering cancelling our OCLC cataloging subscription. Is anyone at an institution that did this, or contemplated doing it? Was your subscription kept or not, and what was the reasoning behind the decision? What tools or platforms did you use, or consider using, instead of OCLC? Were the needs of special collections cataloging taken into account? If it was cancelled, what kind of fallout did your institution experience? I'm particularly interested in outcomes for special collections cataloging, but general cataloging would help as well.  On- or off-list responses are welcome.

Thanks,

Jennifer

[University of Delaware]

Jennifer MacDonald

(She/her)

Librarian and Head, Cataloging and Metadata Department

UD Library, Museums and Press

181 South College Avenue, Newark, DE 19717

University of Delaware

Room 113B  |  302-831-1512

jsmacdon at udel.edu<mailto:jsmacdon at udel.edu>

--------------------
You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the DCRM-L discussion list.

You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive DCRM-L posts, unsubscribe, and other settings by logging into your subscription at https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/_zR1COYX3GiWgVzcE0PnZ?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>.

Alternately, to unsubscribe from this list send a message to dcrm-l-leave at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-leave at lib.byu.edu>. You will receive an email requesting confirmation of your request.

--

--

Christine DeZelar-Tiedman

Cataloging Policies and Practices Librarian | Cataloging, Metadata, & Digitization Services | University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library | 309 19th Ave. S. | Minneapolis, MN 55455

dezel002 at umn.edu<mailto:dezel002 at umn.edu>

she, her, hers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20240214/713651aa/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-vhrxmfig.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: Outlook-vhrxmfig.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20240214/713651aa/attachment-0001.png>