Policy Issues for the Melvyl® Catalog Transition

This document gives a brief overview of the major policy issues for the transition of the Melvyl® Catalog to the Ex Libris ALEPH 500 software platform. The Systemwide Operations and Planning Advisory Group (SOPAG) agreed to serve as the policy advisory group for the transition issues. California Digital Library staff presented detailed proposals about policy issues to SOPAG.

See sections below:

• Name
• Scope and Arrangement of the Catalog
• Record Standards
• Update Frequency from Input Streams
• Changes to the "old" Melvyl Catalog during the Transition Period
• Archiving and Reversibility of Campus Files
• Implementation of Telnet Service
• Maintenance of Z39.50 Server
• NRLF/SRLF
• Education
• Catalog Sources

Name

Issue: Determine the best solution for identifying the new catalog during the transition phase.

Update: On April 27, 2001, the University Librarians and SOPAG endorsed the decision to make the full title of the new catalog "Melvyl®: the Catalog of the University of California Libraries". It was also decided that during the transition process, the Aleph catalog would be referred to as Melvyl-T, shorthand for Melvyl Transition Catalog.

Scope and Arrangement of the Catalog

Issue: Determine the handling of journal analytics records from non-general libraries.

Update: On May 18, 2001, SOPAG endorsed the recommendations to include journal analytics records in the new catalog and to explore ways to link the analytic records to the full serial records.

Issue: Catalog and periodical databases are to be combined; determine possible arrangement of non-UC periodical records in separate database(s).

Update: On May 18, 2001, SOPAG endorsed the recommendation that the Melvyl Catalog be structured as a single database. For the complete recommendations, see the paper on the scope and arrangement of the catalog [RTF].

Record standards

Issue: Establish record standards for input, holdings, and local data.

Update: On June 29, 2001, SOPAG endorsed the recommendation that the 1990 UC records standard document be reviewed and updated with the current standards for bibliographic records and summary holdings. SOPAG also recommended that one standard be adopted (MARC21) and that the impact of this recommendation should be examined on the campus level. The updated standards document was reviewed by the Melvyl-T Database & Technology Team and the Library Technical Advisory Group before it was brought back to SOPAG.

Update: On December 6, 2001, SOPAG approved the revised standard for UC catalog input records [RTF]. The Standard had been reviewed by Heads of Technical Services, LTAG and the Melvyl-T Database & Technology Team.

On June 29, SOPAG agreed in principle with the recommendation that the union catalog serve as a resource identification tool and provide enough local data so that users could go to the shelf. However, questions emerged about the ability to send copy level information to the Melvyl Catalog to be used as a backup in emergency situations, such as the corruption of local catalog data; UC Berkeley showed particular interest in this issue. SOPAG asked for further analysis of the possible disadvantages of storing copy level information.

For the complete recommendations made by the Melvyl Transition Team, see the record standards and level of holdings document [RTF].

Update: On December 6, 2001, SOPAG officially endorsed recommendations one, three, and four in the document referenced immediately above.

• The recommendation that the union catalog serve as a resource, identification tool and provide enough local data so that users could go to the shelf.
• The recommendation that Melvyl Catalog input streams be required to convert to the "Standard for UC Catalog Input Records" at a convenient time in their system life cycles.
• The recommendation that SOPAG establish a process and calendar for implementation and compliance with the standard. NOTE: SOPAG asked the Melvyl Transition Team to make a recommendation for this compliance process at the next SOPAG meeting on January 25, 2002.

Update: On January 25, 2002, SOPAG affirmed its role for resolving issues of non-conformance to record standards from UC input streams. Rather than establish a cross-functional team for Quality Control (QC) as proposed by the Melvyl Transition Team, SOPAG agreed to assess each QC issue brought to its attention. In some cases, existing groups such as HOTS or LTAG could be directed to review the issue; when appropriate, a special task force could be appointed.

Update: On May 9, 2002, SOPAG charged HOTS to review the standard for brief machine-readable bibliographic records for UC libraries, last revised in 1988. SOPAG approved a revision effective January 1, 2003. [DOC]

UPDATE: On September 13, 2002, SOPAG endorsed HOTS' recommendation that Melvyl Catalog sources continue to adhere to the existing standard that "on order" and "in process" records not be sent to the Melvyl Catalog.

Update Frequency from Input Streams

Issue: Establish minimum intervals.

Update: On October 25, 2002, SOPAG endorsed quarterly updates as the minimum interval; sources not meeting that minimum interval would be subject to review.

Changes to the "old" Melvyl Catalog During the Transition Period

Issue: Determine how to accommodate the implementation of new campus systems (UC Santa Barbara and UC Davis), depending on the timing; whether to load records only from new systems into the "new" Melvyl Catalog.

Issue: Determine whether to accommodate requests for additional CDL programming for changes to campus functions or interfaces, or for limited programming changes to enable loading records into the "old" Melvyl Catalog.

Update: On March 15, 2002, SOPAG endorsed the CDL's intention to load records from UCD and UCSB's new systems in the legacy Melvyl Catalog.

Update: On April 19, 2002, SOPAG endorsed the CDL's intention to implement the circulation status linking service from the legacy Melvyl Catalog to UCD's new Aleph system, since UCD will continue to use the Melvyl Catalog as its OPAC until Fall 2003. SOPAG also encouraged the CDL to implement circulation status from the legacy Melvyl Catalog to UCSB's Aleph system. UCLA opted to wait for the implementation of circulation linking until Melvyl-T.

Note: Following UCD's new system implementation on May 28, 2002, the programming work to provide circulation linking from the legacy Melvyl Catalog was completed on June 3, 2002. CDL programming work for the UCD project was used to develop the circulation status linking service from the legacy Melvyl Catalog to UCSB's new Aleph System and was completed on July 24, 2002.

Update: Due to delays in coordinating the UCSB record export, it was decided in August 2002 not to load UCSB records into the legacy Melvyl Catalog. In addition, it was decided in September 2002 not to load UCD records into legacy Melvyl Catalog.

Archiving and reversibility of campus files

Issue: Determine the continuing need for the offsite storage of campus input files by the CDL, in relation to campus disaster recovery plans.

Issue: Determine the need for reversibility (the ability to return records to campuses). It is likely the CDL would store only bibliographic data and limited local data.

Update: On June 29, 2001 SOPAG reviewed the Melvyl Transition Team's recommendations on archiving and the returnability of campus records, but recognized a relationship between the purpose of archiving/returnability and the issue of copy level information. Therefore, discussion about these recommendations was postponed until the issue of copy level information in Melvyl (see #3 above) is resolved. For the complete recommendations, see the document on archiving campus input files and the returnability of campus records [RTF].

Update: On December 6, 2001, SOPAG endorsed the recommendations in the above referenced document.

Implementation of Telnet Service

Issue: Review the need for Telnet service once the new catalog prototype is fully functional. If it is necessary to implement Telnet, the service will provide only basic search, display, and email features (e.g., no "Request" feature) and may become available later than the web catalog.

Update: The CDL contracted with Ex Libris to develop a basic version of the Telnet service for Melvyl-T. The version will support searching, displaying, and emailing. A future policy issue may evolve to evaluate the need for its continuing support.

Maintenance of Z39.50 server

Issue: Determine how campuses and end users are currently depending on this service for access to the Melvyl® catalog.

Issue: Determine to what extent it is necessary to support access from non-UC sites (e.g., public libraries).

Update: The Z39.50 server will be maintained with Melvyl-T, as it is used for the Request service. A future policy issue may request SOPAG's advice on the level of ongoing support, given use and possible impact on system performance.

NRLF/SRLF

Issue: Since campuses currently keep records of materials deposited, determine the need for continuing to record the original owner in the Melvyl Catalog.

Issue: Clarify the necessary display and location limits for campus holdings in storage (i.e., "at <campus>" limit).

Update: On May 18, 2001, SOPAG discussed Regional Library Facility (RLF) records and endorsed the objective of improving the functioning of the Request feature by linking to circulation information in the RLF record for a deposited item. Methods for achieving this objective are to be explored. The issue of campus ownership in the record was not resolved.

Update: The Aleph system location tables support only one entry per individual record prior to merging. Thus, the system does not support providing the "at <campus>" limit for more than one location for a single record. Campuses have chosen which locations should be included in a campus location limit (for example, the UCLA location limit includes SRLF).

Education

Issue: Consider the extent to which educational materials and activities can be collaboratively constructed among CDL and the campuses.

Issue: Determine the nature and extent of an information literacy approach to system education and documentation.

Catalog Sources

Issue: Changes in record sources.

Update: On October 25, 2002, SOPAG agreed that for new or changed sources, the costs and workload for additional or changed input streams needs to be negotiated. In addition, it recommended that for organizational reasons, contact with the affiliated libraries on such issues should be mediated by the general library. See the Principles for review of new or changed affiliated libraries [RTF].

Update: On October 25, 2002, SOPAG endorsed the following:

• The principle of loading non-UC monographic records: when the participant is a significant partner of the UC libraries, both monographic and serial records should be available to minimize confusion. See the Principles for non-UC contributors to the Melvyl Catalog [RTF].
• The CDL proposal to pursue options which will provide access to previously serials-only sources in Periodicals (e.g., Stanford, California State University) via a broadcast tool (such as MetaLib, Searchlight, or Zportal) with high-level links to the source catalogs.

Update: At its meeting on December 13, 2002, SOPAG endorsed the loading of California State Library monographic and serial records into Melvyl-T, due to strong support for their inclusion from UC library staff. The development work needed to accomplish this was completed before the legacy Melvyl Catalog was scheduled to retire.