> From: KUHUB::JWHEWITT "Joe Hewitt" 2-MAR-1992 09:37:31.15
> To: IN%"law-lib@ucdavis.edu"
> CC: JWHEWITT
> Subj: Sharing the OCLC 3-letter symbol (Summary)
>
>
> Thanks to all who took the time to respond to my question about the need
> for a unique OCLC 3-letter symbol in the Law Library.
>
> Some of my comments are sprinkled among the responses. (I am not
> criticizing any respondent, rather I'm relating the comments to our
> situation.) These messages are slightly edited:
>
> >From: Heather Braithwaite Simmons <HSIMMON@WAYNEST1.BITNET>
> >
> >Here at Wayne State, one of the last non-autonomous academic
> >law libraries we have always "gone through" the main library
> >system to get OCLC.
> >
> >When we search OCLC and the holdings symbol EYW appears
> >it means that the item is somewhere at Wayne State. At that point
> >we search again on our OPAC to see where it is in the system.
>
> This double look-up (first, OCLC; then, OPAC) is a real pain if your
> terminals are not side-by-side.
>
> >Sometimes the two systems disagree with each other, i.e. one
> >system says we have it and the other says we don't, but this
> >doesn't happen very often.
> >
> >Since there is relatively little overlap between our collection
> >and those of other WSU libraries a shared OCLC symbol has not
> >been a sIgnificant problem.
> =========================================================================
> From: "Deena Frazier, Boston College Law Library" <FRAZIERD@bcvms.bc.edu>
> >
> >BC Law Library used to exist as a holding library within our main
> >library's 3-symbol code (we were BXML at the time -- now we have our own
> >3-symbol code, BXL) I wouldn't go back to the old arrangement for
> >anything!
> >
> >The main problem from those days which still haunts us is that titles
> >which the Law Library produced on OCLC back then are identified in the
> >OCLC Online Union Catalog as BXM, **not** BXL. This causes headaches
> >for our Interlibrary Loan people, because requests for items which are
> >owned by the Law Library go to Main Campus, and have to get sorted out
> >over there, causing confusion and grumbling on everyone's part.
>
> Interlibrary Loan service is a _critical_ issue, particularly as described
here.
>
>
> >Also, we cannot assume, when we search a title in OCLC, that if it says "Not
> >held by BXL" that we really don't have it. If it was processed in the
> >old days, our copy would be represented in OCLC as being BXM, not BXL.
> >It's very convenient to rely on the "Held by BXL" or "Not held by BXL"
> >information for a number of obvious reasons. Because of the history of
> >our OCLC membership, we cannot consider that information to be reliable.
>
> Changing your symbol and, of course, your processing methods seems to
adversely
>
> affect the utility of OCLC as a database resource.
>
> >I guess the basic problem is that at the OCLC level, location information is
> >recorded at the 3-symbol level, not the 4-symbol level.
> >
> >Even after we got our own 3-symbol code, we continued to be subsidiary
> >members of OCLC through our local network, NELINET, rather than being
> >full voting members. This caused innumerable problems such as never
> >seeing statistical reports from OCLC/NELINET, having to rely on main
> >campus to send us copies of various informational things coming from
> >OCLC, having to share a budget, get their permission and signatures to
> >take workshops, etc., etc. Now we are fully autonomous, voting members
> >of NELINET, and things are much simpler.
>
>
> Lack of statistical and cost reports leads me to wonder how we can know
> where we are when asked by administrators. This sort of centralized
> control of the budget distances the budgetary process from the unit. The
> unit becomes less accountable to its patrons.
>
> >I should point out that BC is not yet under the gun to cut back, the way
> >so many other institutions are these days. Which is not to say that
> >that won't happen at some point, but I would argue *vociferously*
> >against giving up our 3-symbol code and our individual membership in our
> >local network.
> =============================================================================
> >From: Cheryl Nyberg, Univ. of Ill. Law Library, Champaign, IL 61820
> > AXVUCCN@UICVMC.AISS.UIUC.EDU (Internet)
> >
> > The University of Illinois Law Library does not have a separate OCLC symbol
> > since we are a branch library and not an autonomous unit. The lack of a
> > distinct symbol has created several problems for us. We could not
participate
> > in the Intelligent Catalog union catalog.
>
> In this period of fiscal belt-tightening participation in resource-sharing
> enterprises goes beyond processing and into acquisitions policy. (Our
library
> _does_ participate in the Intelligent Catalog consortium mentioned.)
>
> >We cannot honor OCLC generated interlibrary loan requests as per the MAALL
conso
> >agreement. We could not participate in Peter Ward's catalog of law library
> >acquisitions.
>
> >There are some advantages: our OCLC, rapid cataloging is done by a
centralized
> >unit in the Main Library being the most important.
>
> The delegation of processing authority creates a dependency on the Main
Library.
> Delays will result from the need to transport materials across campus or
across
>
> town, regardless of how effective the 'rapid cataloging'.
>
> >Original cataloging is done by Law Library staff, however.
>
> How much time do you spend separating the two types of materials and
shuffling
> them to the other library?
>
> =============================================================================
> >From: Diane Hillmann <DH5@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu>
> >
> >Cornell Law Library is no longer an OCLC library, but we have been an
> >RLIN customer with our main library for many years (OCLC before that).
> >For us, being part of a larger entity for the purpose of receiving RLIN
> >services has been great--we don't have to worry about billing, archive
> >tapes, and all the associated overhead that goes with being a separate
> >customer. When we were on OCLC, we did have a separate identifier, but
> >the first three letters were the same as our main library--on RLIN we
> >have the same "LI" but are listed as a separate location on the holdings
> >portion of the record.
> >
> >The only thing you need to be careful of is that there is some way to
> >distinguish your location from the main library on your archive tapes,
> >so that for local use you can make it clear you're in a different place
> >from the literature collections, etc.
> >
> >I know a lot of people look askance at us because we don't maintain
> >ourselves on the utility as a distinct entity--they seem to think we've
> >lost something, perhaps an identity, by choosing a more efficient and
> >cost effective way to use RLIN. Trust me, our main library knows who we
> >are, and they NEVER forget that we're different. And I don't have to
> >diddle with the administrative hassles. It's a good deal.
> >From: brians@unllib.unl.edu (Brian Striman) Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln
> >
> >We are a library which was a "branch" of our main library for years
> >and all technical services services functions except filing cards
> >and filing looseleaf services was done by the main library; and
> >in 1982, due to all kinds of problems this arrangement caused,
> >pressure on our Chancellor by the American Bar Association
> >Accrediting Team to take away our accredition as a Law College
> >because of the condition of library services, we became a fully
> >autonomous library. ....
> >
> >I am prejudiced toward autonomy with respect to adding your
> >holdings in the 3-letter code: particularly for resource sharing,
> >union listing capabilities, interlibrary loaning, etc.
> =========================================================================
> >From: B.J. Segel, Head of Technical Services, Pepperdine Law Library
> > (bjsegel@pepvax)
> >
> >Two things come to mind immediately. If you merge with the main campus
> >library for OCLC usage will the Law Library still be exepected to pay its
> >share of OCLC charges?
>
> A good question that is, as yet, unanswered.
>
> >OCLC may not be willing or able to bill separately
> >for your usage if both libraries use the same symbol. Better check on this
> >else you will have an accounting nightmare. Secondly will you ever want
> >OCLC to create an archive tape of your holdings? As far as I know this
can't
> >be done if you don't have your own symbol. You may think you will never
need
> >an archive tape, but I think it is foolish to make such an assumption.
>
> KU Law Library currently extracts its records from a master archive tape for
> the entire institution.
>
> >Come to think of it, what are the cost advantages supposed to be? I can't
> >think of any.
> =============================================================================
>
> As you can see, the spectrum of opinion on 3-letter autonomy is broad.
> Positive views depend on getting good service from the main library and
> having a good relationship with that library's administration. Negative
> attitudes come from experiences of processing delays, funding wars, ILL by
> phone, inability to get reliable statistics, and time-consuming
> workarounds. Deteriorating service seems to adversely affect staff morale.
>
> I'm not so sure that the giving up our 3-letter symbol is a good move for
> us. The cost savings would have to be truly impressive.
>
> Thanks again for all the good ideas,
>
> Joe Hewitt, University of Kansas Law Library, jwhewitt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>
>
Elizabeth St. Goar
Electronic Mail Postmaster
University of California, Davis
(916) 752-6386
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST