National Library of Australia
Kinetica Kinetica
This page is an archive page and will no longer be updated.

KINETICA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

15 March 2002

Agenda Papers


Agenda

  1. Welcome and introduction, apologies
  2. Minutes of the previous meeting and business arising, if any KAC/201/3/14
  3. Director-General’s remarks
  4. Kinetica Financial Information (embargoed)
  5. Kinetica Status Report KAC/2002/1/2
  6. Demonstration of Help Desk System
  7. Draft Vision for Kinetica KAC/2002/1/3
    Stakeholder Analysis KAC/2002/1/4 (embargoed)
  8. Kinetica review (oral report)
  9. Kinetica charges 2002 (embargoed)
  10. Resource Sharing Interfaces Workshop KAC/2002/1/6
  11. Kinetica Annual Users Meeting August 2002 KAC/2002/1/7
  12. End User Survey report KAC/2002/1/8
  13. Comparative case studies: administrative costs of processing ILLpayments KAC/2002/1/9
  14. Electronic Resources: Progress report KAC/2002/1/10
  15. Microform collection record acquisition: Progress report KAC/2002/1/11
  16. National Bibliographic Database - Quality issues KAC/2002/1/12
  17. Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery KAC/2002/1/13
  18. Subject Headings Review Panel KAC/2002/1/14
  19. Access to Scientific Journals in Australian Libraries Attached? Where will I put this??
  20. Conclusion
  21. Review of resolutions (if any)

Agenda item 5

Kinetica Status Report December - March 2002

KAC/2002/1/2

Databases, Product Development and Quality

 

Result 2001/02 to 31 Jan 2002

Target

YTD Revenue

  • Kinetica
  • Document Delivery Payment Service

TOTAL

2, 494,733 90 %

1,140,323 92 %

3,635,056 96 %

2,556,000

1,246,000

3,802,000

Searches

Year to date

3,477,283 93 %

3,730,000

NBD & CJK holdings

Year to date

1,655,977 155 %

1,070,000

KDD requests

Year to date

137,943 99 %

139,000

% KDD requests using Payments Service

Year to date

79 %

80%

Search and Cataloguing Services delivered within contracted service levels (IBM GSA)

98%

95%

Percentage of key stakeholders are satisfied with services

 

Survey to be conducted 2nd quarter 2002

Percentage and number of batch loads added within 5 working days of receipt

100%

95%

Ariel 3.01. The National Library received copies of the software on CD-ROM from RLG at the end of January. 120 copies in total were received - 20 copies of the Full version and 20 copies of the Receive version, both of these for new users of Ariel; 60 copies of the Ariel Upgrade to Ariel 2.2 Full version and 20 copies of the Upgrade to 2.2 Receive version, these for existing users with Ariel 2.2 who wish to upgrade to 3.01. The NLA’s Ariel Home Pages have been configured to show technical information and to accept online orders for the new version. Distribution of the software in response to orders started mid February.

Kinetica Document Delivery. During the fourth quarter of 2001, testing of the latest version of VDX (2.2.7) and VDX Web 2, using an installation at CAVAL, identified a number of show stopping problems. Rectification of these problems has required the production of a software patch by Fretwell-Downing in the UK. W has also been proceeding on the customisation of XML style sheets by FDI staff in Melbourne. A second software patch was installed at CAVAL in early February.

KineticaWeb. A Network Preview Day took place on 4 February. The preview generated constructive feedback from Kinetica customers. Some changes will be made to the screens as a result of the feedback received. Currently all feedback is being evaluated. Once outstanding issues have been resolved an announcement will be made on Kinetica-l detailing the implementation date.

CJK System. The CJK database grew by over 32,000 bibliographic and 9,000 holdings records and now totals 1,376,147 bibliographic records and 412,186 holdings records. The Service currently has 23 members. The new Millennium software and documentation was distributed to members from December 2001 onwards, and the rollout of the Millennium Cataloguing module was accompanied by three training sessions in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. The sessions were designed to familiarize members with new interface and enable them to clarify policy and raise issues.

Web Input interface. Several small enhancements were made to the interface to further fine tune the functionality of the software in line with user requirements. These included automatic insertion of the Medium subfield by the system in the correct position in the Title field, correction of title field punctuation, creation of a statement of responsibility subfield without cataloguer intervention, and removal of the obsolete 'Computer file' from the Medium pick list.

Electronic collections. A separate report is available on the progress of developments to improve support for electronic collections on the NBD.

Documentation: A new manual to assist KDD customers to easily navigate the KDD interface was issued in December 2001 entitled KDD made simple. In addition Kinetica staff are currently preparing a brochure entitled KDD at a Glance.

Help desk. From November 2001 to February 2002 the Help Desk dealt with 2,491 requests.

Kinetica Customer Service introduced in January 2002 a new customer data profile system. This system has been implemented to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Kinetica Help Desk Service by tracking helpdesk enquiries and responses.

To date, 698 enquiries have been entered onto the database. Apart from unlocked records and duplicate records, the most common query received relates to the new KineticaWeb Search interface preview day on Monday 4 February.

Visits. Kinetica staff visited the following libraries: Yarra Plenty Regional Library Service, ADFA, Environment Australia, Parliament, Attorney-Generals Department, Australian Institute of Criminology, University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.

User Group Meetings. Kinetica staff have attended Kinetica User Group Meetings in NSW and ACT.

Training. The following training courses were conducted during the period November 2001 February 2002: 3 CJK Millennium courses, 9 KineticaWeb courses, 6 Kinetica Document Delivery and 3 Kinetica Cataloguing Client courses.

15 organisations have signed the new Kinetica Training Service Provider Contract.

Refresher training courses have been offered to current Kinetica Training Service Providers in November, January and February. All 15 organisations have now received their refresher training.

Business relationships

Measure

Result 2001/02 to 31 Jan 2002

Target

Develop relationships with RLG and OCLC

Contract with OCLC WoldCat to be finalised by the end of February 2002

Discounted rate received from RLG for Ariel 3.01

Access to WorldCat for trial 2002

Develop relationships with consortia

Consortia relationships are being negotiated:

NSW Country Public Library Association (CPLA)

2002

NSW One Person Australian Libraries (OPALS)

2002

Queensland QPLA

2002

Viclink

2003

Queensland OPALS

2003

Victorian Health Libraries Inc

2003

OCLC. 138 Kinetica customers have registered for the trial of access to WorldCat (the OCLC Online Union Catalog) in 2002.

On 24 September the National Library of New Zealand’s Te Puna database was added as a new gateway to Kinetica. Since this date approximately 2500 searches have been conducted on Te Puna by Kinetica customers and approximately 8400 searches have conducted by Te Puna of the NBD.

Market Share

 

Result 2001/02 to 31 Jan 2002

Target

Participation by key library sectors

(measured annually)

100% of state and university libraries;

78.3% of public libraries;

85.6% of key government, health and law libraries

100% of state and university libraries;

80% of public libraries;

80% of key government, health and law libraries

Customer retention

99.3%

99%

Libraries using Kinetica Document Delivery

543

650 by Jun 2002

New Registrations. From November 2001 to February 2002 9 new customers registered with Kinetica. The majority of new customers are special libraries which include: Mitcham Library Service, Port Macquarie Base Hospital (NPMH), South Australia Police (SPD), Symphony Australia National Music Library, Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Avmed Library - RAAF Base - Edinburgh (SAVMED), Victorian Child Psychiatry Training Department (VCPI).

Cancellations. From November 2001 - February 2002 there have been 8 cancellations. Of these 3 library closures, 2 library merges, and 3 libraries cancelled due to low usage.

Marketing: Stands were staffed at the National Public Libraries Conference (November 2001) and VALA (February2002). The stands were very well attended with delegates making very positive comments on the work of the National Library, especially PictureAustralia, Treasures Exhibition, digital initiatives and Kinetica. 4 prospective business relationships are likely to develop for Kinetica resulting from our presence at VALA this year.

Governance and Management

Measure

Result 2001/02 to 31 Jan 2002

Target

Users satisfied with governance and management

 

Survey to be conducted 2nd quarter 2002

Kinetica staff attended Kinetica User Group meetings in NSW and the ACT while eight of the top twenty Kinetica customers were visited

Evaluation

Evaluations are to be conducted shortly.

Recommendation

That the Committee note the Report.


Agenda item 6

Draft Vision for Kinetica

KAC/2002/1/3

Background

At its last meeting the Kinetica Advisory Committee discussed issues for the future of Kinetica and the vision required for the service

A one page Vision statement for Kinetica has been prepared and is attached. The vision paper includes a summary of current Kinetica services, key issues for Kinetica’s future and objectives for a future service model.

A stakeholder analysis of Kinetica by library sector has also been prepared. The document provides a background on issues relating to the future needs for Kinetica by Australian libraries by sector.

Recommendation

The Kinetica Advisory Committee provide input on the proposed vision.

VISION

Kinetica has operated for over 20 years as the main source of information on what is held in Australia’s libraries. As a cooperative network, Kinetica enables Australian libraries to share their collections in the interests of meeting national needs for access to information resources.

WHAT DOES KINETICA OFFER NOW?

·         Cooperative cataloguing, reducing the costs of individual Australian libraries.

·         Support for interlibrary lending, allowing an item held in one library to be borrowed or copied throughout Australia.

·         Support for cooperative collection development.

KEY ISSUES FOR KINETICA’S FUTURE

  • Kinetica’s key asset is its comprehensive database describing over 33 million documentary items held in over 1,100 Australian libraries.
  • Individuals who are not associated with a library also want access to the information available within Kinetica.
  • Access to Kinetica needs to be more broadly based, with data held in Kinetica accessible through other systems such as Web search engines and portals.
  • Where possible, there should be direct access to content including data sources only available in electronic format, not just a location for an item.
  • New models for presenting data held in Kinetica need to be explored, such as linking to Internet book suppliers where the user may want the option to purchase an item.
  • Kinetica’s value can be increased by providing a range of new services.
  • Kinetica is owned and managed within Australia, with the result that the service is developed as a response to the particular needs of Australian libraries.
  • Kinetica’s financial and general operating environment may change as different service models are explored. The current cost-recovery model will need to continue, however, external sources of funding will be explored in order to pass on cost reductions to users of Kinetica.

KINETICA - A FUTURE SERVICE MODEL

Planning for further development of Kinetica will have the following objectives:

  • More general access to Kinetica by individual users, regardless of their location or affiliation with a library.
  • Ability to distribute data held within Kinetica through other Web-based services including search engines, reaching new audiences.
  • More links to full-text content, which is increasingly a requirement for users.
  • Improved support for ILL/DSS, including enhanced access to resources in electronic format
  • Linkages with other information and business systems such as overseas library systems and Internet book suppliers.
  • Improved access to electronic data sources, to complement the existing strengths of the Kinetica service.
  • A strengthened position as the key Internet source of information on Australian library collections and other documentary materials existing in electronic format.
  • Reduced financial barriers to accessing Kinetica.

Agenda item 10

Resource Sharing Interfaces Workshop

KAC/2002/1/6

Background

A workshop was held on Tuesday 5 February at the Melbourne Convention Centre. The workshop follows upon a similar workshop held in 1998. It was convened by the National Library on the recommendation of the Kinetica Advisory Committee and was attended by 41 delegates representing libraries, library system vendors, book and serial suppliers and the National Library. The workshop was organised to provide an opportunity to discuss how library services are provided and how workflows have changed and are expected to change over the coming years.

Summary of Issues

  • Participants affirmed the continuing importance of maintaining the currency and coverage of the National Bibliographic Database (NBD).
  • Kinetica needs to retain its recognition and support for a diversity of workflows to meet the varying needs of Australian libraries.
  • There was general agreement for the need for closer integration of resource discovery, ordering and NBD updating where economic pressures necessitate that processes are done once.
  • A number of workflow models were discussed. There continues to be support for the ‘pass through’ model identified by the previous Interfaces Workshop in 1998. In this model bibliographic and order data is sent from the library supplier to the library via the NBD. The workshop suggested that an XML package might provide a suitable vehicle for this data.
  • A number of library representatives suggested a need for Z39.50 searching of book and serial vendors’ databases.
  • Library vendors are developing XML for exchange of information with publishers and will be able to supply data to libraries in this format.
  • There were differing views of the value of adding ‘on order’ holdings to the NBD.
  • There was some support for the development of Z39.50 update for updating multiple targets; others thought the focus should be on XML packets to assist communication between vendors, Kinetica and libraries. XML was described as a more widely accepted standard than Z39.50. If this approach was adopted, Kinetica will need to support XML input/output and flow through.

National Library response to the issues raised at the workshop:

  1. Kinetica will promote discussion of technical services workflows that demonstrate best practice and encourage cataloguers to address these issues at appropriate conferences and seminars.
  2. Kinetica will investigate the extent of user demand for support of the 'pass through' workflow model. If there is sufficient demand, Kinetica will investigate technical options for supporting this model and will attempt to establish a pilot with one or more book and serial suppliers.
  3. Kinetica will investigate the use of XML to support the exchange of bibliographic and order data between libraries, book and serial suppliers, and Kinetica. The investigation will consider whether XML provides, or will provide, a suitable alternative to Z39.50 update.
  4. Kinetica will investigate the use of Z39.50 extended services to update the National Bibliographic Database. The investigation will include a comparison of the costs and benefits of real time updating of the National Bibliographic Database with those of batch loading. The costs and benefits for both data contributors and NBD searchers will be considered. The investigation will also consider whether there are different costs, benefits and drivers influencing the requirements for the updating of bibliographic, holdings and authority data. Kinetica will continue to monitor the development and implementation of Z39.50 update in both library management systems and bibliographic utilities for both bibliographic and holdings data, including the use of the Union Catalogue Profile (UCP).

Recommendation

That the Committee note the summary of discussions and the National Library response.


RESOURCE SHARING INTERFACES WORKSHOP

Corryong Room, Melbourne Convention Centre

5 February 2002

Draft Minutes

1.Introduction and welcome

Roxanne Missingham welcomed participants to the second Resource Sharing Interfaces Workshop convened by the National Library on the recommendation of the Kinetica Advisory Committee (see Appendix 1 for a list of participants). Ms Missingham noted that many issues discussed at the previous workshop in 1998, such as the need for an uploading service, have already been implemented or are no longer relevant, while other issues have emerged such as access to electronic resources. This workshop had been convened to enable an interchange of ideas between the different sectors: librarians, library system vendors and book and journal suppliers. It was an opportunity to discuss how services are provided, and how workflows have changed and are expected to change over the coming years. All sectors are affected by economic imperatives and it is essential to develop models that will assist in the streamlining of technical services. The workshop focuses on the role of Kinetica and the need to maintain the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). The workshop is also an opportunity to develop a better understanding of all the issues, which could then be built into our planning. Ms Missingham concluded that a summary of the workshop would be used as a consultative document with industry.

2. Issues panel

The workshop facilitator, Helen Livingston, introduced the speakers for each of the three sectors:
Patricia Scott, University of Adelaide representing libraries
Chris Taylor of Epixtech, representing library system vendors
Linda Carmichael of James Bennett’s, representing library suppliers.

2.1 Patricia Scott discussed the implications of the University of Adelaide’s library workflow and the technological assistance needed.



All workflows operate in an online environment where systems influence, if not dictate what is possible. Workflows are also affected by the scarcity of resources and this necessitates that processes are done once and double handling is avoided. In this context, two casualties of cost cutting have been timeliness in reporting holdings to the NBD and a lowering of standards.

Ms Scott then described the University of Adelaide’s workflow. Orders are first checked in the local catalogue to avoid duplication. The priority is then to acquire the best record in the local system as soon as possible: for 85% of items, records are available in Kinetica and these are downloaded in real time at the order stage. OCLC is searched second and if a record is located in either catalogue, this saves keying and improves accuracy. Holdings are not added to Kinetica at this stage (although the library may review this in the future). Their new system allows concurrent Z39.50 searching which has advantages but as Z39.50 update to Kinetica is not available, this could not be used to add holdings. Orders are then forwarded to vendors in batches in a variety of ways (print, EDIFACT, email).

Ms Scott discussed the University of Adelaide’s investigations into using vendor databases to identify and order items directly and discussed a number of issues, including:

  • vendor databases lacked good quality records available in real time;
  • searching vendor databases added complexity to the workflow (though this could be done by concurrent searches if all were available for Z39.50 searches and could be searched concurrently with Kinetica);
  • the creation of an order in their local system automatically creates a local order number. However if an item was ordered on the vendor database, the local order number would only be created once they received the confirming order record from the vendor;
  • creation of the order record locally immediately encumbers the funds allocated; and
  • without searching independently of a vendor’s database, libraries may miss out on later or variant editions or related material. Kinetica gives a much wider range of information and it is therefore better to search the NBD before placing an order.

At receipt of item, workslips are printed and placed inside the item, which is placed on the shelves for review by cataloguers.

Catalogue records are reviewed with the item in hand. Headings are checked and authorities imported where needed. OCLC is used for LC authorities and Kinetica is searched (via Z39.50) for Australian authorities. The classification is checked against DDC so that related works are shelved together. If the record is of poor quality, the cataloguer will search Kinetica and possibly OCLC for a record to clone and import. Original cataloguing occurs for about 1% of items and is therefore not common in their system. For original or cloned records that are amended in any way that would be useful to the wider library community, the bibliographic record is flagged for export to Kinetica. For a crucial or complex change, the cataloguer may use the Kinetica Client to amend the record online but this is less common as the Client is more cumbersome and less familiar to use.

The cataloguing workflow concludes with the end cataloguer who completes the call number and amends the status of the record.

Ms Scott then discussed a number of issues that would assist the University of Adelaide’s workflow. At the order stage, Kinetica should be a one-stop-shop to verify orders independently of vendors and obtain records. If Z39.50 update was available in Kinetica and the local ILMS, then holdings could be added to the NBD at the order stage. If libraries use a vendor database to order books, they will not want to make a second search of Kinetica to retrieve bibliographic records. If the vendor were to supply records, these need to be supplied as full records in real time (not brief records supplied in batches using FTP as some vendors currently supply); and the vendor or the library still need to supply holdings to Kinetica which may not occur until the item is received or end processing occurs.

Ms Scott discussed a flow through model where vendors supply library holdings to the NBD with the order data, which Kinetica would supply to the participating library. This raises issues for the NBD of the retention of such order data as well as commercial confidentiality and is also more likely to be done in batches rather than real time, which would cause further delays. This model also raises questions of standards. However, if vendors sent records from Kinetica this would supply records from a single source of data and therefore a single standard, which would be an advantage of the model.

At the cataloguing stage, local systems need to be more efficient in identifying unauthorised headings. The availability of Z39.50 update versus batchloading is also an issue: real time, simultaneous updating of the NBD and the local system is essential for bibliographic, holdings and authority records, with the emphasis on doing tasks once. By contrast, batchloading involves a delay during which time other libraries have made the same amendments thereby duplicating effort needlessly.

Other recommendations at the cataloguing stage included:

  • receipt of update files (bibliographic change files) from Kinetica from the order stage to the final cataloguing stage only;
  • templates that could be applied to imported or cloned records: the use of templates is widespread among ILMS suppliers but in many systems, these templates can not be applied to imported or cloned records (but only to original cataloguing of which the University of Adelaide has less than 1%) so this feature is badly under-utilised;
  • for electronic resources, the ability to save HTML records directly from MARC records;
  • automatic verification through Web Dewey of Dewey numbers added to cataloguing records;
  • use of the MFHD (ANSI Z39.71- 1999) standard for the storage, export and exchange of holdings data, particularly in the case of serials (where it allows the storage of holdings data as well as publication pattern data thereby allowing holdings to be accurately interpreted). This would allow more accurate holdings summaries that potentially could be interpreted by resource sharing modules to assist unmediated document requests;
  • global changes of bibliographic and authority records;
  • for authority control there is a need for an Australian updating or authority change service which could provide libraries with an integrated file of US and Australian headings, ensuring that those for Australian authors and specific subjects are maintained.
2.2 Chris Taylor (Epixtech) spoke from the perspective of what library system vendors would like to be able to do.

At the order discovery stage it is essential for a library to check its own database first, to ensure an item is needed. The second step would be a search of Kinetica as part of which, Kinetica would act as a broker to identify suppliers who have the item available. Having identified their preferred supplier, two alternative workflows were suggested:

  • the library would receive the bibliographic record from Kinetica with order information in the 900s, to add to their local database and have their holding added to the NBD
  • or alternatively, the library supplier would forward an XML package back to the local library system and, having accepted the order, contact Kinetica to confirm the order and obtain the record to send with the item.

So holdings could be added to Kinetica either at the order stage or the record filed in the local system and forwarded to Kinetica via Z39.50 update. This would require the ability to forward a record to a number of different sites simultaneously i.e. transmit to a local database and to other bibliographic utilities. In this context, the National Library may wish to develop software which would enable it to accept updated records information individually.

So a broadcast search to all vendors via Kinetica would enable a library to select their preferred supplier. Z39.50 extended services would enable MARC records to be forwarded by FTP, with the emphasis on doing tasks once and avoiding double handling.

In response to a question about selecting a library supplier following the broadcast search to Kinetica, Chris Taylor replied that the functionality already exists to canvas library suppliers through a single search. However library suppliers would have to buy in to the arrangement and there may be issues such as commercial-in-confidence to be worked through. The issue is political not technical and would require a change of approach. In conclusion, Helen Livingston referred back to the supply of an XML package to libraries and described it as a very different way of operating.

2.3 Linda Carmichael (James Bennett) began by addressing some of the issues raised in Chris Taylor’s paper. Ms Carmichael noted that library suppliers are already using XML for exchanging data with publishers, enabling them to create a single record with all the information needed. However XML records have not been transferred to libraries as yet.

On the suggestion of interrogating vendor databases via a Z39.50 broadcast search, Ms Carmichael thought this was probably not the most appropriate prodedure. As an example, Bennett’s titles database (designed as an interface with publishers) was not stored in MARC format and would require a lot of work before it could be interrogated via such searches. Library suppliers generally prefer to load order information and supply data to individual libraries in batch mode. However as library suppliers are developing XML for exchange of information with publishers, they will be able to supply data in this format.

Ms Carmichael referred to the inconsistencies in order information received from libraries using different library systems. Currently data could be supplied in around 40 different ways. Library system vendors move from one standard to another, each of which picks up more or less information, which can cause problems. Library suppliers would like more consistency from library system vendors, ideally a single standard for order information. On the other hand, library suppliers would like to transmit more information to customers but, again, there are enormous variations in the technology available to customers and in the information they want to use.

For James Bennett, original cataloguing is done directly onto Kinetica as Bennetts does not maintain a database of MARC records. Library suppliers would like Kinetica to provide a different way of identifying what work they do, to provide more management reporting of their original cataloguing, updated records and addition of holdings. At present, library suppliers sign on to Kinetica using the customer’s signon and the customer is identified in the 040 tag. Library suppliers want some attribution of who actually did the work, such as adding a library’s holding. On the issue of prepublication information, library suppliers would like to send this data to Kinetica so it would be in the public domain much earlier than at present.

In response to a question about the poor quality of the records libraries often receive from library suppliers, Ms Carmichael replied that, while library suppliers have bibliographic information in their databases, this is not used as a catalogue and the information is gathered from many sources outside of bibliographic utilities. Vendors can usually provide a brief, automatically generated MARC 21 record at point of order but will not be able to supply all the information libraries require primarily because title information is gathered without the book in hand. On a positive note, Bennetts is currently redeveloping its titles database and looking at extracting data in XML and then mapping it to MARC21. This will potentially allow for publishing related information, currently not stored with the title record, to be transmitted automatically in the MARC21 record.

In further discussion the point was made that library suppliers operate between libraries on the one hand and publishers on the other and have to create data that can be communicated to both. Publishing information can be inconsistent up to the time that the book is actually published, with changes in ISBNs or even re-using previously issued ISBNs. To manage this, the book supplier usually has a single record for each ISBN. This differs from libraries where a library catalogue may have a single bibliographic record for a title with multiple ISBNs. For library management systems exporting title information for order purposes, it is usually the first ISBN 020 tag that is exported, even if it is not the ISBN for the edition that the library really wants to order (eg paperback ISBN when the hardback edition is really required). If would assist library suppliers if the library could nominate the actual 020 tag that is to be exported. Libraries want quality records from vendors at point of order but book vendors are not in the business of creating such records.

3. Identification of key issues

Following on from the issues panel, Helen Livingston summarised the key issues as follows:

  1. Resource discovery issues: there is a real need to streamline the resource discovery processes through local library systems and vendor systems.
  2. Having identified the items libraries want to order, many other steps need to occur:
  • an order needs to be placed in a way that updates the local library system immediately and links the unique order number with the bibliographic information so avoiding duplicate orders;
  • records need to match so the local library system can recognise if a duplicate is being ordered;
  • the bulk of this work needs to be undertaken by the most junior staff; and
  • libraries need to update the NBD on their holdings. This raises the question of what information is appropriate to record on the NBD and whether libraries should update the NBD with items on order.
  1. Once an item has been received by a library
  • the NBD needs to be updated;
  • libraries may or may not want to receive update files (bibliographic change files) from Kinetica;
  • there are issues associated with reporting holdings to more than one place;
  • a separate process is required for cancellation of orders;
  • interfaces have to operate easily and efficiently; and
  • all parties need to reassess why they want to know specific data and what they really need to know.

Ms Livingston summarised the arrangements for the workshop session to follow the afternoon tea break and encouraged all groups to discuss workflows and to identify what needs to occur in all sectors to improve those workflows.

4. Reporting and discussion of issues raised by syndicate groups

Following on from the workshop, each group reported back on the issues raised in discussion.

4.1 Group 1
  • The priority is to forward information to Kinetica and this should be quality records of a realistic standard.
  • Promotion of the addition of collections to the NBD to all libraries - small libraries are essential members of the Australian library network and their collections should be on the NBD.
  • Access to Kinetica needs consortia/ site licence/ better charging models especially to encourage small libraries to join.
  • Interlibrary loans/ resource sharing is another area to be explored.
  • Prepublication information - book vendors can supply Australian prepublication information but there may be commercial issues.
  • Publishers use title information for very different purposes to libraries.
  • The linking from records to vendors needs discussion by vendors. It may be feasible to download records from Kinetica and send them to vendors for ordering.
  • Lots of workflow modelling is needed.
  • Emphasised the importance of updating holdings quickly.
  • End user access to Kinetica is an important area for development.
  • And it is still a magical, wonderful service.
4.2 Group 2
  • Workflows - need to model ‘ideal’ workflows for different types of materials (e.g. print vs. electronic, Australian vs. overseas) and/or for different types of libraries.
  • There is a need to identify what is the fundamental record that can be used by publishers, vendors, suppliers and libraries.
  • A Z39.50 Client that can upload records to Kinetica should be developed but who should develop and distribute it? This would allow holdings to be updated.
  • Is Z39.50 being replaced by XML? If so, support is needed for XML input/ output and flow through in Kinetica.
  • Should Kinetica be the first stop or the last i.e. where does Kinetica fit into the workflow? There was support for Kinetica as a one-stop-shop for item identification and availability and also for the idea of having to input order data once and that data flow to supplier, NBD and the library’s local system. Alternatively, order data could be transmitted from the vendor to the library via Kinetica. Kinetica has a role in improving connectivity.
  • There is a need to identify the business needs for each part of the industry.
  • What would we want in an ideal world? No duplication of effort; all systems standardised; a painless and less expensive process for adding data to Kinetica and for vendors to do everything that libraries need.
4.3 Group 3

This group began with a discussion of Chris Taylor’s proposed workflow i.e. local duplicate checking followed by a single, broadcast search of Kinetica and vendor databases. They concluded that this model would need holdings reported to the NBD while items were on order, which brought up the issue of standards:

  • Z39.50 update would allow the updating of multiple targets. Kinetica could develop this or the software could be developed by a third party vendor.
  • EDI - is it specific enough for the library industry or is something more specific needed? Alternatively should we be looking at XML packets to assist communication between vendors, Kinetica and libraries?
  • Further discussion of workflows: discussion with vendors probably requires two transactions, not one; vendor or local library system can forwarded ‘on order’ holdings to Kinetica; MARC records could be supplied from the vendor or from Kinetica but how to manage the remainder of original cataloguing?
  • Workflow issues between book and serial suppliers and Kinetica: how do vendors know what is on Kinetica and obtain it for their local database? They could forward a file of ISBNs to Kinetica and Kinetica send back the best available records. In this model there are issues in defining ‘best’ and this would ultimately have to be done by a person. Secondly vendors need better arrangements for supplying information to the NBD, including prepublication data and to be able to add bibliographic data under their own signon (which would be a form of advertisement and so may encourage them to add more). Vendors also need to be able to add holdings for groups of clients rather than individually.
  • Australian authority records - there are issues in defining Australian authority records and this is being addressed as part of the Expert Advisory Group on Authorities.
  • Support for the MARC holdings format (Z39.71) and the more accurate holdings summaries that it could provide would be especially important in assisting unmediated interlibrary loans.
  • Briefly discussed confidentiality issues between supplier and client - no conclusions as to how important this may be, or how such issues could be resolved if order data is supplied with MARC records to NBD.
4.4 Group 4

Group 4 considered a range of workflow issues, including the following.

  • Different workflows are needed for different types of materials eg monographs and serials. Z39.50 searching does not work well for searching serials, which have to be searched through the Kinetica Client. Perhaps serials could be put into a separate database on the NBD?
  • Different workflows are also needed for large and small libraries and Kinetica needs to retain its recognition and support for a diversity of workflows.
  • For those contributing data online, the Kinetica Client is too slow. If it were more efficient then libraries would be more willing to clean up problem records.
  • If holdings were added to the NBD at the ‘on order’ stage then cancellations could be removed by batch deletion through BatchLink.
  • XML vs. Z39.50 update: Z39.50 update would overcome problems with the Client and delays from using batchloading. Alternatively XML packages could be extended throughout the process, allowing staff to search Kinetica from their library management systems. XML is a more widely accepted standard, used by publishers and accepted outside the library world and was described as better for searching. However for both XML and Z39.50 searching and update, smaller libraries do not have the funds to access this technology.
4.5 Group 5

Group 5 looked at organizational boundaries, that there are different needs and priorities for all groups in the chain. This group considered the following.

  • What are we trying to achieve? There is no consensus and different views need to be brought together.
  • Many of the issues are about library workflows (i.e. not about Kinetica).
  • The best source of data may not be part of the same chain.
  • What is the centre of the data flow? If we focus on forwarding bibliographic data to libraries, then the vendor is at the centre. Could searching and placing an order on a vendor’s database trigger a Kinetica search with Kinetica supplying the record to the library? Where data is not on Kinetica, how should it be obtained? On the other hand, vendors may be reluctant to open up automated/ distributed searching due to pressures on availability and price.
  • Automating searching and matching leads to a trade off in quality.
  • Where does Kinetica fit into workflows? At both the beginning and the end as data flows in multiple directions.
4.6 Group 6

This Group focused on standards issues across the workflow, specifically:

  • Kinetica is a standard database available to all libraries. Yet there are quality control issues for bibliographic records including inaccurate information ("too much rubbish in bad records") and minor differences leading to the creation of duplicate records. It was also thought not useful to add ‘on order’ data to Kinetica as the data could change.
  • There is a lack of standards in workflows. The retention of many local practices is generating much work in order to maintain them.
  • Workflow issues between book and serial suppliers and Kinetica: at present vendors need to access Kinetica each time they wish to download a record for a library. It was noted that vendors make no money from supplying records to libraries but only do so to sell books. Vendors need more efficient workflows and equality of charging with libraries. Kinetica was also described as too slow.
  • The focus should be on providing information to the end user.

Helen Livingston concluded the workshop by thanking all participants and stating that the information gathered would be used to prepare a paper identifying the actions to be addressed.


APPENDIX 1

LIST OF INVITED ATTENDEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RESOURCE SHARING INTERFACES WORKSHOP

Anderson, Craig

Chief Executive Officer

YARRA PLENTY REGIONAL LIBRARY

Beaumont, Anne

Applications Support Coordinator - Technology Services

STATE LIBRARY OF VICTORIA

Bracher, Elizabeth

Director

BIBLIOTEK

Brodie, Maxine

Director - Strategy and CIO

STATE LIBRARY OF NSW

Carmichael, Linda

Technical Services Coordinator

JAMES BENNETT Pty Ltd

Chan, Iming (unable to attend)

Manager

TRANSLIB Pty Ltd

Cherrett, Carolyn

Marketing Manager

EBSCO Australia

Cohn, Carolyn

Director

BLACKWELL

Cook, Mary

BIBLIOTEK

Crawford, Jock

General Manager

FRETWELL-DOWNING INFORMATICS

Diradji, Din

Database Maintenance Supervisor

MONASH UNIVERSITY, Clayton Campus

Franks, Murray

Manager

XJs Pty Ltd

Gatenby, Pam (unable to attend)

Assistant Director-General

Collections Management

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Gawne, Jennifer

 

CAVAL

Goldner, Matt

 

FRETWELL-DOWNING INFORMATICS

Henczel, Sue

Education & Business Development Manager

CAVAL

Hill, Claire

Product Manager

ENDEAVOUR INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.

Horn, Mac

 

INNOVATIVE INTERFACES INC.

Livingston, Helen

Acting University Librarian

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY

Maslen, Jan

Associate Librarian (Technical Services)

LA TROBE UNIVERSITY

Neil, Alison

Product Manager

GEAC COMPUTERS Pty Ltd

Novakov, Nada

Sales and Marketing Manager

JAMES BENNETT Pty Ltd

Roberts, Susie

Manager Library Services; Treasurer MPLA

CAMPBELLTOWN CITY COUNCIL

Rousseau, Glenda

 

EX LIBRIS (Aust) Pty Ltd

Sadler, Roderick

Senior Cataloguer

NATIONAL INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SERVICE

Scott, Pat

Bibliographic Services Librarian

UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

Smith, Jack

Library Systems Development Manager

SANDERSON

Tassell, Elaine

CSIRO Information Management

Taylor, Chris

 

EPIXTECH Pty Ltd

Wade, Rona

 

UNILINC

Wakely, Trevor (unable to attend)

Technical Services Librarian

NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL LIBRARY

Walkden, Helen

Manager Technical Services

PLAIN CENTRAL SERVICES

Walters, Stephen

 

DLS Australia

Woodley, Leonard

Managing Director

ALS LIBRARY SERVICES Pty Ltd

Wright, Robyn

Account Manager

SIRSI Australia


Agenda item 11

Kinetica Annual Users Meeting 2002

KAC/2002/1/7

Background

The Kinetica Annual Users Meeting is an annual event designed to provide a forum for issues relating to Kinetica to be discussed with customers.

A draft program for the 2002 Users meeting is attached. The key panel sessions have been identified as Resource Sharing and Innovative Uses of Kinetica. Kinetica Advisory Committee members may be able to provide input on the general program schedule and specific panel speakers.

Recommendation

The Kinetica Advisory Committee provide input on the proposed program for the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting.

Kinetica Annual Users Meeting 2002

8 - 9 August 2002

Dockside, Darling Harbour

Sydney

Draft Agenda

THURSDAY

TIME

ITEM

SPEAKER

9.30 - 10.00

Registration

 

10.00 - 10.05

Opening and welcome

John Shipp

10.05 - 10.15

Official opening by TBA

TBA

10.15 - 10.35

National Library of Australia directions 2002 -2003

Jan Fullerton

10.35 - 10.55

NLA’s Electronic Resources Strategy

David Toll

10.55 - 11.00

Chair acceptance of 2001 minutes and business arising not covered elsewhere in the agenda

John Shipp

11.00 - 11.45

Report on 2001/02

  • Kinetica activities
  • Kinetica CJK
  • Expert advisory groups
  • Kinetica system developments

Roxanne Missingham

11.45 - 12.00

Questions

John Shipp

12.00 - 1.00

LUNCH

1.00 - 2.00

Panel Session - Resource Sharing: interdependence in the Australian library community

Professor Leon Cantrell Australian Libraries Collection Task Force

Fran Awcock Chair, CASL

Helen Hayes Chair, CAUL

2.00 - 3.30

Innovative uses of Kinetica

  • Access to electronic databases
  • Metadata: storage on NBD
  • Access to holdings
  • Public libraries access to holdings
  • End User Access

Rona Wade - Unilinc

Lloyd Sokvitne - State Library of Tasmania

Auslit

Sandra Dean - Brisbane City Council

Julie Philips - National Museum Library

3.30 - 4.00

AFTERNOON TEA

4.00 - 5.00

Parallel Sessions

Future Directions for Resource Sharing

  • Contributions to the NBD
  • End user access
  • Electronic resource developments
  • Business needs of Kinetica clients
  • Funding model options

2 KAC members to facilitate each of the parallel sessions

5.15 - 6.30

Happy Hour L’Aqua Room Dockside

FRIDAY

TIME

ITEM

SPEAKER

9.00 - 9.15

Report from KAC

Helen Livingston

9.15 - 9.30

Kinetica state user groups report

Trevor Wakely

9.30 - 10.00

Reports from Parallel Sessions

KAC Members

10.00 -10.30

NLA’s Response to Parallel Sessions

Roxanne Missingham

Rob Walls

10.30-11.00

MORNING TEA

11.00-11.15

Questions with Notice

John Shipp

11.15 -11.30

Questions without Notice

John Shipp

11.00 -11.45

2003 dates and 2004 Venue/date

John Shipp

11.45-12.00

Closing Remarks

John Shipp

Note:

The Kinetica Chinese Japanese Korean (CJK) Users will meet before the KAUM on Wednesday 7 August 2002.

KAC will meet from 1:30pm on Wednesday 7 August and from 1:00pm on Friday 9 August.


Agenda item 11

End User Access to Kinetica

KAC/2002/1/8

KAC/2002/1/8

 

End User Access to Kinetica

Background

End user access to Kinetica has been a long term objective for the National Library.  A survey was conducted by Marion Bate in the first half of 2000 to assess end user access in the higher education sector.  A further survey was undertaken in late 2001 to update this information and seek broader input after discussion at the Kinetica Advisory Committee meeting in July 2001. 

Results

The survey was sent to libraries through Kinetica-l and the CAUL list in November 2001. Attached (see Attachment 2) is a copy of the survey instrument.

Forty-one responses were received.  39 university libraries either responded or Kinetica access could be determined from their web site (see Attachment 2).   A comparison of results for the 2000 and 2001 surveys for the higher education sector follows:

Australian university libraries

2000 survey

2001 (survey plus research)

Offer end user access

11 (44%)

22 (56%)

Do not offer end user access

14 (66%)

17 (44%)

Total

25

39

In summary:

Other Library Respondents

Offer End User Access

Do Not Offer End User Access

Total

National and State

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

Special

0 (0%)

10 (100%)

10

Public

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

2

Of the libraries who completed the survey 58% offer access via Z39.50 and 42% offer access via a direct link.

The most commonly identified concerns relating to end user access include the following:

Most Commonly Identified Concerns Relating to End User Access

Australian University Libraries

Other Library Respondents

KineticaWeb search interface and functionality issues

14 (64%)

7 (37%)

Costs from increased end user activity

10 (45%)

7 (37%)

The impact on document delivery requests

 6 (27%)

3 (16%)

Some respondents commented on the complexity of the search interface.  Libraries considered that researchers and students from non-library backgrounds would not find the search interface easy to use.  The implementation of a new web interface in February will address most of these issues.

Some respondents also raised concerns relating to the cost of searching Kinetica; “carrying the full cost of end user access at normal search rates would make this a very expensive database compared with other databases provided to end users”.  Some respondents were concerned that an increase in end user activity would result in an increase in charges to the library, which makes it difficult to predict budgets.  If “unlimited access for a yearly fee or a reduced costing policy is introduced”, many of the libraries would consider promoting Kinetica to end users.

Some respondents mentioned that they would need to monitor the impact of document delivery requests if they were to increase end user access to Kinetica.  “End user expectations of gaining access to material that we would not normally provide as part of our current services would increase”. 

Six of the forty-one respondents (15%) mentioned that they would consider offering end user access to Kinetica if the above concerns were addressed.

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee note the report.

Attachment: Survey instrument

Dear Colleague

The National Library has sought to increase access to the resources held in Australia libraries by encouraging end user access to the National Bibliographic Database through Kinetica.  In providing access to Kinetica, libraries have also enabled users to identify material listed in the Research Libraries Group Catalogue, and now Te Puna.  The development of end user access has occurred through inclusion of end user use through site licenses.  Some libraries have enabled end user with payment for access through transaction charges.

There are many issues that have been identified relating to end user access, both from Marion Bates survey in 2000 and discussion with libraries.  Costs, impact on services such as inter-library loan requests and convenience for end users, because of interface issues, have been the three most commonly identified concerns.

Your library offers end user access to Kinetica as a part of its services to clients.  The Kinetica Advisory Committee and National Library and interested to identify the degree of use by end users in your institution and the issues involved in providing end user access.  I would be grateful if you could complete the attached survey to enable information to be collected to consider the future need and issues relating to end user access.

Please send the complemented surveys to rmissingham@nla.gov.au by 30 October 2001.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours faithfully


Roxanne Missingham

Assistant Director General

Resource Sharing Division

Survey on End User Access to Kinetica 2001

  1. Does your library currently provide end user access to Kinetica?

                       

  1. If yes, how does your library currently provide end user access to Kinetica?
  1. What is the level of use by end users of Kinetica? (Can be an estimate)
  1. Do you have comments on issues relating to access to Kinetica by end users such as impact on services including cost, inter-library loan requests or interface/usability issues?
  1. Are you intending to change either to offer end user access if you currently do not, or to cease end user access?
  1. Any other comments?

Attachment 2:  Summary of End User Access to Kinetica in universities December 2001

University

End-user Kinetica Access

Adelaide University

(No)

Australian Defence Force Academy

Yes

Australian Catholic University

No

Australian National University

Yes

Bond University

No – mediated access

Central Queensland University

Yes

Charles Sturt University

No

Curtin University of Technology

No

Deakin University Library

Yes

Edith Cowan University

(No)

Flinders University

(No)

Griffith University

Yes

James Cook University

No

La Trobe University

Yes

Macquarie University

Yes

Monash University

Yes

Murdoch University

(Yes)

Northern Territory University

Yes

Queensland University of Technology

Yes

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

(Yes)

Southern Cross University

No

Swinburne University of Technology

(No)

University of Ballarat

No

University of Canberra

(No)

University of Melbourne

Yes

University of New England

No

University of New South Wales

Yes

University of Newcastle

(Yes)

University of Queensland

Yes

University of South Australia

(Yes)

University of Southern Queensland

Yes

University of Sydney

No

University of Tasmania

No

University of Technology, Sydney

Yes

University of the Sunshine Coast

(Yes)

University of Western Australia

(No)

University of Western Sydney

(No)

University of Wollongong

(Yes)

Victoria University

Yes

 Survey: Sample Comments

“Clients often prefer to do things themselves and many postgrads search for theses etc.  Some searches seem to be very slow.  Could there be a separate database for latest records?  The process for selecting records to print, save or email is incredibly cumbersome.  It is confusing having to use the back button and records disappear.  It would be better to have something like the major databases, for example INFORMIT.  It is very annoying having to tick records in the RECORDs list again to email them (having already selected them once).  Perhaps you could have a box to tick in the top level. It would also be very good to be able to SORT a list of records in, for example, date order.”

“To consider an unlimited subscription access for a yearly fee is essential from our perspective.  Web-based IP authentication plus password for authorised users is extremely desirable.  Interface would need to be considerably more user friendly in order to minimize training implications.  We would have to monitor the impact on Document Delivery requests.”

“Interface is not user friendly.  Searching using multiple search fields is very slow and often produces error messages.  Selection of field categories in searching can be confusing due to the number of fields available.  Search interface should be simplified.”

“Clients find it difficult to understand the difference between the databases available on Kinetica and the coding of Library and holdings information.  The search screen is not straightforward.  Training in the use of the database helps our clients to ensure that we maximise the cost per search.  The cost per search option is an expensive search option for USC to promote or encourage any further than we currently support.  It is hoped that the NLA would consider enabling search only access to the database at no additional cost to contributing organisations in the near future.  It is considered that search only access would open the national resources database to the depth of holdings in Australian libraries - further encouraging more cooperative collection development activities.”

“I am not considering this as an option because it is more efficient for one person to become proficient in its use and supply a service to the scientists to obtain loans etc.”

“The Kinetica interface is rather complicated for most of our clientele so we do not provide access directly.  The sheer number of indexes available and the specialised terminology make it rather daunting to an average public library user.  We await the development of a more user-friendly end user interface offering a limited set of indexes.” 

“We would like to offer this service to all students and staff, but concerns about the cost of doing this have resulted in our limiting access to Academics, Research staff and postgraduates.  Having just visited Canada and noted the National Library of Canada's provision of free access to the NBD, I think the NLA should be the same.”

“Costs and training for end users would be an issue.”

“I see Kinetica up on the screens in the library from time to time.  We regard it as cost-effective.  When we implement a new library system next year, we plan to improve the integration of the NBD into end user searching and ILL requesting.”


Agenda item 13

Administrative costs of processing ILL payments.

KAC/2002/1/9

Background

At the last Kinetica Advisory Committee meeting, the National Library reported on the findings of a survey on the administrative costs associated with different payment methods for Inter library lending and agreed to compare the costs with two other library sectors. The University of South Australia was approached to participate in the study and the results are listed below. It should be noted that a significant number of special libraries have indicated they only accept requests via Kinetica Document Delivery in order to take advantage of the payment scheme.

An assessment has been undertaken of the costs for the National Library of Australia’s Document Supply Service and the University of South Australia. The costs for use of the Kinetica Document Delivery Payments Service, credit cards and invoices are covered, from the perspective of requestor and supplier. Vouchers are not included as the National Library of Australia’s Document Supply Service ceased accepting vouchers when the GST was introduced. The University of South Australia usually does not accept vouchers however on occasion a library will send a voucher as payment. The Nepean Hospital Library was also approached on this matter. They reported that the majority of interlibrary loans are made through GRATISNET or Kinetica Document Delivery with a small number of requests going to library outside of these networks or to Commercial Document Suppliers.

Methodology

A simple cost methodology was used, based on direct staff costs for processing the payment and any charges incurred in the process. Staff costs included staff salary at the appropriate levels, superannuation and leave entitlements and was based on the National Library’s costing model. General overhead costs such as heating, lighting, accommodation, library administration, and so forth were excluded.

The tasks required to process each payment method were identified (these are listed in the right-hand column of the tables). The time taken by staff to process each task was collected. This staff time was converted to cost and divided by the total number of requests processed by this payment method to reach the unit cost.

The methodology varied slightly for invoicing other libraries (cost as a supplier). Instead of dividing by the total number of requests, the total number of invoices generated in the month was used. In some cases an invoice was generated for a single request however in other cases several requests were included on the one invoice.

Costs as a supplier

Payment type

National Library of Australia

University of South Australia

KDD

$0.60

$0.25

Credit Card

$3.20

$4.98

Invoice

$27.80

$6.68

Other

   

Costs as a requester

Payment type

National Library of Australia

University of South Australia

KDD

$0.25

$0.43

Credit Card

$5.23

$3.50

Invoice - Cheque

- Bank draft

$4.00

$9.50

$1.64

Other

   

1Kinetica does not pass on the $25 cost it incurs to process invoices. This cost is, in part covered by the $0.25 charged to the requester and supplier for using the Payment Scheme

These figures clearly demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the KDD payments scheme for an organisation as both a requester and as a supplier.

The administrative costs of processing payments for interlibrary loan requests for other libraries will vary depending on the size of the organisation and the legal and financial processes required by the organisation. Larger libraries should be able to take advantage of economies of scale in processing their requests, while smaller libraries are able to take advantage of simpler processes. In addition accounting departments place restrictions on payment methods available to libraries.

Recommendations

That the information be circulated widely in conjunction with good practice case studies on the use of the Kinetica Document Delivery Payment Scheme by different types of libraries.

A survey be carried out of Non-Payment libraries to determine that reason why they are not taking advantage of the Payment Service.

University of South Australia Library

Flexible Delivery Service (FDS)

Administrative costs of processing ILL payments

Background

The National Library of Australia, at the request of the Kinetica Advisory Committee, investigated the administrative costs associated with the different payment methods for interlibrary loan. The University of South Australia Library has further investigated these costs at the request of the National Library Australia (NLA) to establish comparative costs within the university sector.

This assessment describes costs for collecting ILL fees and charges for ILL services delivered to (Requester) or by (Supplier) the Interlibrary Loan Team, part of the Flexible Delivery Service (FDS) at the University of South Australia Library. This report covers the costs for use of the Kinetica Document Delivery Payment Service, credit card receipt and payment and invoicing and payment on the University Finance System, Finance 1.

The FDS is a centralised service delivering a range of services, including Interlibrary Loans Request and Supply to and from the six Library locations in metropolitan Adelaide and Whyalla (See: http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/fds/index.html.The Team Leader, ILL Supply and Team Leader, ILL Request supervise the day to day management of the ILL Service including checking of incoming invoices for payment and outgoing of despatch notes for invoicing. Both are employed at HEO4 OB.

As a Supplier, non-KDD payment service clients (other than the University of Adelaide and Flinders University of South Australia) are issued with a despatch note for each item supplied. These No Carbon Required (NCR) 3 layer despatch notes are marked ‘Do not send payment on this despatch note. An account will be sent at the end of the month.’ The white copy is despatched with the item, a pink copy kept by the ILL Supply Team for forwarding at the end of the month to Library Administration and the yellow copy kept at each campus for audit purposes. Payment options for creditors include cheque, money order, credit and electronic funds transfer (EFT).

It should be noted that while the University of South Australia Library has indicated that ALIA vouchers are no longer accepted, vouchers are still arriving as payment with and without agreement, usually from small libraries with no other available payment options.

(See: http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/fds/index.html)

Some small libraries also still require vouchers as payment for items supplied to us as a Requester. In this case payment is made from our accumulated surplus. In both cases the number of libraries requiring payment in vouchers or paying using vouchers has reduced to only 2 or 3 per month by February 2002.

The University of South Australia Library is a net requester. KDD is the University of South Australia Library’s preferred method of requesting and supplying. KDD payment service users are the preferred suppliers for items requested from all states including South Australia with the exception of the other South Australian Universities. A reciprocal agreement operates between the three University Libraries in South Australia, based upon a reduced fee per item invoiced quarterly.

Where possible the University Finance Unit has arranged for an EFT payment option with the majority of their creditors. Very few vendors required payment by cheque or bank draft.

Methodology

The same cost methodology used by the NLA, based on direct staff costs for processing the payment and any charges incurred in the process was used for this investigation. Staff costs included staff salary at the appropriate levels, superannuation and leave entitlements, is based on the University of South Australia’s costing model. General overhead costs such as heating, lighting, accommodation, library administration, and so forth were excluded.

The tasks required to process each payment method were identified (these are listed in the right hand column of the tables.) The time taken for staff to process each task was collected. The staff time was converted to cost and divided by the number of requests processed by this payment method to reach the unit cost.

The methodology varied slightly for invoicing other libraries (cost as a supplier). Instead of dividing the total number of requests, total number of invoices generated each month was used. In some cases an invoice was generated for a single request however in other cases several requests were included in one invoice. The University despatch note process has also been costed at $1.60 per despatch note based on the time required to check and sort each note before forwarding to Library Administration.

Costs as a Requester

KDD

Credit card

Invoice

KDD payments scheme $0.25

Sort KDD rota by payment scheme $0.18

Check records, items received not yet paid =1.20

Check payment method and contact if accept credit card, enter credit card details, photocopy and file copy for monthly reconciliation = 2.30.

Check records item received not yet paid =1.20

Request for payment to Finance Unit = 0.44

Processing costs of EFT borne by University Finance Unit (cost no known)

Total cost $0.43*

Total cost 3.50

Total cost $1.64

* Kinetica does not pass on the $25 cost it incurs to process invoices. This cost is, in part covered by the $0.25 charged to the requester and supplier for using the payment scheme

Costs as a Supplier

KDD

Credit card

Invoice

KDD payments scheme $0.25

Check and sort despatch notes by institution = $1.60 per despatch note

Check debtor and process payment, record keeping cost = $2.88

Transaction fee = $0.50

Check and sort despatch notes by institution =$1.60

Check debtor and enter data on Finance 1. =$2.28

Printing and process for despatch =$2.80

Receipt of payment and debt recovery by University Finance unit not known. Payment mostly received via EFT or credit card. Cost to Library = Total cost

Total cost $0.25

Total cost $4.98

Total cost $6.68*

*For purposes of comparison with other institutions and to identify a realistic cost up to $25 could be added to this total

These figures demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the KDD payments scheme for an organisation as a requester and supplier

Christine Cother 14 February 2002


Agenda item 14

Electronic Resources: Progress report

KAC/2002/1/10

Introduction

This paper provides a progress report on the implementation of initiatives to use Kinetica to improve access to, and sharing of, electronic resources in Australian libraries.

Acquisition of bibliographic data

The Kinetica Advisory Committee at its meeting in July 2001 recommended that the National Library proceed to acquire the bibliographic datasets for the electronic collections identified as a priority by the Expert Advisory Group on Access to Electronic Resources (KAC/2001/2/RES6). Approaches have been made to all the vendors identified in the survey of the Expert Advisory Group on Access to Electronic Resources as widely held. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the progress on the acquisition of bibliographic data sets.

The EAG survey on which current data set acquisition priorities are based was conducted in September 2000. Given the pace of acquisition of electronic collections by Australian libraries, Kinetica will survey users in April 2002 to refresh the priorities for data set acquisitions.

Guidelines for the cataloguing of electronic resources

The Kinetica Advisory Committee at its meeting in July 2001 recommended that the National Library "develop and promote guidelines that will support the reporting of bibliographic records and holdings for electronic resources to the NBD" (KAC/2001/2RES5). An Expert Advisory Group has been established to provide a framework for consultation. The EAG has the following terms of reference:

  • To review the issues relating to the cataloguing of electronic materials on the National Bibliographic Database, using the discussion paper, report of the Expert Advisory Group on Access to Electronic Resources and draft Kinetica guidelines as a basis for discussion;
  • To facilitate discussion with Kinetica users on this issue;
  • Identify specific guidelines required for cataloguing electronic resources onto the National Bibliographic Database, within the framework of AARC2 and MARC
  • Identify issues that require action at an international level for communication to the Joint Steering Committee and Australian Committee on Cataloguing as appropriate;
  • To recommend a set of guidelines on cataloguing of electronic resources, including electronic resources with print equivalents and born digital material, for the National Bibliographic Database to the Kinetica Advisory Committee and National Library of Australia in early 2002.

The members of the EAG are:

  • Ann Huthwaite (Queensland University of Technology)
  • Jan Maslen (La Trobe University)
  • Anne Beaumont/Jill Wilson (State Library of Victoria)
  • Marjory Taylor (WA Dept of Health)
  • Julie Whiting (National Library)
  • Bemal Rajapatirana (Kinetica)
  • Robert Walls (Kinetica).

The EAG's first teleconference was held on 14 February. Teleconferences will be held fortnightly until the group's work has been completed.

Data set products for Electronic Collections

Kinetica staff in consultation with IBM have devised a service that will allow Kinetica customers to add holdings for E-Collections to the NBD and purchase record sets for these collections from Kinetica. The Electronic Collections Service was launched at the VALA Conference. A marketing flyer has been produced and a web page will be established. Initially, the service will be a basic one and will utilise existing functionality in the Amicus software. It will offer libraries the opportunity to purchase MARC records that correspond to popular electronic full text collections and to also receive quarterly updates of bibliographic records and holdings changes. Initially bibliographic records will be available for the following Electronic Collection Sets: AGIS; APA Full Text; AusStats; Meditext; Pandora; ScienceDirect.

To participate in the service, customer libraries will need to add their holdings for the collection sets to the NBD before the records are extracted. To assist libraries, holdings will be added globally by Kinetica staff for both basic sets and quarterly update files. An order form will be provided on the Kinetica web site. This will enable users to specify the holdings statement that they wish to add to the NBD and specify the products that they require.

The standard charge for each data set will be $56.65. An on-going quarterly update file for most collections will be available for an additional $56.65 per year. As an introductory service, three Australian collection sets will be offered for the cost of one i.e. $113.30 for all back sets and quarterly updates for the first year. These Australian sets are AGIS, APA Full Text and Meditext.

Initially, the records supplied through the service will include all 856 fields (Electronic Location) contained in the NBD record. The holding statement supplied on the order form will also be included. The Expert Advisory Group on the Cataloguing of Electronic Resources will be consulted to advise on further development of the service. This could include improved support user specific URL's (MARC tag 856) in the NBD and in bibliographic record products.

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee note the report.

DATASET

Due / Status

Progress/Issues

AGIS

Completed

Set available. To be updated quarterly.

APA Full Text

Completed

Set available. To be updated quarterly.

AUSSTATS

31 Mar 02

To be updated quarterly.

eBooks

31 Mar 02

Deed of agreement re supply of data has been completed.

Sample data has been received.

Ebsco

30 Apr 02

Sample file (ANZ Reference Centre) received.

Emerald

30 Apr 02

Sample data received. Data received in form of a spreadsheet containing Title, ISSN and URL. Conversion specifications under development.

Gale Group databases

TBA

Gale have confirmed agreement to supply data.

MediText

Completed

Set available. To be updated quarterly.

netLibrary

TBA

Awaiting further discussion with OCLC.

Ovid

 

Letter requesting bibliographic data sent.

PANDORA

31 Mar 02

Product to be produced using existing NBD records created by the National Library.

ProQuest

TBA

Letter requesting bibliographic data sent. ProQuest have in principle agreed to supply data.

ScienceDirect

Completed

A data set containing records for the electronic versions was obtained from OCLC.

Our Digital Island (State Library of Tasmania)

31 Mar 02

Specifications completed and sample data tested.

Awaiting supply of production data, this is dependent on TSL implementing a new software application and assigning permanent URLs to the resources.


Agenda item 15

Microform Collections on the National Bibliographic Database : a status report

KAC/2002/1/11

Over many years the National Library has improved access to the valuable and extensive microform research collections held within Australian libraries. Emphasis has been on the provision of cataloguing records on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) that record the individual items within these collections.

Until 1998 the number of microform collection record sets on the NBD remained relatively low. In 1998 the Australian Research Council funded a project to provide access to European microform collections in Australian libraries. The European Microforms Project (EMP) contributed 310,000 bibliographic records to the NBD.

Current Status

There are now 49 microform collections represented on the NBD. The majority were purchased from sources such as OCLC with funding from the EMP. EMP partner institutions also catalogued a number of highly ranked collections. Appendix 1 lists the collections that are available on the NBD.

Purchased MARC records have been loaded to the NBD with Australian library holdings, with three exceptions, where data problems have prevented the addition of records to the NBD. Appendix 2 lists collection data sets that have been purchased but not yet loaded to the NBD.

The previous ABN Network Committee listed a number of collections for future purchase. The majority of these have now been added to the NBD as a result of the EMP work, but the following three collections remain as desiderata files:

Health, physical education & recreation (Suggested by Victoria University of Technology)

5,828

LC Jakarta Office microform collection (Suggested by NBD Section)

116

American fiction 1774-1900 (Suggested by University of Adelaide)

13,109

Future plans

Kinetica will undertake the conversion and loading of the outstanding files listed in Appendix 2 with completion anticipated by June 2002. Kinetica will survey users in April to ascertain if there is demand for the provision of additional data sets and to ascertain current priorities. Appendix 3 lists the microform collection data sets that are currently available from OCLC that have not already been purchased for Kinetica.

A list of available microform sets will be promoted through Kinetica-l and the Web.

Recommendation

That the Committee note the report.

Microform Collections already loaded to the NBD with Australian holdings

Bibliothek der Deutschen Literatur

15,000

British and continental rhetoric and elocution

116

British freethought books

58

Dances of death

35

Early American imprints, Series II, 1801-1819

37,841

Early British fiction; pre 1750

600

Early English books, 1641-1700

41,254

Early English newspapers

993

Early Quaker writings. 1650 - 1750

491

Early Quaker writings. 1650 -1750 + second series

236

Eighteenth Century (Units 1-325 completed, units 326-456 pending)

107,769

Emblem Books, 1571 - 1775

354

English books: 1475 - 1640 (Pollard & Redgrave)

27,959

English Books: 1640 -1661 (Thomason tracts)

9,438

English books: 1641 - 1700 (Wing)

11,918

Flugschriften des fruhen 16 Jahrhunderts

5,000

Food, cookery and catering

46

French revolutionary pamphlets

5,082

German Baroque literature. Yale Library Collection

2,380

Goldsmiths'-Kress Library of Economic Literature

57,438

History of science; a collection of mss - Jewish Theological Seminary

405

History of women

9,174

Landmarks of science (I and II)

9,242

Murray’s HANBDook for travellers

230

Nineteenth century theatre periodicals

54

People called Methodists

664

Pre-1900 Canadiana

47,406

Publications of the Freedom Press 1928-1976

8

Reformed Protestantism

1,036

Rehabilitation of handicapped literature

881

Renaissance man

202

Royal Institute of British Architects rare books

157

Russian history and culture: scarce books on 19th and early 20th century  (partially loaded not Units 22-40)

4,131

Sex research

985

Slavery source materials

414

Soviet Union, special studies 1970 - 1980

94

Spanish Civil War collection

2,226

Special studies, Europe and NATO 1970 - 1980

119

Nineteenth Century Years 1 and 2

3808

Three centuries of drama

4,106

Underground Press collection

884

Urban and rural social conditions in Britain

1,198

Witchcraft in Europe and America

1,033

Women advising women

340

Microform collections not loaded to the NBD

Nineteenth century: Children's literature

426

Nineteenth century: General Collection

2374

Nineteenth century: Linguistics

494

Nineteenth century: Publishing, booktrade, knowledge

486

Nineteenth century: Visual arts & architecture

513

Nineteenth century: Women writers

684

Russian history and culture: scarce books on 19th and early 20th century  (partially loaded not Units 22-40)

4,131

Spanish drama of the golden age

410

Notes:

OCLC MARC records for ‘Russian history and culture’ and ‘Spanish drama of the golden age’ exceeded maximum record lengths in ABN and could not be loaded prior to the Kinetica migration. Test loading within Kinetica revealed excessively long fields, missing data elements and incorrectly encoded diacritics which must be corrected by conversion programmes which are yet to be developed.

Chadwyck Healey records for the Nineteenth Century also require conversion to supply missing data elements.

Microform data sets available from OCLC

Microform Set Title

Cataloging Institution

(OCLC Symbol)

AMERICAN AUTOBIOGRAPHIES

OCLC RetroCon

AMERICAN CULTURE SERIES

Cleveland State University (CSU)

AMERICAN CULTURE SERIES

OCLC RetroCon

AMERICAN FICTION : 1774-1910

Univ of Central Oklahoma (OKX)

AMERICAN FICTION: 1774-1910

University of Arizona (AZU)

AMERICAN PERIODICAL SERIES (I, II, III)

New York State Library (NYG)

AMERICAN POETRY: 1609-1870 (I, II, III)

University of Georgia (GUA)

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE PROCEEDINGS (1981, 1982)

U of Calif Inst of Gov Studies (CBG)

AMERICAN PRIMERS

Univ of Missouri Columbia Libr (MUU)

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CHURCH HISTORY PAPERS

Reformed Theological Seminary (MRT)

ATLA MONOGRAPH PRESERVATION PROGRAM

Amer Theological Libr Assoc (ATL)

BLACK BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARIES, 1790-1950

Miami University (MIA)

CANON LAW: A BASIC COLLECTION

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS COLLECTION OF LIBRARY OF CONGRESS - PART 1-2

Cleveland Public Library (CLE)

CIHM/ICMH MICROFICHE SERIES - METHODIST COLLECTION

Multiple Contributors

CIVIL LAW

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

CIVIL WAR UNIT HISTORIES

St Historical Soc of Wisconsin (WIH)

COLLECTION OF TRIALS ON MICROFICHE

Multiple Contributors

COLLECTIONS ... LIBRARY OF JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION

Central State University (OKX)

CONFEDERATE IMPRINTS, 1861-1865

Auburn University (AAA)

COREFICHE ; ESSAY AND GENERAL LITERATURE INDEX

Abilene Christian University (TXC)

McCartney Library, Geneva Coll (PGC)

Michigan Technological Univ. (EZT)

COREFICHE SHORT STORY PROGRAM, PHASE 1 - 7

Geneva College, McCartney Lib (PGC)

CRIME AND JUVENILE DELIQUENCY

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

CURRICULUM MATERIALS CLEARINGHOUSE

Univ of Central Oklahoma (OKX)

DIME NOVELS

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

DREYFUS AFFAIR IN THE MAKING OF MODERN FRANCE

Primary Source Media (REZ)

EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY RESEARCH REPORTS (PHASE 1-3)

State Library of Virginia (VIC)

EARLY AMERICAN MEDICAL IMPRINTS, 1668-1820

Univ. of CA., Davis Health Sci (CUX)

ENERGY AND AGRICULTURE

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

ENGLISH AND AMERICAN DRAMA OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Indiana University (IUL)

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS

West Conserv Bapt Seminary (WBS)

FOCUS ON ENGLISH LITERATURE, 1708-1907

Trinity College (TYC)

FOOD AND NUTRITION 1983

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

FOUR CENTURIES OF SPANISH DRAMA

OCLC RetroCon

FRENCH BOOKS BEFORE 1601

Multiple Contributors

FURNITURE LIBRARY COLLECTION

Davidson Community College (NRM)

GENEALOGY AND LOCAL HISTORY (UNITS 1-49)

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

GERMAN BAROQUE LITERATURE, HAROLD JANTZ COLLECTION

Johns Hopkins University (JHE)

GERMAN BOOKS BEFORE 1601

Multiple Contributors

GRAIL - GALWAY RESOURCE FOR ANGLO-IRISH LITERATURE (BKS 1-17)

Boston College (BXM)

GREAT LITERATURE

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

HEALTH CARE (BASE COLLECTION, 1979 UPDATE, 1980 UPDATE)

Central State University (OKX)

HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION

Multiple Contributors

HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION - FICHE 1949-1971

Multiple Contributors

HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION - OPAQUE 1949-1971

Multiple Contributors

HEBREW BOOKS FROM THE HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

Harvard University (HLS)

HISPANIC CULTURE SERIES

Center for Research Library (CRL)

HISPANIC CULTURE SERIES

UNC - Chapel Hill (NOC)

HISTORY OF EDUCATION

Primary Source Media (REZ)

HISTORY OF NURSING ADELAIDE NUTTING HISTORICAL NURSING COLLECTION

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY

OCLC RetroCon

HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

HUMAN RELATIONS AREA FILES

OCLC RetroCon

INTERNATIONAL LAW

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

ITALIAN BOOKS BEFORE 1601

Multiple Contributors

KRAUS CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY

Univ of Central Oklahoma (OKX)

KRAUS CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY

Univ of Wisconsin-Madison (GZI)

L. C., JAKARTA OFFICE, SOUTHEAST ASIA MICROFICHE

Ohio University (OUN)

LANDMARKS OF SCIENCE II-MONO (MICROFICHE)

Multiple Contributors

University of Oklahoma (OKU)

LATIN AMERICAN DOCUMENTS

SUNY at Buffalo (BUF)

LAW BOOKS RECOMMENDED FOR LIBRARIES

Nova University (FNL)

Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TKF)

LEGAL THESES AND DISSERTATIONS

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

LIBRARY OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION

Mankato State University (MNM)

LIBRARY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE

College of Charleston (SBM)

University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNL)

LITERATURE OF THEOLOGY AND CHURCH HISTORY IN THE US AND CANADA

Concordia Theological Seminary (ITC)

MAJOR STUDIES AND ISSUE BRIEFS - MICROFICHE

Univ of NC, Chapel Hill, Law (NDO)

MAJOR STUDIES AND ISSUE BRIEFS - MICROFILM

Syracuse Univ College of Law (SYL)

Univ of NC, Chapel Hill, Law (NDO)

MAJOR STUDIES OF LEGISLATIVE REF SERV/CONG RES SERV 1916-1975

Univ of NC, Chapel Hill, Law (NDO)

MANUSCRIPTA

Southern Methodist University (SMU)

MODEL CITIES REPORTS

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD (NRPB)

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

NATIVE AMERICAN LEGAL MATERIALS

Univ. of Denver Law Library (LLE)

NATIVE AMERICAN REFERENCE COLLECTION-PART 1, REELS 1-20

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

NEW YORK STATE DOCUMENTS ON MICROFICHE

New York State Library (NYG)

NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICAN DRAMA

George Washington Univ Library (DGW)

OPIE COLLECTION OF CHILDRENS LITERATURE - UNITS 2-25

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

PALESTINE, THE BRITISH MANDATE; PALESTINE, THE LEGAL BACKGROUND

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

PAMPHLETS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

SUNY at Buffalo (BUF)

PAMPHLETS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

PAPERS OF THE NAACP

Cleveland Public Library (CLE)

PRE-KANGZHAN AND KANGZHAN PERIOD PRESERVATION PROJECT

RetroLink

PRE-1900 CANADIAN PERIODICALS

University of Maine (MEU)

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN BIOGRAPHIES, 1824-1976

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

PRIMARY SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF PHARMACY IN THE UNITED STATES

University of Missouri (UMK)

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LATIN AMERICAN PAMPHLETS COLLECTION

Trinity College (TYC)

RECORDS OF ANTE-BELLUM SOUTHERN PLANTATIONS ... (SERIES A-L)

Univ of NC at Chapel Hill (NOC)

SAHEL : DOCUMENTS AND DISSERTATIONS

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

SELECTED AMERICANA FROM SABINS (UNITS 134-205)

Miami University (MIA)

SELECTED CURRICULUM GUIDES IN MICROFICHE (1969-1982)

Univ of Central Oklahoma (OKX)

SELECTION OF TITLES SCHOMBURG CTR FOR RESEARCH BLACK CULTURE II

OCLC TechPro

SHAKESPEARE AND THE STAGE-SERIES 1

Cleveland Public Library (CLE)

SLAVE TRADE BOOK AND PAMPHLET COLLECTION, 1680-1865

University of Rochester (RRR)

SLAVERY PAMPHLETS

Univ of Southern Mississippi (MUS)

SLAVERY: CATALYST FOR CONFLICT

Univ of Central Oklahoma (OKX)

SOURCE MATERIALS IN THE FIELD OF THEATER

Mansfield University (MAN)

SPECIAL STUDIES SERIES

*A subset - EUROPE & NATO-1970-1980 has been loaded to the NBD

Univ of Missouri Columbia Libr (MUU)

TEXAS AS PROVINCE AND REPUBLIC, 1795-1845

Univ of California, Berkeley (RQE)

THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH EXCHANGE NETWORK (1991-2000)

West Conserv Bapt Seminary (WBS)

THREE CENTURIES OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN PLAYS, 1500-1830

Indiana University (IUL)

Tufts University (TFW)

THREE CENTURIES OF FRENCH DRAMA

OCLC RetroCon

TRADE CATALOGS AT THE WINTERTHUR MUSEUM PART 2

Univ. Publications of America (UPW)

UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPER COLLECTION

(may have some overlap with Underground Press)

OCLC RetroCon

US MILITARY LAW HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

UTOPIAN LITERATURE, PRE-1900 IMPRINTS

University Microfilms Intl (UMI)

WESTERN AMERICANA : FRONTIER HISTORY OF TRANS-MISSISSIPPI WEST

OCLC RetroCon

WESTERN BOOKS: MIDDLE EAST FROM THE RISE OF ISLAM

Primary Source Media (REZ)

WESTERN RESERVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY SHAKER COLLECTION, 1723-1952

Central State University (OKX)

YALE LAW LIBRARY BLACKSTONE COLLECTION

Mississippi College Law Lib (MCC)

YIDDISH BOOKS FROM THE HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

Harvard University (HLS)

YIDDISH CHILDRENS LITERATURE FROM YIVO INST FOR JEWISH RESEARCH

Harvard University (HLS)

YORUBA COLLECTION OF WILLIAM & BERTA BASCOM

University of Ilinois (UIU)

19TH CENTURY LEGAL TREATISES - SUBJECT BREAKOUTS

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

19TH CENTURY LEGAL TREATISES - SUBJECT TITLES

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

19TH CENTURY LEGAL TREATISES - UNITS 1 - 69

St. Louis Univ - Law Library (SLU)

20TH CENTURY LEGAL TREATISES - UNITS 1-5

Primary Source Media (REZ)

Bemal Rajapatirana

Manager, National Bibliographic Database

15 February 2002


Agenda item 16

National Bibliographic Database - Quality issues

KAC/2002/1/12

Introduction

This paper reports on current initiatives aimed at improving the quality of the National Bibliographic Database (NBD).

Database maintenance

A number of maintenance tasks were performed on the NBD to improve the quality of existing records and indexes.

50,000 orphan headings were removed from the NBD. Orphan headings have no references, authorities, or documents attached and are a by-product of other database maintenance activity such as duplicate removal and record updating. Over 48,000 records had their general material designation changed to reflect the new terminology employed in Chapter 9 of the Anglo American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2) Amendments 2001. Terms such as ‘computer file’ (and other variants) were changed to the new general material designation, ‘electronic resource’. A further 447 duplicate reports were resolved during the period. This brings the total number of duplicates processed since the introduction of electronic submission forms to 2885.

Currency and Coverage

Batch*Link. The Automated Btch*Link Gateway is being used by 39 Kinetica libraries to upload records to the NBD. There are 3 new users of Batch*Link: Warringah Library Service, City of Botany Bay Library Service and Shorelink.

Batch Loading. Turn around times for the batch loading of both customer and national agency files have been excellent during the period. Files are generally loaded to the database within 24 hours of receipt.

Batch*Link Enhancements. The delivery of file load completion reports and reject file notification messages to Batch*Link users is working well. The delivery of statistical reports via the Web has been fully tested and should be available to Batch*Link customers in March 2002 (the November release was delayed due to staff unavailability). Kinetica staff will continue to monitor all automated processes.

Global Holdings Updates. The Global Holdings Update service was busy during this period with 19 separate updates performed affecting over 329,000 holdings on the NBD. This included adding the final set of holdings to the Eighteenth Century microform collection set, which was done for the University of Adelaide.

Inmagic Data Magician. The NBD Section has purchased the Inmagic Data Magician software. This software enables files of metadata in a variety of non-MARC formats to be converted into MARC21 format. The software will enable Kinetica to load records from library systems that are not able output data in standard MARC formats, especially those systems commonly used in smaller libraries.

Refinement of the Kinetica matching program

Refinement of the Kinetica match/merge program is an ongoing process. Since implementation there have been a number of improvements made to the program. Kinetica staff have identified a number of other areas where improvements may be possible, these include matching using the following data elements:

ISBN National Bibliography Number Title Date of publication and Country of publication

Specifications for these improvements have been prepared and Kinetica will work with IBM GSA to implement them during 2002. Kinetica staff will also continue to investigate further options for refinement of the matching process.

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee note the report.


Agenda item 17

Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery

KAC/2002/1/13

The Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery (EAGAD) has made significant progress in identifying and documenting issues relating to the needs of Kinetica customers and the technical capabilities of both Kinetica and local systems to meet these needs.

EAGAD has conducted two surveys. The first involved Kinetica Customers who provided positive and constructive responses . From this survey we the Group determined that:

Very little authority work is being carried out on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD); the major inhibitor to contributing authority data to the NBD is reluctance to use the Kinetica Cataloguing Client (which is described by many survey respondents as being slow and cumbersome); there is a perception that authority data on the NBD is of poor quality and out of date; and issues such as cost, lack of timelines and local system processing issues are a contributing factor in the decision not to use NBD authority data.

The second survey was sent to local system vendors with a view to determining how authority records are loaded and processed. Findings from this survey include the following.

All of the systems described by vendors were Z39.50 compliant, eight of the nine being Version 3 compliant. One client product was Bath Profile compliant, and another Union Catalogue Profile (UCP) compliant. Another vendor had a product, which was only UCP Level 1 compliant. Several vendors stated that they were currently developing products, which would be compliant (UCP 1; Bath/US National Profile 4). Most systems require separation of bibliographic and authority records on loading as different processing parameters are used for each type of record. Most systems can handle non-standard MARC codes (such as an Australian content indicator) Most can prevent certain fields or certain categories of records from overlay (which would protect Australian headings from being overwritten by records from other sources such as Library of Congress)

The results of the two surveys will form an informative basis for the Group’s further deliberations on more appropriate methods of delivery of authority data to customers.

Records of teleconferences and a summary of both the user and vendor surveys have been posted on the Kinetica Website at eag_ad.html

Although some issues arising from the user surveys (notably data quality and contribution to the NBD) fall outside the scope of EAGAD, the Group felt compelled to deal briefly with them in the context of factors inhibiting the use of NBD authority records.

In the next few months the Group will be investigating the following.

Where authority work fits in cataloguing and processing workflows. The importance of authority data and Australian headings. Factors inhibiting the use of the NBD as a source of authority data (including contributing to the NBD, cost, data quality, alternative sources and limitations of current Kinetica authority record services). CJK authority record issues. How services and/or products from Kinetica can be delivered to better fit the needs of our customers

The Group’s report and recommendations will be presented to the Kinetica Advisory Committee in August.


Agenda item 18

Subject Headings Review Panel

KAC/2002/1/14

Since it’s re-activation in March 2001 the Subject Headings Review Panel has focussed on implementing terms for names of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their languages on the National Bibliographic Database. This activity originally commenced in 1999, as Phase 2 of the Australian Subject Access project.

Activities

The Panel has held two teleconferences to-date with the most recent on the 28 November 2001. All except one of the group’s representatives were present. Ms Alana Garwood-Houng was unavailable and the AIATSIS library could not provide an alternative representative.

The key activity for the group was to consider a comparative table of Aboriginal language headings in SLASH, the AIATSIS Thesaurus, Ethnologue and LC. The Panel also recommended a strategy for incorporating SLASH terms into the NBD. . The following outcomes were agreed:

Three categories of headings were established

SLASH headings not in LC and only appearing in AIATSIS thesaurus SLASH headings not in LC but in AIATSIS Thesaurus and Ethnologue SLASH headings which were in conflict between AIATSIS Thesaurus /Ethnologue or LC New proposals will be submitted to the Library of Congress in small, manageable batches, commencing with the non-conflicting headings. LC will be informed of the Panel's work on Aboriginal language headings prior to the submission of these headings, with the aim of agreeing on procedures to streamline the adoption of new headings. The panel will need to establish literary warrant for terms that appear only in the AIATSIS Thesaurus. An AIATSIS liaison or expert would need to be consulted to resolve potential conflicts and provide advice about language groupings, particularly as variant names are given equal status in the AIATSIS Thesaurus. The Panel will establish procedures for determining the preferred term.

Progress with some activities has been delayed due to changes in the NBD staff who provide secretariat support to the Panel.

Future

The Panel will teleconference again in March 2002 to review progress with the SLASH headings for Aboriginal peoples and languages, and consider a proposal for the revision of headings conforming to the pattern 'Aborigines, Australian' on the NBD.

Recommendation

That the Committee note the report