Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

An inventory of cleanup projects for special collections resources taking place on campuses to prep for the SILS

UCSDOCLC control number changesGoing through WorldCat Updates and reviewing records flagged as having been merged with another OCLC number and updating the control number in local record (or reporting problems back to OCLC.) Michelle Mascaro
UCSD541 and 561 cleanupReviewing and flipping copy specific 541 and 561 for non-manuscript materials to 590.

Michelle Mascaro

UCSDSuppressed record reviewReviewing all suppressed records to determine if needed to be keptMichelle Mascaro
UCDFixing composite serial records (locally purchased and free resources)To separate multiple formats attached to one bib records so each format has its own bib records.TJ Kao
UCDMerging bib records sharing the same OCLC numbers (title-by-title or in batch)
TJ Kao
UCDFixing non-English language recordsUCD has nearly 5,000 bib records with non-English 040 $b. This project is to find the English language of cataloging OCLC records to replace these records.TJ Kao
UCDIdentifying and fixing typos in bibliographic recordsNon-catalogers identify common typos in bibliographic records for catalogers to fix.TJ Kao
UCDIdentify and move local dataUCD has been using 590/599 for local data inconsistently. Lots of data should go to other MARC tags, either in BIB or MFHD, particularly 501, 541, 561-563. Staff will review the list, identify if a note is to keep or not, and where to move to if it is to keep.TJ Kao
UCDBound-with bib records lack of 773To make sure bound-with relationships appear properly in Alma and Primo, it is crucial to have 773 in constituent titles linking back to the host titles. Lots of older UCD bib records are missing 773.TJ Kao
UCDCleaning up bibliographic records without OCLC numbers
TJ Kao
UCIExamining duplicate OCLC numbersWe have a list of duplicate OCLC numbers (this is easy to create using Alma) and then we're batching them to work out what needs to happen. Usually with the Special Collections ones, we need to manually transfer holdings or items recordsJosh Hutchinson
UCIUpdating OCLC master records with record enhancements that were made locally

At some point in the past catalogers were less able/confident in updating OCLC master records. Using Alma, Connexion and vlookup in Excel, I'm finding those records that have enhanced 505 notes locally but not in OCLC, and then assigning them to catalogers in order to enhance the master record. We've so far done this with Special Collections as well as music scores and the place where we have DVDs. Future project will be to look at 6xx fields and 520, but I'm not sure yet how I'll do the 6xx fields.

Example resulting spreadsheet. In this sheet, I compared the 245 fields, which meant I normalized the text by removing spaces and most punctuation in order to account for subfield coding. This is not necessary in 505 fields). A brief explanation of my process:

  1. Identify subset of records (in this case, a location).
  2. Pull out OCLC numbers (can be done multiple ways).
  3. Export set of bib records from Alma.
  4. Put OCLC numbers into Connexion, then export the bib records from Connexion.
  5. Run both files through Marcedit, and export specific fields as CSV (you will need a match point-- OCLC number--and the field you're comparing such as the 505).
  6. Open both of those CSV files in Excel, then use vlookup to put the two lists in the same sheet (Column 1=OCLC number, column 2=Alma 505, column 3=OCLC 505)
  7. From there... compare the Alma and OCLC columns (are they equal? true/false; character count-- if there's a big difference, have a cataloger examine; etc-- depends on the field and how similar you want them)

Josh Hutchinson

UCIIdentifying local data that's not coded as such; identifying other peoples' local data that we don't want.We're removing $5s that don't apply to us, and we're also working to make sure that any local data that's been added to records is either marked with a $5 or in a field that we use. We've done things like: examine local fields (such as 561) that we don't normally use at Irvine; check 7xx fields for local relationship designators (such as "former owner" or "inscriber").Josh Hutchinson
UCIHoldings with no itemsWe don't use barcodes for Special Collections material. Examining bib/holdings for records with a holdings but no item. Some of these required creating a new item, some of them required merging or deleting the bib. We didn't have many of them.Josh Hutchinson
UCSCIdentifying local data in 500 notes

We are trying to move local data from the 500 field to the 590 field, starting with Special Collections material but also including other locations, if we have time before migration.

Belinda Egan
UCSC541, 561, 563 cleanupReviewing and flipping copy specific 561 and 563 for non-manuscript materials to 590; copying 541 notes to 591 (with $9 LOCAL) fieldBelinda Egan
UCBBibs with order records onlyResolving records that have attached order records only, no item or holdings records.Randy Brandt
UCBUpdating records with no OCLC numberThousands of older records that have never successfully been retrospectively converted to corresponding OCLC records (e.g., ~10,000 serial records for Bancroft alone).Randy Brandt
UCBCorrecting miscoded 856s; deleting obsolete/unnecessary 856sFixing 856 fields that have incorrect indicators; deleting 856s that point to non-UC electronic related resourcesRandy Brandt
UCLALinking bound-withsBased on duplicate call number report; most bound-with information was in 590s unless bound as issuedJosh Fiala
UCLAStandardizing local notesStandardizing 590s so all YRLSC 590 notes start with "Spec. Coll. ..."; identifying unattributed local notes describing YRLSC materialsJosh Fiala
UCLAIdentifying local information in 655s and 7xxs and tagging with $5 CLU-SCBased on information in the 590sJosh Fiala
UCLARemoving $5 CLU-SC notes from 500sExceptions: Information on the item is used to determine possible publication dates (e.g., gift inscriptions, dates on watermarks, etc.); Catalogers have an incomplete copy and are unable to determine complete pagination; The item has been assembled from different editions

Annotations providing information about contributors (e.g., editors, engravers, illustrators, etc.)

Josh Fiala
UCLAMerging bib records sharing the same OCLC numbers (one at a time)Merging / recataloging records (UCLA materials on the wrong record); identifying non-UCLA materials at SRLF on the wrong OCLC recordJosh Fiala
UCLACleaning up multiple ucoclc 035s in the same record (one at a time)

Josh Fiala

UCSBBound-with clean-upBound-with information has been found in 500, 501, and 590 fields and will need to be located and standardized. Many will also need to be linked correctly.Martha McTear
UCSBIdentify and move local notes currently in non-local fields

I've discovered a lot of binding notes in particular in the 500 field that will need to be moved to 590s.

We've also added local data in non-local 7xx fields regarding printers and publishers over the years. I'm not sure how we'll identify which ones were only added locally and protect them.

Martha McTear
UCSB590 clean-up

There is an ongoing project to clean-up legacy practices that cause confusion. In the past it was common practice to add multiple 590s for one item or have one 590 for multiple items.

The goal is to have one 590 per item or set and to add a prefix for each 590 denoting the location and copy number when necessary for identification purposes (Special Research Collections copy 1: ...) Unfortunately, it largely requires manual intervention so it's a slow process.

Martha McTear
UCSBDuplicate OCLC number clean-upReview items with the same OCLC number. Merge records and move holdings when possible. Recatalog those that should be on separate records.Martha McTear
UCSBMove local data based on SILS recommendations

We have other local data that will need to be identified and moved, but we're in a holding pattern on those clean-up projects until there is hopefully some consensus on what other UCs will do.

If they were to flip to 590s then there would be concern that we're just adding to our current 590 confusion listed above. It will be even harder to pull things apart later without having to physically look at the items.

Martha McTear
UCRSpecial Collections 500 notesSince we don't have a way to easily/quickly identify all 500 notes added locally, for Special Collections materials only we are copying all 500 to 599. After implementation, hopefully will perform further cleanup by removing duplicated fields and possibly integrate the remaining 599 with 590.Natalie Moller
UCR59x and 69x cleanup

(Note: covers general and special collections) We pulled records with these fields from our old Millennium catalog, acknowledging that some may slip through the cracks if they were added in Alma (but it is not our current practice to use anything other than 590). Assessed contents and divided into categories by action: delete, keep, move, review/cleanup. Some fields require manual cleanup (e.g. identifying LCSH terms in place of the local subject heading) and others can be deleted in bulk (e.g. local headings for dissertations that came from UCB in our WRCA records). Most of the existing 59x are being consolidated to 590.

Other fields moving to 59x: 501 (With note) to 591, 506 (Restrictions on access) to 598, 586 (Awards note – education collection only) to 596

We still need to conduct a similar analysis for 79x.

Natalie Moller
UCR541 and 561 cleanupRemoved non-local data. Moving to 541 and 561 in holdings records.Natalie Moller
UCRLocally added personal names (700) for Eaton Collection

It has been our practice to add cover artists and other specialized illustrators in our Eaton Collection. Sometimes this information is also in a 500.

We're still reviewing and evaluating how to retain this data.

Natalie Moller
UCRReplacing non-English language records

UCR has around 9,100 bib records with non-English 040 $b. We initiated a project to replace them with the correct English version of the OCLC records.

  • After manual replacements began, we realized that some records had already been updated to 040 $b eng in OCLC. We are batch importing/overlaying all of our non-English records to eliminate the ones that have been converted to English records already.
  • For the remaining records, we will be experimenting with MatchMarc for all records that have ISBN or LCCN to see if it can identify decent English replacements in batch.
  • Remaining records without ISBN or LCCN will be updated manually
Natalie Moller
UCROCLC DuplicatesWe are identifying groups of records that can be safely merged in batch with Alma's new Merge Record & Combine Inventory tool. Special Collections records are among those that are reviewed and combined manually to ensure no loss of data.Natalie Moller
  • No labels