67th IFLA Council and General Conference August 16-25, 2001 Code...
67th IFLA Council and General
Conference
August 16-25, 2001
Code Number:
091-108-E
Division Number:
V
Professional Group:
Document Delivery and Interlending
Joint Meeting with:
-
Meeting Number:
108
Simultaneous Interpretation:
-
Union Catalogs and virtual Union Catalogs – repositioning Interlibrary Loan
BARBARA PREECE
&
JOAN THOMPSON
Boston Library Consortium
City and Country: Boston
Boston, MA, USA
Abstract:
Libraries in the United States share a long history of developing consortial arrangements for
resource sharing. This paper explores the use of union catalogs and virtual union catalogs in the
United States to support resource sharing and provides an overview of a project that links
disparate catalogs among members of an academic consortium and a statewide regional library
network. When fully implemented, the Virtual Catalog/ Direct Distance Borrowing Project,
funded by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners and administered by the Boston
Library Consortium, will enable patrons to search and request from over 56 million volumes.
Introduction
Libraries in the United States share a long history of developing consortial arrangements for resource
sharing. In the early 80s members relied on bibliographic utilities such as OCLC, RLG, and WLN to view
the holdings of their reciprocal partners. While this is an advance from earlier times when libraries
checked book catalogs such as the National Union Catalog or microfilm listings, it does not meet the
needs or expectations of today’s patrons. In addition, it is an expensive operation. The utilities may
charge for the use of the interlibrary loan component, and as the ARL/RLG study of 1993
i
noted, staff
expense adds greatly to the transaction cost.
2
How can patrons obtain items that are not held by their home institutions in an efficient and cost-effective
manner and what role can consortia play in meeting the patron’s needs? Consortia have selected a
multitude of methods to support resource sharing, especially the sharing of returnables. This paper will
explore the use of union catalogs and virtual union catalogs in the United States to support resource
sharing and provide an overview of a project that links disparate catalogs among members of an academic
consortium and a statewide regional library network.
NAILLD Project
The Association of Research Libraries North American and Interlibrary Loan Document Delivery Project
(NAILLD) promotes developments that will expedite delivery of materials to patrons at a cost that can be
easily borne by libraries.
ii
The NAILLDD Project envisioned an interlibrary loan system from the
patron’s perspective. This system would
•
have transparent access to the most relevant information through appropriate local and
remote library catalogs, citation databases, and electronic resources,
•
transfer bibliographic citations or details about non-bibliographic items into electronic
requests or orders,
•
pass requests or orders through the library online system to determine the local
availability of the item,
•
depending on the user's choice and local policy, direct the request or order to one of a
range of suppliers including document delivery suppliers, or a local or remote library
interlibrary loan/document delivery department,
•
communicate electronically with the chosen supplier, and
•
receive the print materials, multimedia, data, or full text/full image copy of non-returnable
documents directly at their desk or workstation.
iii
Union Catalogs
One method consortia have used to embrace this vision is through the establishment of union and
virtual union catalogs. The union catalog combines the resources of consortial members,
sometimes in a single bibliographic record with holdings attached. Lynch makes the following
distinctions among union catalogs: Commercial services such as OCLC, RLG and WLN
represent shared cataloging activities that do not have real time links to circulation data. Union
Catalogs, such as MELVYL, are an outgrowth of shared cataloging, and shared union catalogs
that are integrated library systems shared by libraries.
iv
One of the earliest versions of the shared approach was ILLINET Online, a consortia of academic
and research libraries in Illinois. An early version of this consortia’s catalog consisted of a
database that held a single bibliographic record fed from OCLC data. Records from the libraries
were deduped and holdings data linked to the record. The records were also linked to each
library’s circulation database, which indicated availability to the patron. Patrons could then use
this function to request items (returnables only) directly from consortial partners. Since the patron
database was shared, authentication was not an issue. The patron’s home library however, was
unaware of a patron’s request until an item was received for a patron. Also, patrons often forgot
whether a request had been submitted directly on the system or through traditional interlibrary
loan. It was however, a popular system, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in borrowing.
v
Data
Research Associate’s Classic System later replaced this system. In this version, the patron
3
searches the union catalog for an item, places the request, which is then routed to one of the
consortial members according to a variety of algorithms that supports load leveling. The lending
and borrowing libraries have access to the requests and allowing them to track the request’s
progress through the system.
Other United States consortia have selected similar approaches to a shared union catalog. One of
the most well known is OhioLink while one of the most recent consortia to select the shared union
catalog approach is Mobius, a consortia of academic libraries in Missouri.
Libraries of the University of California selected the union catalog approach. MELVYL® is a
centralized database representing the cataloging from libraries that participate in the California
Digital Library. As Coyle notes, MELVYL is a document discovery tool for end-users.
vi
Virtual Union Catalogs
The virtual union catalog differs from the union catalog in a variety of ways. It links disparate
catalogs through Z39.50 protocol, represents a harvesting of the various databases and does not
represent a uniform set of indexes and search functions. Local system downtime can impact the
catalog’s availability, local catalogs must support additional capacity, and Z39.50 does not
support deduplication of records. Version 3.0 supports a sorting function however, not all systems
support this version.
vii
Libraries that are unable to participate in a shared union catalog find the virtual union catalog a
viable alternative for resource sharing. The Boston Library Consortium (BLC), an organization of
16 academic and research libraries in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, is participating in a virtual
catalog project funded in part by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners
1
. The
project links the disparate catalogs of the BLC membership with those of the Massachusetts
library Networks. Once software installation is complete, BLC patrons will have the ability to
search over 25 million volumes among the combined BLC collections and will determine an
item’s availability instantaneously. Once the networks are added to the project, the searchable
collection will reach over 56 million volumes.
The project, using epixtech’s URSA, links disparate catalogs through software that emulates
interoperability. URSA simultaneously searches across disparate integrated library systems and
de-dupes requests based on designated criteria. The local catalogs are searched using Z39.50
protocol, display an item’s holdings and current availability, and authenticate patrons. The
software is flexible and permits requesting and lending through mediated or unmediated
techniques.
The project is unique in that it is a multi-consortial partnership linking disparate consortia. The
implementation process began with a phased approach to the Virtual Catalog/Direct Distance
Borrowing Project. An early implementers group comprised of BLC members University of
Massachusetts-Boston, Marine Biological Laboratory/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
Wellesley College, and Brown University began using the catalog in staff mode in the fall of
2000; patrons began using the system at the beginning spring semester 2001. Massachusetts
Network implementers include Minuteman Library Network and the Metro Boston Library
Network, representing collections of 8 million volumes. The next phase of the project includes
1
The member institutions of the BLC are: Boston College, Boston Public Library, Boston University, Brandeis
University, Brown University, Marine Biological Laboratory/ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, ,State Library of Massachusetts, Tufts University, University of
Massachusetts Amherst, University of Massachusetts Boston, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, University of
Massachusetts Lowell, University of Massachusetts Worcester, and Wellesley College.
4
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and University of
Massachusetts Worcester with a planned patron implementation for summer. Other consortium
members and the remaining networks will join the project in 2001 and beyond.
The Consortium serves as the project’s fiscal agent, offers leadership to the membership, assists
them with the transition to a patron initiated environment, helps identify emerging technologies,
and attemps to anticipate the needs of the members and their constituents. The consortium is
continually investigating new methods to deliver information, suggesting new communication
methods, and working toward balancing advocacy with inquiry.
The project has instilled a deep sense of collaboration among the consortia membership and
strengthens our attempts to share resources more aggressively. It serves as a calculated response to
the increase demand for access and providing materials in a timely and cost effective manner. It
also supports many of the best practices suggested by the NAILLD project, including the redesign
of the interlibrary loan, improvement of mediated services, and the provision of unmediated
services in a networked environment.
This partnership has provided new opportunities for the
patrons, has extended the library beyond the building, and made us rethink the way knowledge is
managed.
i
M. Roche. ARL/RLG Interlibrary Loan Cost Study
Association of Research Libraries and Research Libraries Group, June 1993.
ii
Mary Jackson. Maximizing Access, Minimizing Cost: The Association of Research Libraries North
American Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery (NAILDD) Project. A Five Year Status Report
January, 1998. http://www.arl.org/access/naildd/overview/statrep/statrep-9801.shtml
iii
Information Access & Delivery Services: A Strategic Direction for Research Libraries.
http://www.arl.org/access/infoaccess.shtml
iv
Clifford A. Lynch. “Building the Infrastructure of Resource Sharing: Union Catalogs,
Distributed search, and Cross-database Linkage. Library Trends, v. 45:3 (Winter 1997), pp.448-
462.
v
Barbara G. Preece and Thomas L. Kilpatrick. “Cutting Out the Middle: Patron-Initiated
Interlibrary Loans.” Library Trends, v. 47:1 (Summer 1998), pp. 144-157.
vi
Karen Coyle. “The Virtual Union Catalog: A Comparative Study.” D-Lib Magazine, v. 6:3
(March 2000),
http://www.dlib.org?dlib/march00/coyle/03coyle.htm
vii
Ibid.
Conference
August 16-25, 2001
Code Number:
091-108-E
Division Number:
V
Professional Group:
Document Delivery and Interlending
Joint Meeting with:
-
Meeting Number:
108
Simultaneous Interpretation:
-
Union Catalogs and virtual Union Catalogs – repositioning Interlibrary Loan
BARBARA PREECE
&
JOAN THOMPSON
Boston Library Consortium
City and Country: Boston
Boston, MA, USA
Abstract:
Libraries in the United States share a long history of developing consortial arrangements for
resource sharing. This paper explores the use of union catalogs and virtual union catalogs in the
United States to support resource sharing and provides an overview of a project that links
disparate catalogs among members of an academic consortium and a statewide regional library
network. When fully implemented, the Virtual Catalog/ Direct Distance Borrowing Project,
funded by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners and administered by the Boston
Library Consortium, will enable patrons to search and request from over 56 million volumes.
Introduction
Libraries in the United States share a long history of developing consortial arrangements for resource
sharing. In the early 80s members relied on bibliographic utilities such as OCLC, RLG, and WLN to view
the holdings of their reciprocal partners. While this is an advance from earlier times when libraries
checked book catalogs such as the National Union Catalog or microfilm listings, it does not meet the
needs or expectations of today’s patrons. In addition, it is an expensive operation. The utilities may
charge for the use of the interlibrary loan component, and as the ARL/RLG study of 1993
i
noted, staff
expense adds greatly to the transaction cost.
2
How can patrons obtain items that are not held by their home institutions in an efficient and cost-effective
manner and what role can consortia play in meeting the patron’s needs? Consortia have selected a
multitude of methods to support resource sharing, especially the sharing of returnables. This paper will
explore the use of union catalogs and virtual union catalogs in the United States to support resource
sharing and provide an overview of a project that links disparate catalogs among members of an academic
consortium and a statewide regional library network.
NAILLD Project
The Association of Research Libraries North American and Interlibrary Loan Document Delivery Project
(NAILLD) promotes developments that will expedite delivery of materials to patrons at a cost that can be
easily borne by libraries.
ii
The NAILLDD Project envisioned an interlibrary loan system from the
patron’s perspective. This system would
•
have transparent access to the most relevant information through appropriate local and
remote library catalogs, citation databases, and electronic resources,
•
transfer bibliographic citations or details about non-bibliographic items into electronic
requests or orders,
•
pass requests or orders through the library online system to determine the local
availability of the item,
•
depending on the user's choice and local policy, direct the request or order to one of a
range of suppliers including document delivery suppliers, or a local or remote library
interlibrary loan/document delivery department,
•
communicate electronically with the chosen supplier, and
•
receive the print materials, multimedia, data, or full text/full image copy of non-returnable
documents directly at their desk or workstation.
iii
Union Catalogs
One method consortia have used to embrace this vision is through the establishment of union and
virtual union catalogs. The union catalog combines the resources of consortial members,
sometimes in a single bibliographic record with holdings attached. Lynch makes the following
distinctions among union catalogs: Commercial services such as OCLC, RLG and WLN
represent shared cataloging activities that do not have real time links to circulation data. Union
Catalogs, such as MELVYL, are an outgrowth of shared cataloging, and shared union catalogs
that are integrated library systems shared by libraries.
iv
One of the earliest versions of the shared approach was ILLINET Online, a consortia of academic
and research libraries in Illinois. An early version of this consortia’s catalog consisted of a
database that held a single bibliographic record fed from OCLC data. Records from the libraries
were deduped and holdings data linked to the record. The records were also linked to each
library’s circulation database, which indicated availability to the patron. Patrons could then use
this function to request items (returnables only) directly from consortial partners. Since the patron
database was shared, authentication was not an issue. The patron’s home library however, was
unaware of a patron’s request until an item was received for a patron. Also, patrons often forgot
whether a request had been submitted directly on the system or through traditional interlibrary
loan. It was however, a popular system, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in borrowing.
v
Data
Research Associate’s Classic System later replaced this system. In this version, the patron
3
searches the union catalog for an item, places the request, which is then routed to one of the
consortial members according to a variety of algorithms that supports load leveling. The lending
and borrowing libraries have access to the requests and allowing them to track the request’s
progress through the system.
Other United States consortia have selected similar approaches to a shared union catalog. One of
the most well known is OhioLink while one of the most recent consortia to select the shared union
catalog approach is Mobius, a consortia of academic libraries in Missouri.
Libraries of the University of California selected the union catalog approach. MELVYL® is a
centralized database representing the cataloging from libraries that participate in the California
Digital Library. As Coyle notes, MELVYL is a document discovery tool for end-users.
vi
Virtual Union Catalogs
The virtual union catalog differs from the union catalog in a variety of ways. It links disparate
catalogs through Z39.50 protocol, represents a harvesting of the various databases and does not
represent a uniform set of indexes and search functions. Local system downtime can impact the
catalog’s availability, local catalogs must support additional capacity, and Z39.50 does not
support deduplication of records. Version 3.0 supports a sorting function however, not all systems
support this version.
vii
Libraries that are unable to participate in a shared union catalog find the virtual union catalog a
viable alternative for resource sharing. The Boston Library Consortium (BLC), an organization of
16 academic and research libraries in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, is participating in a virtual
catalog project funded in part by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners
1
. The
project links the disparate catalogs of the BLC membership with those of the Massachusetts
library Networks. Once software installation is complete, BLC patrons will have the ability to
search over 25 million volumes among the combined BLC collections and will determine an
item’s availability instantaneously. Once the networks are added to the project, the searchable
collection will reach over 56 million volumes.
The project, using epixtech’s URSA, links disparate catalogs through software that emulates
interoperability. URSA simultaneously searches across disparate integrated library systems and
de-dupes requests based on designated criteria. The local catalogs are searched using Z39.50
protocol, display an item’s holdings and current availability, and authenticate patrons. The
software is flexible and permits requesting and lending through mediated or unmediated
techniques.
The project is unique in that it is a multi-consortial partnership linking disparate consortia. The
implementation process began with a phased approach to the Virtual Catalog/Direct Distance
Borrowing Project. An early implementers group comprised of BLC members University of
Massachusetts-Boston, Marine Biological Laboratory/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
Wellesley College, and Brown University began using the catalog in staff mode in the fall of
2000; patrons began using the system at the beginning spring semester 2001. Massachusetts
Network implementers include Minuteman Library Network and the Metro Boston Library
Network, representing collections of 8 million volumes. The next phase of the project includes
1
The member institutions of the BLC are: Boston College, Boston Public Library, Boston University, Brandeis
University, Brown University, Marine Biological Laboratory/ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, ,State Library of Massachusetts, Tufts University, University of
Massachusetts Amherst, University of Massachusetts Boston, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, University of
Massachusetts Lowell, University of Massachusetts Worcester, and Wellesley College.
4
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and University of
Massachusetts Worcester with a planned patron implementation for summer. Other consortium
members and the remaining networks will join the project in 2001 and beyond.
The Consortium serves as the project’s fiscal agent, offers leadership to the membership, assists
them with the transition to a patron initiated environment, helps identify emerging technologies,
and attemps to anticipate the needs of the members and their constituents. The consortium is
continually investigating new methods to deliver information, suggesting new communication
methods, and working toward balancing advocacy with inquiry.
The project has instilled a deep sense of collaboration among the consortia membership and
strengthens our attempts to share resources more aggressively. It serves as a calculated response to
the increase demand for access and providing materials in a timely and cost effective manner. It
also supports many of the best practices suggested by the NAILLD project, including the redesign
of the interlibrary loan, improvement of mediated services, and the provision of unmediated
services in a networked environment.
This partnership has provided new opportunities for the
patrons, has extended the library beyond the building, and made us rethink the way knowledge is
managed.
i
M. Roche. ARL/RLG Interlibrary Loan Cost Study
Association of Research Libraries and Research Libraries Group, June 1993.
ii
Mary Jackson. Maximizing Access, Minimizing Cost: The Association of Research Libraries North
American Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery (NAILDD) Project. A Five Year Status Report
January, 1998. http://www.arl.org/access/naildd/overview/statrep/statrep-9801.shtml
iii
Information Access & Delivery Services: A Strategic Direction for Research Libraries.
http://www.arl.org/access/infoaccess.shtml
iv
Clifford A. Lynch. “Building the Infrastructure of Resource Sharing: Union Catalogs,
Distributed search, and Cross-database Linkage. Library Trends, v. 45:3 (Winter 1997), pp.448-
462.
v
Barbara G. Preece and Thomas L. Kilpatrick. “Cutting Out the Middle: Patron-Initiated
Interlibrary Loans.” Library Trends, v. 47:1 (Summer 1998), pp. 144-157.
vi
Karen Coyle. “The Virtual Union Catalog: A Comparative Study.” D-Lib Magazine, v. 6:3
(March 2000),
http://www.dlib.org?dlib/march00/coyle/03coyle.htm
vii
Ibid.