OCLC/RLIN Vision, Business Plan, and General Responsiveness Committee Final Report


OCLC/RLIN Vision, Business Plan, and General Responsiveness Committee Final Report
September 26, 2002

Judy Gardner (co-chair)
Rhonda Marker (co-chair)
Ruth Bogan
Elizabeth Leister
Linda Turzynski
Myoung Wilson

Charge

Mission and Organizational Structure

OCLC is a nonprofit membership organization of over 9,000 member libraries of all types and sizes. While attentive to the interests of its members, OCLC has its own independent vision and development plan. Its structure is a corporate one, with a large staff that develops systems, administers services, conducts research, and implements projects. OCLC's governance structure consists of General Members (of which RUL is one), the Members Council, and the Board of Trustees.

OCLC's strategic direction extends its services to the digital arena: to transform WorldCat to a globally networked information resource; extend its cooperative cataloging framework to new types of metadata and new automated tools; and build an archive for digital collection management and preservation. OCLC's automated tools for cataloging should be evaluated on their own merits and used to the extent that they help RUL achieve our objectives.

RLG is a not-for-profit membership corporation of over 160 universities, national libraries, archives, historical societies. RLG's mission is defined by the direction that member libraries wish to take. The relatively small staff participates in professional activities, administers a limited suite of services, and cooperatively supports limited projects. A Board of Directors, elected by the member libraries (of which RUL is one) from among the RLG membership, is responsible for the strategic management of RLG.

RLG's key initiatives are focused: to improve access to primary sources and cultural materials; develop a digital repository model and supporting tools for long-term retention of digital research materials; and create a new and far more effective model of resource sharing. Although RLG's key initiatives are not specifically focused on developing technical processing tools, those technical processing capabilities which RLG does have should be evaluated on their own merits and used to the extent that they help RUL achieve our objectives.

OCLC and RLG have much in common. The RLG and OCLC representatives who visited us often spoke about collaborative efforts in which they are both involved. The joint report, "Attributes of a Trusted Digital Repository Report" http://www.rlg.org/longterm/attributes01.pdf is a specific example of that collaboration. At some level, OCLC and RLG are more alike than distinctive. When observed through a magnifying glass - as in this evaluation - we lose sight of their collaborative efforts on behalf of libraries.

Responsiveness

In the past year, we have had occasion to contact both OCLC and RLG, and we offer these generalized observations. OCLC quickly acknowledges receipt of a query. However, the "headquarters-franchise" structure (OCLC headquarters in Dublin, Ohio and the PALINET regional network in Pennsylvania) introduces a layer of complexity that is not found in RLIN. Several times there was confusion even at OCLC/PALINET about who was working on a question and whose responsibility it was. Both OCLC and PALINET were persistent in reaching a satisfactory (to RUL) conclusion. Responsiveness is neither a deterrent nor a compelling basis for selecting OCLC for technical processing.

RLG also quickly acknowledges receipt of a query. There are relatively few people who have member library liaison responsibility. RLG staff have a good understanding of their responsibilities among the RLG Information Center (RIC), the Bibliographic Database Liaison, SHARES staff, and technical staff. Specific questions are answered quickly, and staff is available for ongoing consultation to work out technical problems. Responsiveness is neither a deterrent nor a compelling basis for selecting RLG for technical processing.

Consortial Implications

Contributing RUL catalog records to the RLG Union Catalog and WorldCat, OCLC's union catalog of member holdings, will compliment RUL's role in various consortia, including VALE and ARL. Using either or both utilities for technical processing has no impact on these consortial activities.

Although the centralized ILL systems attached to WorldCat and RLIN will retire soon, and although regional consortia are increasingly using ILL systems that target members' Z39.50 catalogs, it is still important for Rutgers to contribute RUL catalog records to both WorldCat and the RLG Union Catalog.

Contributing RUL cataloging records to the RLG Union Catalog fulfills Rutgers' commitment as a SHARES member to work with RLG staff to provide convenient access to Rutgers' collection data. Contributing RUL catalog records to WorldCat insures that other institutions with which we also share resources have up to date records to use when making requests. ILL staff and end users will continue to identify bibliographic and location data in WorldCat and the RLG Union Catalog to send as protocol compliant ILL requests.

Using either or both utilities for technical processing has no impact on RUL's interlibrary lending and borrowing activities.

Membership Costs and Services

Following are cost figures for current and anticipated OCLC and/or RLIN activities for 2002-2003.
Complete cost tables for both utilities are appended to this report.

RLG Membership Dues:$40,000
RLG Union Catalog & Authority File Access:$75,400
[up to 140,000 searches, @ $.58-.54 per search]
 
OCLC Membership Fees:None
PALINET General Member Fee:$340 (according to response to questions)
     $975 (charged 2001/2002)
PALINET Core Service Annual Fee:$2400 (charged 2001/2002)
 
Cost of obtaining a MARC bibliographic record through Z39.50
 
RLIN:$.59/search (per search; no import fee charges)
OCLC:$1.00/record (import fee; no individual searching charges)
 
Cost of obtaining a MARC bibliographic record through direct Internet-based connection to the database:
 
RLIN:$.59/search + $.135/record (import fee)
 = $.725 total
OCLC:$.40/search + $.43/record (import fee) for keyword, derived, or numeric search
 = $.83 total
OCLC:$.40/search + $.43/record (import fee) for Cataloging MicroEnhancer
 = $.83 total
OCLC:$.21/search + $.40/selected item + $.43/record (import fee) for scan title search
 = $1.04 total'
 
Cost of obtaining MARC bibliographic records for microform or electronic collection sets:
 
RLIN:Does not offer this service
OCLC:$.13/title to retrieve MARC record and set holdings on OCLC for microforms
OCLC:$.25/title to retrieve MARC record and set holdings on OCLC for electronic format
 
Cost of obtaining MARC bibliographic records at time of ordering:
 
RLIN:Does not offer this service
OCLC:$1.70/record to retrieve record & set holdings on OCLC through PromptCat
 
Cost of obtaining MARC bibliographic records through batch machine matching:
 
RLIN:$1.75/matched record, minimum 45% match rate per batch (Marcadia)
OCLC:$.43/matched record (RetroCon)
 
Cost/Credit to delete holdings:
 
RLIN:No cost, no credit to delete holdings via ftp
RLIN:$.295/search to display record to delete online
OCLC:No cost, no credit to delete holdings via Z39.50
OCLC:($.40)/record credit to delete holdings online
OCLC:($0.05)/record credit to delete OCLC-derived holdings via ftp
OCLC:($.18)/record credit to delete non-OCLC-derived holdings via ftp

Recommendations

Back to Top of Page
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/tech_serv_oclc-rlin/reports/vision_report.shtml
Libraries website maintained by the Libraries Webmaster
© Copyright 1996-2006, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)