...
Because the requirements of print serials are so distinct and dependent on the organizational structures, we have found potential shared activities rather limited. It is hard to see how staff at the two organizations could effectively substitute for each other. However, making the organizational structures more similar (e.g., re-centralizing checkin at Columbia, discontinuing series and sets orders at Columbia) might lead to greater similarity in staff expectations and procedures. With the changes in Cornell's Cornell’s handling of binding tasks, Columbia may also want to reconsider where responsibility for binding and adding is located.
...
There may also be some possibility of combining the title lists from both institutions which might result in more desirable service charges, and broader collection development cooperation.
Cornell's Cornell’s documentation (certainly in the area of print serials) is notably more robust than Columbia'sColumbia’s, and sharing documentation and its upkeep would be very useful, although there are limits to what can be standardized between the two institutions.
...
Obviously maintenance is done very differently at both Columbia and Cornell, but ultimately it doesn't doesn’t make a difference how each system does it as long as the work gets done. Except for a few specific maintenance processes which will need to be reviewed in later phases of this project, it may be best to keep each institution's "database maintenance culture" institution’s “database maintenance culture” similar to how they were pre-2CUL, especially since both systems would require major overhauls of maintenance procedures, policies, and personnel in order to make them work the same. Unlike many of the processes being looked at for 2CUL, large changes in database maintenance procedures will affect many staff members in libraries across both campuses.
...
Common Development of Single Metadata Capture and Editing Tool
The working group recommends the development of a joint-2CUL web-based metadata capture and editing tool for digital assets. This project's project’s logic seems to closely align with the desire to implement a common 2CUL LMS. By having a common capture and editing tool, the two institutions could work collaboratively on non-MARC projects, facilitate alignment of non-MARC metadata practices and potentially streamline one of the issues plaguing both institutions: enhancing quality of non-MARC metadata and inconsistency of field usage.
Ideally, the capture and editing tool will be able to export metadata in multiple schema and formats (e.g.: Dublin Core, VRA Core, MODS, RDF triples, CSV file, etc.) and include spell-checking and the inclusion of linked data authorities (e.g.: id.loc.gov, GeoNames, VIAF and Getty Vocabularies, when available in Linked Data). For Columbia, this tool would likely replace the need for OMEKA's OMEKA’s cataloging interface; for Cornell, this may replace the cataloging interface in SharedShelf.
...
The working group recommends a reconfiguration of the Metadata Working Groups (MWG) at each institution. Each MWG would engage both institutions in metadata-related forums via Skype, Polycom or Webex. Further, a Columbia representative could join Cornell's Cornell’s MWG Forum Steering Committee and a Cornell representative could join Columbia's Columbia’s MWG. Currently these forums occur at Cornell once-per-month during the academic year and are publicly announced and attended; a steering committee, commonly referred to as Metadata Working Group, plans the forums. To view past forums, see: https://metadata-wg.mannlib.cornell.edu/. At Columbia, the Metadata Interest Group meets in irregular intervals, on average every two months. Meetings are planned by the Metadata Coordinator. Events are only announced to a metadata e-mail list, though anybody is welcome to attend or request to be added to the distribution list. In addition, Columbia's Columbia’s Digital Projects Librarian also hosts "Digital “Digital Library Seminars"Seminars”, which are open to the public.
...
Cataloging & Metadata: Original Cataloging
Below are some areas that we have identified for further exploration. Collaboration in some areas (e.g. training) can proceed more or less immediately, while others will need careful planning. We propose to continue to develop this list as we proceed with Phase 2.
- The Original and Copy Cataloging groups held joint discussions during Phase 1 and we recommend combining these two groups for Phase 2. This group will need to work closely with the acquisitions and batch processing groups to make recommendations on workflow and related issues such as cross-training.
- Training (and, where appropriate, documentation)
- Developing guidelines for collaborative cataloging covering such areas as balancing demand and capacity, workflow and handoffs, clarifying expectations, communication, etc.
- Identifying areas where changing collection priorities (e.g. as a result of collaborative collection development) may have an impact on cataloging workload
- Identifying and evaluating vendor services of potential interest, e.g. vendor-supplied cataloging, shelf-ready processing, vernacular data, etc.This may progress to joint negotiations with vendors and establishing common service expectations
- Representation on external bodies (e.g. CONSER) and associated activities including reporting and voting
- Joint policy and standards development: this needs to take place within a framework that will accommodate differences due to contrasting collection priorities and service expectations
- System-related services, including batch processing, reporting, troubleshooting, and their impact on workflow
For more, see this group's Phase 1 Report.
...