My library recently implemented WorldCat Local as the default catalog/discovery interface for our collections. I learned about a new book today, so I went to the our new catalog to see about getting a copy. I typed the title of the book (“bright sided”) into the WorldCat Local search box and clicked search. The first page of  search results gave me 4 articles that appear to provide reviews of the book. You can see for yourself the remaining 6 results, all articles, none of which appear to have anything to do with either the book or the terms I searched. For example, the title of the 5th item is:  “The physical state and plasma biochemical profile of young calves on arrival at a slaughter plant.”  When I do an Advanced search and enter my terms as Title, the book shows up as the 5th item in the results list (below the reviews and the “fold”,  so I must scroll down to discover this).

When I do a keyword search on the terms “bright sided” in the old catalog interface, I get the response “no entries found” and a prominently placed button that I can click on to pass my search through to our consortial catalog, Summit, where the book comes up as the first item in the results list.

This seems like a pretty common use case: person finds out about a new book and goes to the library to see if they can borrow a copy. Which catalog interface performs better for the user? I’d say the old catalog since it tells me immediately that my library does not own the book in question, and provides an easy way for me to repeat my search in the consortial catalog, where the book is found immediately, and I can request it immediately. Because WorldCat Local automatically promotes hits for items owned by my library to the top of the results display, regardless of any other measure of relevancy to the search, the WorldCat Local interface plunges me into confusion and leaves me there wondering where to go next to find the answer to the relatively simple question: can I borrow this book? Ironically, the free WorldCat.org interface actually does a better job of answering my question than subscription-based WorldCat Local because the book appears as the first hit in the results list, and it shows libraries near me (based on my IP address) that own the book.

Perhaps the “show me first what my library owns” algorithm that is the main product distinction/selling point of WorldCat Local works better with fuzzier, topical keyword searches. I don’t know, I haven’t really researched that.  It sure doesn’t seem to offer the best approach  for known item searches, however, especially in cases where the local library doesn’t own a given title (or doesn’t have holdings attached properly in WorldCat).

I’m starting a new series of posts to document some of the nitty gritty challenges faced by catalogers who work with WorldCat. Today’s challenge involves adding content to WorldCat records.

Today, I cataloged a Continuing Resource (aka Serial) with a title change: The United Nations Today. I found a lovely CONSER record for the new title, #273856824, that I was pretty happy with, only there was some valuable information missing from the record that I wanted to add: 1. The ISBN number that was printed on the piece and 2. The URL for the United Nations web site that includes selected full-text from the print edition.

There is no ISSN printed on the piece, nor was there already an ISSN in the CONSER record. Here’s what I saw when I attempted to validate the record after adding the 020 with the ISBN:

020 invalid relationship error

WorldCat would not allow me to add a 020 to a Continuing Resource record, even though this title has an ISBN but no ISSN. I added the ISBN to the record in our local catalog because standard numbers are critical data elements for record matching. But I was prevented from doing this in WorldCat by policy.

As for the URL to the companion web site, I was not permitted to add this to the master record because it is a CONSER, Encoding Level = blank record and mine is not a CONSER library. Again, this URL is included in the copy of the WorldCat record stored in our local catalog, so patrons can get access to online full-text through our catalog, but not through WorldCat.

My preference would be to add this information to the WorldCat master record, where it would be available to a much broader audience. But, current WorldCat policies prevented this.

Finally! OCLC truly makes a move toward “moving cataloging to the network level.” Now if only they could introduce some substantial improvements to Connexion Client and/or other cataloging software/interfaces that would help to simplify and streamline cataloging work. But, I guess one (slow) step at a time is all one can expect from an elephant.

• Make it much easier to create linking entries between records, e.g. support point and click creation of 776 and other linking entry fields between records for the same bibliographic content in print or electronic format
• Provide access to full-text of cataloging rules and LC cataloging manuals within the OCLC cataloging interface (via an API that accesses the data sources directly?)
• Provide color coding in the record editing display similar to that provided in a software programming integrated development environment (IDE)
• Provide much more robust tools for analyzing record contents and updating records in batches, perhaps utilizing data visualization display techniques (as per Hillmann & Dushay)
• Improved record validation to check for internal inconsistencies in records (e.g. a in ILLS fixed field, but no ill. in 300|b)

These days, I often find myself wishing that WorldCat was built on a Wiki platform with robust web services built in, so that I could easily correct or add information to the master record when I find errors or omissions, and I could link in to WorldCat to pull out basic bibliographic information that I could incorporate into resource discovery tools built and maintained locally. The WorldCat API is certainly a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go. Is anybody at OCLC thinking along these lines and/or working on this?