Although interoperability among diverse sets of metadata records can be problematic, there are several current approaches to address these issues. One approach is through the use of a union catalog, a centralized database of metadata from multiple sources. One such union catalog used among libraries, for example, would include the MARC-based library catalog. Union catalogs can exist at any level, from a local institutional level to an international level. In libraries, OCLC’s WorldCat is one example of an international union catalog (Caplan, 2003).
There are several methods of implementing union catalogs. One method is that participating institutions submit copies of their own cataloging records to an organization that maintains the centralized search catalog. Another method is to create records directly into the union catalog database and then copied into the institution’s local system. In either of these two methods, records for the same resource contributed by different institutions can either be maintained as duplicate records or consolidated into a single master record presenting multiple holding locations. A third method includes the creation of a false union catalog via a union index over multiple catalog files, instead of maintaining a compiled database. This approach displays records from the source catalogs when entries from the index are selected.
In general, union catalogs work best when the participating institutions share a common data format and common set of cataloging rules. For example, libraries tend to use similar data formats and cataloging rules, which contributes to the effectiveness of OCLC’s WorldCat. When the records in the central database and local contributing catalogs are relatively homogenous, the familiarity of the search will facilitate retrievals. Although it is more complicated, it is possible to create union catalogs from non-homogenous metadata sources. Non-homogenous contributions usually result when a variety of institutions, as opposed to just one type of institution, participate in the union catalog. These institutions can include archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, and so on. Typically, the creation of a union catalog from non-homogenous sources would require a conversion of the various metadata schemas submitted into a common format for storage and indexing before loading the records into the union catalog (Caplan, 2003).
References
Caplan, P. (2003). Metadata fundamentals for all libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Personally, the most prevalent union catalog in my own experience is that of the Follett Destiny district-wide server in the county where I work. A district employee does the cataloging, providing the solid structure and consistency across school collections. I have noticed a tremendous increase in inter-library loans due to the easier nature of finding materials on a shared database and computer system platform. In my chronology, I talked about OCLC, and the findings of that organization once standards were applied in Ohio is consistent with what I have observed this year, the first year all 44 schools were on the same program.
Post a Comment