Many Fingers in the Pie: Improving Master Records in the OCLC Database: The Enhance Program

Abstract

Based on their experience at The Pennsylvania State University Libraries, the authors discuss the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) Enhance program as a model of cooperative cataloging. Having received Enhance status for three formats—maps, monographs, and video recordings—catalogers at Penn State are able to add access points, correct errors, establish authorized headings, add call numbers, and improve the content of shared master records in the OCLC database. The authors assess various features of the Enhance program—training, documentation, outcomes—and offer recommendations for the future.

KEYWORDS:

• OCLC
• cataloging
• Enhance program
• quality control
• Penn State University Libraries

The authors thank members of the Penn State University Libraries cataloging department who participate in OCLC's Enhance Program. In particular, our thanks go to Will Covington and Anna Letowski of the Monographs Team and Jeff Ungar of the Special Collections Cataloging Team, who contributed records for the random sample portion of the article. In addition, we are grateful to Paige Andrew who graciously made extensive comments to a draft of this article.

Notes

1. Karen Calhoun, Joanne Cantrell, Peggy Gallagher, Janet Hawk, and Diane Cellentani. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want: An OCLC Report (2009). http://www.oclc.org/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm (accessed October 29, 2009).

2. Enhance Training Outline: Mechanics and Workflow, Section B: Lock and Replace. http://www.oclc.org/support/training/worldcat/enhanceoutline/(accessed October 29, 2009).

3. Guidelines for National Level Enhance Participants. http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/records/enhanceguidelines/ (accessed October 29, 2009).

4. Enhance Evaluation Procedure states “Applicants whose scores range from 80 to 100 will be given the most serious consideration. Applicants whose scores range from 50 to 80 will also be considered on a case-by-case basis. Applicants whose scores drop below 50 will be asked not to reapply for 12 months.” http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/records/enhanceevaluation/default.htm (accessed October 29, 2009).

5. Arlyn Sherwood, “Enhancing in OCLC's Maps Format: A Participant's View,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 27, no. 3–4 (1999): 433.

6. Enhance Training Outline. http://www.oclc.org/support/training/worldcat/enhanceoutline/(accessed October 29, 2009).

7. Ibid.

8. Letter from Jay Weitz, OCLC, dated October 18, 2005.

9. E-mail from Jay Weitz, OCLC, received Thursday, June 8, 2006.

10. OCLC Product Services Reports for Individual Institutions. http://psw.oclc.org (accessed October 29, 2009).

11. “WorldCat Statistics,” NextSpace: The OCLC Newsletter, no. 12 (June 2009). http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/012/worldcatstatistics.htm (accessed October 29, 2009).

12. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) and OCLC both provide clear descriptions of full level records: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/pccfull.html and http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/onlinecataloging/default.shtm#BCGGBAFC

13. Enhance Training Outline: Requirements, Policies and Practices, Basic Requirements for Regular Enhance, #8. http://www.oclc.org/support/training/worldcat/enhanceoutline/ (accessed October 29, 2009).

14. Sherwood, “Enhancing in OCLC's Maps Format,” 430.

15. Expert Community Experiment: Guidelines for Experts. http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/ece/default.htm (accessed October 29, 2009).