A Strategy for Network Disclosure using MARC21 Format for ...downloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/06052012_ACprecon_shared_collections... · LHR ISSN and Ownership History (Desirable for Shared

The world’s libraries. Connected.

A Strategy for Network Disclosure

using MARC21 Format for Holdings

Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Collections

5 June 2012

#SharedPrintMgt

Constance Malpas

Program Officer

OCLC Research

@ConstanceM

[email protected]


Shared Print: What‟s the Problem?

• Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value

• Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaboration vs. “warehouse of books”

• Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate, capacity to support print preservation

• As transaction costs for managing legacy print collections decrease, libraries will seek to externalize print operations to shared repositories


The Future of Shared Collections

• Economic and space pressures will make shared print management strategies more prevalent

• An active archive isn‟t “just move it and forget it”

• Ongoing management of collections is required

• Workflows need to be mainstreamed with other resource management practices

• Retrospective vs. building shared collections through new acquisitions

• Relationship to HathiTrust, Portico and other digital archiving efforts


Implications for Bibliographic Infrastructure

In emerging environment, registration of item (copy) level

data is required to support:

• Preservation risk assessment – how many copies exist in the

system? What is their condition? Are they subject to archival

/ persistence agreements?

• Collection management – which copies in local collection

should be retained? How can space recovery be

maximized? How can inventory be optimized?

• New business models – what is the total value of

outsourcing preservation and access to shared repository?


Fundamental requirements

• Print archiving institutions need:

• A mechanism to record and disclose institutional

archiving commitments at title and volume level

• Decision support to identify/select titles and volumes

suitable for archiving

• Print archive clients need:

• Decision support to identify/select titles and volumes

suitable for withdrawal, based on existing archiving

commitments, and/or donation (to fill gaps in archive)


Shared Print: OCLC Research

Active portfolio of work since 2007:

• North American library storage capacity (2007)

~70M volumes in storage; further capital investment unlikely

• Policy requirements shared print repositories (2009)

critical need: disclosure of print preservation commitments

• Leveraging infrastructure: MARC21 583 Note (2009)

copy-level retention, condition statements are required

• Cloud-sourcing research collections (2010)

mass digitization of monographs accelerates shift to shared

print


Print Archive Activities at OCLC

• Evaluate ways in which OCLC can help to

support immediate and future needs for shared

print management

• First priority: address needs for registering and

disclosing retention commitments for print

resources

• Leverage existing library investment in WorldCat

• Shared Print Archives Disclosure Pilot project


Why use MARC 583?

• Defined for use in both bibliographic and local

holdings record; flexible implementation

• Successfully deployed for cooperative

microfilming projects in US, web archiving in

Australia, DLF/OCLC Registry of Digital

Masters

• Existing PDA thesaurus includes terms

appropriate for print archiving actions (retained,

condition reviewed, etc.)


Registering Print Archiving Actions

583 Action Note

• Action – committed to retain, condition reviewed etc.

• Authorization – identifies Print Archive program

• Status – condition or completeness statement

• Method of Action – level of validation

• Materials Specified – if different from the 85x/86x

• Institution – identifies archiving agent


5,820,316 bib level MARC 583 tags in WorldCat

(Apr 2012)

• Vast majority (91%) are for monographic titles

• Very few (2%) include $3 “materials specified”

detail

583 tag usage in WorldCat

As presently implemented, ill-suited to registration of

cooperative preservation commitments

For serial holdings, especially, greater specificity of

holdings and stewardship responsibility is needed


Registry of Digital Masters

5,096,007 title-level digital preservation

commitments registered in WorldCat (May 2012)

• 5,040,330 (99%) from HathiTrust

• 55,680 from other digitization projects

„Industrial scale‟ aggregation led to streamlined

process, created critical mass in WorldCat

Centralizing, automating metadata creation facilitates

upstream quality assurance


Example 1: Registry of Digital Masters

This print edition held by 169 WorldCat libraries. The

University of Chicago has digitized it and has registered a

commitment to preserve the digital surrogate


Example 2: UK Research Reserve

This print edition held by 5 WorldCat libraries. St Andrews

University Library has registered a commitment to

preserve a print copy.


Why implement at local holdings level?

• Recording preservation commitments at title level

in bibliographic record is practically impossible for

serial publications (gaps in holdings, condition may

vary from one volume to the next)

• LHR implementation supports distributed archiving

efforts in which multiple libraries commit to preserve

partial runs; less resource intensive than

consolidating complete runs at a single institution


Local Holdings Records in WorldCat

32,842,128 detailed holdings records (May 2012)

• Contributions from >10,000 libraries

• 38% of detailed holdings contributed by 85 ARL (1% of

contributors)

Institutions most likely to assume print archiving

responsibility are already contributing holdings

Easier to reinforce an existing behavior than to

institutionalize a new one


Growth of Local Holdings in WorldCat

11 13

22

26

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Millions of Detailed Holdings Records


Print Archive Pilot

• Worked with 8 print archiving institutions to

establish and test LHR-based approach

• CRL JSTOR archive

• WEST partners (UC San Diego, UCLA, Stanford,

University of Oregon, SRLF)

• CIC Shared Print Archive (Indiana University)

• University of Minnesota dark JSTOR archive

• Pilot ran through 2011 and early 2012


Print Archives Pilot activities

• Drafted metadata guidelines (2011)

• Developed controlled vocabulary (2011)

• Tested LHR contribution via OCLC Connexion

Browser and batch-load utility (2011/2012)

• Evaluated resource sharing workflows (2012)

• Documented implementation processes,

identified critical roadblocks (2012)


Print Archive Pilot – Final Report, April 2012

Summary of activities

Metadata guidelines

Sample title data

Implementation

checklist

Recommendations

for libraries

Recommendations

for OCLC

Report includes:


Recommendations for Disclosure (1)

• Establish new Print Archive institution symbols

• For a shared storage Print Archive model, only one symbol needed – for the Archive itself

• For an “archive-in-place” model, need new symbols for each participating institution

• Less than ideal, but necessary to support resource sharing

• Contribute LHRs containing 583 tag data

• Establish best practices for use of the 583 and other LHR fields for print archiving

• For shared model, need a consolidated file of LHRs since load replaces rather than merges


Recommendations for Disclosure (2)

• Create Group Access Capability (GAC) to

facilitate discovery

• LHR 583 data also indexed in Connexion (use “io:”

label)

• Assumption of an active archive requires support

for resource sharing

• Prioritization, deprecation or deflection for lending

NB Proposed method is optimized for serials but

extensible (in principle) to monographs


Model implementation: Registration of print archiving commitment

Title held by

1100 libraries;

hundreds of

local holdings

profiled


Recommendations for Print Archives

• Wherever feasible, contribute detailed holdings statement with 583 Action Note in accordance with Print Archives guidance

$a-Action, $c-Time/date of action, $l-Status $2-Source of term are critical (and mandatory per PDA)

$d-Action interval $f –Authorization, $i-Method of action, $j-Site of action etc. required where applicable

• If registration at local holdings level is not possible, record print archiving commitment in the bibliographic record

$a-Action, $3-Materials specified, $5-Institution are critical


As of 1 June 2012, 32 new

shared print / print archiving

symbols in WorldCat

Collectively, we are

making progress:


As of 1 June 2012, more than

2800 titles with print archiving

commitments in WorldCat


making progress:



making progress:

LHR 583 tag data indexed in

Connexion – use “IO” label for

searching, with or without shared

print symbols


• FAQ for print archiving support at OCLC will be

published soon:

• How to request new „shared print‟ symbol

• Set up for batchloading LHR

• Metadata guidelines

• Resource sharing tips

• Exploring application of 583 strategy for

monographic print archiving

What‟s Next?


Questions?

Comments?

Constance Malpas

[email protected]

Bibliographic Infrastructure

for Shared Print Collections:

Metadata Guidelines

Lizanne Payne

WEST Project Manager

ReCAP Planning Consultant

Shared Print Collections Consultant

[email protected]

@LizanneP


Library

Catalogs

WorldCat

Disclosing Shared Print Collections in OCLC

OCLC symbol,

Local Holding Records

(LHRs) with

583 Action Note(s)

Resource-

Sharing

OCLC symbol

Lender string

Group Access Catalog

OCLC OCLC

30


Primary Goal of the OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot Project

“Propose and assess the feasibility of a metadata standard for

disclosing in the near term the location and status

of archived print holdings for journals,

using existing bibliographic infrastructure

(OCLC and local ILS capabilities).

That is, implementation would not require any software

development.”

31


Guidelines for Journal Archiving, Not Tested for Monographs

“Please note that these guidelines were designed and tested

for journal holdings.

While the data structures theoretically would be usable for monographs,

there may be variations in functionality related to using LHRs for

monographs that have not been tested.”

32


Metadata Guidelines:

Three-Part Data Structure for Print Archived Items

• Define separate OCLC Institution Symbols for the libraries and

storage facilities that hold shared print materials

• Enter holdings-level print archives data in MARC Holdings records

(OCLC Local Holdings Records, LHRs)

• Use the 583 Action Note to describe specific characteristics of the

print archives action(s) for each set of holdings

33


Why a Separate OCLC Institution Symbol?

• OCLC resource-sharing, collection analysis systems, and group

catalogs depend on symbols

• Indicates that a title is subject to some form of a retention

commitment at a given institution

• Supports different lending behaviors for these items compared to

materials in the general collection or storage facility

34


Examples of Shared Print Symbols

Symbol Description

CLUSP UCLA Shared Print in Place

CUSSP UCSD Shared Print in Place

CRLAA CRL Print Journal Archive

IULSP Indiana University Shared Print in Storage

MLCSP University of Minnesota Shared Print in Storage

STFSP Stanford Libraries Shared Print in Place

SL3SP Stanford SAL3 Shared Print in Storage

ORUSP University of Oregon Shared Print in Place

ZASSP UC SRLF Shared Print in Storage


Local Holdings Record: Key Fields for Shared Print

36

Field Description Required by

OCLC

Needed for

Shared Print

004 or 014 or

035

OCLC Number Required Required

001 and 007

and 008

Leader/Directory Required Required

852 Location Required Required

85x/86x

OR

866-8

Coded formatted holdings

OR

Summary holdings (if no 85x/86x)

Required

583 Action Note

Required

022 International Standard Serial Number

(ISSN)

Desirable

561 Ownership and Custodial History

Desirable


LHR Location and Holdings

(Required for Shared Print)

Location

• 852 ‡a Location: Enter the new shared print Institution Symbol

• 852 ‡b Sublocation: Enter a sublocation or collection if applicable

Holdings

• 85x/86x Coded formatted holdings OR 866-8 Summary holdings

• Enter the holdings that are covered by the shared print agreement

• “For institutions that already provide LHRs to OCLC, libraries should

remove the archived holdings from the original LHR or holdings data,

so they will no longer be reflected under the original institution


LHR ISSN and Ownership History

(Desirable for Shared Print)

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) (022)

• 022 ‡a: Enter the ISSN for the print title being archived

• Provides a standard match point to support linking of LHR

information with other data sources

Ownership and Custodial History (561)

• 561 ‡a: Enter the OCLC Institution Symbol of the original owner of

these shared print holdings

• If the shared print title being recorded was consolidated from multiple

owners, provide a separate 561 for each original owner

• Provides a means of identifying the original owner(s) for 108

compliance or for future shared print collection analysis


LHR 583 Action Note

(The most important field for shared print collections)

• Describes specific characteristics of the print archives action(s) for

each set of holdings

• Includes information about:

• Shared print program

• Retention period

• Validation (review) performed (if any)


583 Action Notes for Print Archives

Include one, two, or three 583 Action Notes as appropriate.

1. For all archived titles, include a 583 tag with ‡a ”committed to

retain”

• The minimum to identify shared print materials

• Ideally can be created in batch

2. For titles that were reviewed for completeness of the run, include

another 583 tag with ‡a ”completeness reviewed” and report any

identified gaps

3. For titles that were reviewed for condition, include another 583 tag

with ‡a ”condition reviewed” and record the conditions found


583 Action Note for “Committed to Retain”

Subfield MARC Subfield Desc Contents for Shared Print

‡ a Action “committed to retain”

‡ c Time/Date of Action Date commitment was made (YYYYMMDD)

‡ d Action interval Date commitment expires

‡ f Authorization Archiving program eg WEST, CRL JSTOR,

CIC SPR

‡ j Site of Action Holding Location Code (if different than 852 ‡

b)

‡ u Uniform Resource

Identifier

Link to program documentation

‡ 3 Materials specified Detailed holdings to which action applies, if

different from 85x/86x or 866

‡ 5 Institution to which field

applies

MARC org code (if available) for archiving

institution

The minimum


Sample Retention-Only Record


583 Action Note for “Completeness Reviewed”


‡ a Action “completeness reviewed”

‡ c Time/Date of Action Date review was completed (YYYYMMDD)

‡ f Authorization Archiving program eg WEST, CRL JSTOR, CIC

SPR

‡ i Method of Action Validation level (“volume-level”, “issue-level”, “page-

level”)

‡ l Status Completeness problems (“missing”, “reprints”,

“binding patterns vary”)

‡ z Public Note Specify the completeness problem, followed by the

units to which it applies. For example, “‡z missing

volume 13 (1937)”. Use a separate Status/Note

pair for different statuses.

If no validation was done, you do not need this 583


583 Action Note for “Condition Reviewed”


‡ a Action “condition reviewed”

‡ c Time/Date of Action Date review was completed (YYYYMMDD)

‡ f Authorization Archiving program eg WEST, CRL JSTOR, CIC

SPR

‡ i Method of Action Validation level (“volume-level”, “issue-level”, “page-

level”)

‡ l Status Condition problems (“torn pages”,

“highlighting/underlining”)

‡ z Public Note Specify the condition problem, followed by the units

to which it applies. For example, “‡z torn pages vol

27 issue 3”. Use a separate Status/Note pair for

different statuses.

If no validation was done, you do not need this 583


Sample Completeness & Condition Record


Group Access Capability

• Establish Group Access Capability (GAC) profile for the print

archiving program (e.g. WEST, Orbis-Cascade Alliance Distributed

Print Repository, UC Shared Print).

• Facilitates borrowing and lending within and between institutions

affiliated and not affiliated with archiving programs

• Facilitates local and group collection management decisions.


Group Catalog

• If desired, establish a Group Catalog for the print archiving program

(e.g. WEST, Orbis-Cascade Alliance Distributed Print Repository, CIC

Shared Print Repository)

• Allows staff and users affiliated (and not affiliated) with a print

archiving program to view aggregated holdings and to search for

either aggregate holdings or individual titles within a print archiving

program.

• Supports inter-institutional visibility of resources subject to a shared

print commitment (and their archived status) and to an individual

library‟s collection management decisions.


Initial Implementation Steps for a Shared Print Program

• LHR metadata

• Request new symbol(s) and authorization(s) by email to [email protected]

• Establish common vocabulary for use in the 583 fields (e.g. retention period,

archiving program name, condition terminology)

• Set up LHR batch load (if applicable)

• Resource-sharing

• Set up lending information for the new symbol in the OCLC Policies Directory

• Change the symbol from Non-supplier to Supplier

• Add new shared print symbols to custom holdings groups and paths

• Discovery

• Set up Group Access Capability and Group Catalogs (if desired)


Implementation Costs

• No charge to define new OCLC Symbols, but there may be related

transaction charges for activity under that symbol

• One-time setup fee per library to define new LHR batch load process

for new symbol (est $500)

• Using ILLIAD: If the library is supporting more than one OCLC

symbol with the same instance of ILLiad, there is an additional

“satellite” library fee ($1,200 per year).

• Using WCRS: Libraries may subscribe to WorldCat Resource-

Sharing (WCRS) to process lending under the new symbol ($100 per

year)


The bottom line

• Print archiving commitments not effectively disclosed in union

catalogs are not delivering full benefit

• We must strike a balance between the desirability of detailed

condition & completeness information and the need to achieve

scale in the data resource

• Existing infrastructure of 583 Action Note and Local Holdings

Records appears adequate for near term implementation and

evaluation


Thank you.

More questions?

Contact us:

Constance Malpas <[email protected]

Lizanne Payne <[email protected]>

OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot Final Report

http://hangingtogether.org/?p=1734

Documents

A Strategy for Network Disclosure using MARC21 Format for ...downloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/06052012_ACprecon_shared_collections... · LHR ISSN and Ownership History (Desirable for Shared