RLG Programs Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection Constance Malpas Program Officer RLG Webinar 24 April 2008

RLG Programs

Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection

Constance MalpasProgram Officer

RLG Webinar24 April 2008

RLG Programs Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection

RLG Webinar – 24 April 2008

2

Why investigate unique print books?

Future of library print collections is in question We need better “management intelligence” about where

continued investment in print collections – both legacy holdings and future acquisitions – should be directed

Uniquely-held content may be an asset or liability Institutional assets that may be leveraged through

digitization and resource-sharing agreements Potential preservation risks, if the content is not

adequately cared for Size, character and distribution of aggregate

collection has broad implications Digitization – identifying distinctive collections Disclosure – maximizing discoverability Distributed print archiving – sizing the need



3

Who’s Involved:

OCLC Programs & ResearchConstance Malpas, Program OfficerEd O’Neill, Senior Research ScientistBrian Lavoie, Research Scientist

RLG Partners Arizona State UniversityColumbia UniversityDuke UniversityFlorida State UniversityHarvard UniversityIndiana UniversityLibrary of CongressNew York Public LibraryNew York University

University of AlbertaUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of MichiganUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Texas, AustinYale University… among others



4

Unique vs. rare: a distinction with a difference

“Unique” = single holding attached to master record in WorldCat describing a distinct manifestation / edition some uniquely held titles may be associated with

multiple local copies

“Rare” typically describes material that is in limited supply and has special value to particular audience Few copies were produced Few remaining copies available on the market Distinctive intellectual content or artifactual features

(binding, signatures)



5

Growth of Unique Holdings in WorldCat

Jan -03 Jan -05 Jan -07 Jan -08

Date of Snapshot

Mas

ter

Rec

ord

s

50%

49%

42%

44%

Proportion of master records with a single holding has increased 8% since 2003



6

Background

Anatomy of Aggregate Collections (2005) Thin duplication of book holdings across “Google Five” libraries

(~40%) and between aggregate collection and rest of WorldCat (~30%)

Proportion of uniquely held titles decreases as publication date advances – until 1980s

Books without Boundaries (2006) 9.5M uniquely held works representing 36% of works in

WorldCat; preservation implications Unique titles in WorldCat represent ~2/3 of total print

production; significant collection gap Last Copies: What’s at Risk? (2006)

“last expressions” – a conceptual model 26K unique titles at Vanderbilt; typically “old, foreign, short”

Global Resources Report (2007) Limited redundancy in ARL holdings of non-North American

imprints (~3 to ~6 holdings per title)



7

Importance of FRBR

Measuring duplication at the “work” or expression level provides maximum measure of overlap for intellectual content

Uniquely-held manifestations may represent artifactual treasures Book history – bindings, printers Provenance – autographs, annotations

Implications for collection management Unique works represent distinctive intellectual assets Unique manifestations may require curatorial care



8

FRBR: Group One Entities

Is exemplified by

Is embodied in

WorkA distinct intellectual or artistic creation

Is realized through

ExpressionThe intellectual or artistic realization of a work

ManifestationThe physical embodiment of an expression

ItemA single exemplar of a manifestation

Is embodied in



9

Goals of current last copies work

Evaluate relative proportion of unique works in a representative and statistically significant sample Application of FRBR

Characterize material and content types “old, foreign, short”

Examine distribution of holdings by library-type preservation infrastructure

Assess preservation status and circulation history of selected titles In 1995 study of titles published 1850-1940, 12% were

not available for study – missing, not on shelf



10

Sample Characteristics

Fractional sample of 250 records representing: January 2007 snapshot of WorldCat

74.5M bibliographic records Master records with a single holding symbol

36.8M records Monographic language-based titles, excluding non-print

formats (electronic resources, microforms, braille) 14.7M records

Further limits were applied to facilitate analysis: English-language cataloging only

Common descriptive standards Titles published before Y2000

Avoid ‘first copy’ (cataloging lag) problem



11

Research Methods

Independent assessment followed by team review Combination of machine- and manual analysis

Connexion, FirstSearch, MARCView Level of uniqueness

work: content is not duplicated within WorldCat expression: distinctive expression of duplicated content manifestation: alternate editions available in WorldCat analytic: content is part of a larger published work duplicate record found: cataloging anomalies

Material / content types Non-fiction books; technical reports; language /

literature; archival materials; ephemera Theses and dissertations (baccalaureate, masters, PhD) Government documents (national, state, local)



12

Levels of Uniqueness within Sample

non-unique

unique analytics

unique manifestations

unique expressions

unique works

N = 250 records

>60% of titles in sample represent unique intellectual content

cataloging shortfalls



13

Content and Material Types

33%

20%

15%

10%7%

3%

12%

Non-fiction published books

Theses and dissertations

Technical reports

Serials

Literature, poetry

Archival materials

Other (ephemera, catalogs,manuals, direcotories, etc.)

N = 250 records

Academic and technical content predominates . . .



14

Range of Unique Works by Material Type

Material types representing >5% of titles in sample

“grey literature” contains greatest proportion of unique intellectual content

moremanifestations



15

Theses and Dissertations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Masters Doctoral Baccalaureate

Total in sample

Unique works

Held by issuinginstitution

N = 49 records

75% are unique works



16

Language of Publication

Non-English publications account for <40% of uniquely held books in sample

vs. ~75% of uniquely held books in Vanderbilt study

N = 250 records



17

Place of Publication

32%

68%

US imprint

Non-US imprint

A majority of uniquely held print books were published outside the United States

63%

37%

5% more than print books with multiple holdings

US

Non-US



18

Subject Access

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2

No Subject Cataloging

Subject Cataloging

Unique works Multiple holdings

19% 9%

~20% of unique print books lack subject cataloging

NB: unique works do not benefit from FRBR-enhanced discoverability; no related manifestations



19

Sample Holdings by Institution Type

54% of sample

23% of sample

Academic and research libraries hold the greatest share of unique print books

N = 250 records

Non-ARL academic libraries have the greatest number of aggregate holdings in WorldCat – but are less likely than ARL institutionsto hold unique titles



20

Age Distribution of Unique Titles N = 250 records

>70% of titles in sample were produced after 1950

Relative proportion of unique works increases in post-WWII period increased print production? rise of scientific and technical enterprise? increased library collecting activity?

Date of Publication

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

titl

es

(re

co

rds

) in

sa

mp

le



21

Characterizing Unique Works

Foreign, but accessible

Limited discoverability

Challenging inventory control



22

In Sum . . .

Uniquely-held print books containing unique intellectual

content are typically:

Non US imprints English language titles

Produced after 1950 Technical, non-fiction content

Sparsely described Short (~100 pages in length)

Held by academic and research libraries



23

Preservation and circulation status

Surveyed 27 RLG partners regarding shelf status, condition and circulation history of selected titles from ‘only copy’ sample

Responses (to date) from:Columbia University University of Arizona Harvard University University of Chicago Indiana University University of California, Los Angeles New York Public Library University of Minnesota, Twin CitiesUniversity of Alberta University of Pennsylvania

University of Texas, Austin

Subset representative of larger sample: ~70% unique works / expressions



24

Survey Results (to date)

Inventory control and item condition 100% of requested titles were available for examination

Multiple copies held for 3 titles in sample, all theses None had significant condition problems

Location and status 50% housed in off-site shelving facility

Mostly transferred in the 1990s 50% non-circulating (local or off-site)

Some availability via SHARES

Use (value, discoverability?) None requested or circulated in past 5 years

Limited usage data for non-circulating collections



25

Implications

Preservation ~50% of uniquely held works are potentially at risk in on-

site, circulating collections Limited discoverability and low-use of these titles

diminishes relative risk Recent publications less likely to have inherent condition

problems

Access Preponderance of recent publications, and non-North

American imprints, is likely to limit potential impact of mass digitization

Inter-institutional access and borrowing programs (e.g. SHARES) will test the limits of cooperative collection management

Effective disclosure (holdings, condition, policies) may require additional investment



26

Opportunities for Joint Action

Cooperative access agreementsIncrease the mobility of scarcely-held content; empower resource-sharing networks to lend and borrow unique holdings

Distributed print archivingLeverage existing on- and off-site storage infrastructure as network resource

Shared digitization infrastructureReposition off-site repositories as digital delivery hubs

Continue to build new uniqueness into system-wide holdings…strategicallyLocal collection development priorities will be trumped by economic realities; plan accordingly.



27

Short, foreign … and competing for attention



28

Questions, Comments?

OCLC Programs & Research Agenda Managing the Collective Collection

Constance Malpas [email protected]

http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/collectivecoll/default.htm

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

RLG Programs Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection Constance Malpas Program Officer RLG Webinar 24 April 2008