a rose by any other name a workshop on authority control
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
A. Rose, by any other name A workshop on authority control

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

A. Rose, by any other name A workshop on authority control - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

A. Rose, by any other name A workshop on authority control. Cataloguing & Indexing Group CILIP HQ, London Friday 23 October 2009. Cooperative name authority data – The LC/NACO Authority File. Hugh Taylor Head, Collection Development and Description Cambridge University Library. Objectives.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' A. Rose, by any other name A workshop on authority control' - fawzi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a rose by any other name a workshop on authority control

A. Rose, by any other nameA workshop on authority control

Cataloguing & Indexing Group

CILIP HQ, London

Friday 23 October 2009

cooperative name authority data the lc naco authority file

Cooperative name authority data –The LC/NACO Authority File

Hugh Taylor

Head, Collection Development and Description

Cambridge University Library

objectives
Objectives
  • Session aims to answer the following:
  • What is the LC/NACO Authority File?
  • Who creates and maintains it?
  • How is it “created”?
  • And, passim …
  • … Why is any of this important (right here and now)?!
  • But first – what about the audience?
preaching to the converted
Preaching to the converted?
  • NACO participants?
  • Active users of LC/NACO authority data?
  • Believe in the continuing value of controlled access points? consistency?
  • In what contexts?
    • Users inputting searches?
    • Linked data?
  • Have institutional OPACs offering “browse” searches?
  • … That make use of references in authority records (if you have them)?
slide5
What?
  • International cooperative project
  • >25% of current non-LC contributions come from outside United States (and ca. 50% of those from the BL)
  • Authority records for
    • Personal names
    • Corporate/conference names
    • Works and expressions - name/title, title (incl. series)
  • >7 million records in total
  • (Also serves as LC’s in-house authority file)
slide6
What?
  • Community effort to try to provide most of the authority records that will be needed to support authority control in library systems
  • Available in MARC 21 (and soon as Linked Data?)
  • Should be able to meet most needs of staff, end users, and (traditional library) systems
  • But there are limitations in what can be (or is) achieved
  • And there’s no formal list of expectations against which to measure “success” – or even definition of “authority control”
who starting at the beginning
Who? (starting at the beginning)
  • 1976 – MARC Authority format published
  • 1977 (April) – LC started inputting machine-readable authority records
  • 1977 (Oct) – US Government Printing Office joined with LC in sharing authority work
  • 1979 – Texas State Library joined
  • 1980 – The explosion began! (10 members by 1980, 24 by 1982, 37 by 1985, 55 by 1992, and so on, until…)
who now
Who (now)
  • FY 2008 – 379 institutions contributed to LC/NACO
  • Of whom 51 contributed more than 1000 records
  • Wide range of contributors:
    • National libraries
    • Libraries of other national institutions (e.g. US Army)
    • Various tiers of education (mostly Higher)
    • Public, state, etc. libraries
    • OCLC
    • Publishers
    • Vendors
    • Etc.
who now moving towards how
Who (now) – moving towards How
  • With membership comes obligations/expectations
  • Follow standards
  • Contribute through a utility
  • Commit staff and undergo training
  • Meet minimum contribution levels
  • Achieve independent status within 12 months of joining
  • Most contributors are individual members
  • But a number of “funnel projects” also exist to cater for those creating more modest numbers or records and/or with some sort of shared interest (e.g. Music, Art)
who now partly driven by how
Who (now) – partly driven by How
  • Standards
    • AACR2, ch. 22-26
    • MARC 21 Authority Format (incl. additional LC Guidelines Supplement)
    • Subject Headings Manual, H 405 (“Division of the World”)
    • LC Rule Interpretations, ch. 22-26
    • ALA-LC Romanization Tables
  • Additional guidance
    • NACO Participants’ Manual
    • Descriptive Cataloging Manual (LC). Z1. Name and Series Authority Records
    • Various other smaller pieces of documentation on NACO and LC Policy Standards Division web pages
who now partly limited by how
Who (now) – partly limited(?) by How
  • Since closure of RLIN, OCLC is currently only utility through which contributions can be made – so appropriate level of OCLC membership is de facto requirement
  • Normally a 5-day training programme
  • There are currently no NACO trainers based in the UK
  • Significant investment of time and effort (backed up with cash!) on part of would-be member
who now partly limited by how1
Who (now) – partly limited(?) by How
  • Minimum contribution is 200 records per annum (100 for smaller institutions)
  • New members are assigned a reviewer to check work for first 3-6 months, then to be available for advice/feedback until independent
  • Series authority training is separate from the other types – would expect to be independent in other types of heading before considering contribution of series
who now partly driven by how1
Who (now) – partly driven by How
  • All UK and Irish members are independent
  • And there are no Funnel Project members here (I think)
  • For Cambridge, adherence to (even reading) LCRIs was biggest shock (and, at the time, using USMARC Authority Format when we were still on UKMARC for bibliographic records)
  • How much the requirements (not just the Standards) are an obstacle to increasing UK/Irish membership is an interesting question (something to discuss over tea?)
  • (Or is there simply a different attitude here to cooperation? Or to authority control? Or to…?)
slide14
How
  • What follows is a somewhat simplified workflow (lacks wrinkles, doesn’t all apply to the BL, etc.)
  • Identify that no NAR exists for the person, etc., for whom/which a heading is needed in a bibliographic record
  • Double check an authorised copy of the LC/NACO file (local version won’t be complete/current, even if you have one)
  • Construct (mentally) an NAR from the resource to hand – if resulting heading (+ any references) doesn’t conflict with what’s already established then create NAR from information to hand
slide15
How
  • If proposed heading conflicts with established heading (or reference) attempt to break conflict, firstly by adding something to the new NAR, but if need be by changing existing heading/reference
  • For personal names, if conflict can’t be broken (you’d be surprised how difficult this can sometimes be, even for new publications), designate an “undifferentiated” heading (008/32=“b”)
  • Always break conflict for corporate, conference, name/title and title headings
undifferentiated headings diversion
Undifferentiated headings – diversion!
  • Undifferentiated headings are a problem for everyone
  • Other databases/services take different approach (e.g. IMDb)
  • Distinctions permitted in LC/NACO are limited to those defined in AACR2 and LCRIs
  • “Solutions” acceptable to librarians may not be helpful to users (but is Smith, John, 1952- any worse than John Smith (III)?)
slide17
How
  • Go beyond resource to break conflict, verify form of headings used as subjects and of corporate bodies, resolve doubts, etc. – less often needed than one might imagine
  • Foreign languages/scripts may raise more problems – national library databases, authority files, VIAF, may all offer help
  • Create the record in OCLC (Connexion software) – when “finished”, submit it
  • OCLC sends each day’s new and updated records to LC for loading into the master database; LC exports these master versions to OCLC and BL for loading into “slave” copies of the master
slide18
How
  • LC needs to ensure its bib records are in synch with the LC/NACO file, so most NACO work that requires BFM on LC bibs needs to be reported to LC for action locally
  • Only LC staff can delete records from LC/NACO!
  • Little a contributor is obliged to do (other than adhere to standards ) – OK to duck proposal if it turns out to be too difficult, or sparks off chain reaction and you don’t have time
  • And participant can decide if certain categories are never contributed (e.g. Chinese, retrocon projects, theses)
  • But we’re all in this together, so if I don’t do it, then …
lc naco maintenance
LC/NACO maintenance
  • Restrictions on types of changes that can be made to authorised headings – these are the main ones permitted:
    • Correcting errors
    • Changing heading to break potential conflict
    • Adding death date where “open” date of birth given (1949-)
    • Upgrading pre-AACR2 headings
  • Other data changes can be made more or less as needed:
    • Adding references (in accordance with AACR2/LCRIs)
    • Adding further citation information
    • Changing form of reference to avoid/break conflict
  • Many older records (keyed from LC slips) lack essential information
some numbers
Some numbers
  • Total new name and series authority records FY 2008:
      • 213,404
  • Total changed name and series authority records FY 2008:
      • 503,613 (>80% of these done by OCLC)
  • Total new records by international partners
      • 54,926
  • Total new records by UK & Irish partners
      • 33,294
credit where credit s due
Credit where credit’s due
  • UK & Irish contributors FY 2008
      • Bodleian Library, University of Oxford*
      • British Library
      • Cambridge University Library*
      • National Art Library
      • National Library of Scotland
      • National Library of Wales
      • Trinity College Dublin Library
      • University of Strathclyde
      • Wellcome Library

*contributes both name and series records (remainder only names)

slide22
Why
  • Cataloguing is labour-intensive (£££$$$) – the more of the effort we can share, the more we can ultimately save
  • (This is widely accepted within the UK in respect of bib records, why shouldn’t it also apply to authority data?)
  • Membership quickly pays dividends
  • Participating in NACO is both a good discipline (you think more about what you’re doing) and a rewarding activity for your staff (satisfaction in both the challenges and the achievements)
why and for how long
Why – and for how long?
  • Getting in first – practical benefits in knowing the form just used in a bib record is the one that is (or will be) what’s in the LC/NACO file –these benefits (or their extent) will vary depending on the way individual institutions exercise “authority control”
  • Members have a voice
  • But it’s not perfect and many of us accept that the community (that’s all of us!) need to be looking at even more powerful and effective solutions – which will likely not depend on such an “enclosed” community of contributors
  • Still… the achievements since 1977 have been tremendous and are a firm foundation on which to build that future
a personal wish list
A personal wish list
  • Things that Cambridge UL would most appreciate random order):
    • More NARs that cover the mass of 1850-1950 publications
    • More series authority records, especially for UK-published series – and even more especially for UK grey literature
    • More Greek script added to existing authority records
    • More compact, and less diffuse, documentation – less places to refer to or in which to check something
    • Other means of contributing than via OCLC Connexion
    • A more logical approach to the use of LCCNs covering undifferentiated names
    • A similar workflow for submitting subject authority proposals (which is out of scope for this presentation, I know…)
ad