Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management

5 June 2012
#SharedPrintMgt

Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Collections

A Strategy for Network Disclosure
using MARC21 Format for Holdings

Constance Malpas
Program Officer
OCLC Research

@ConstanceM
malpasc@oclc.org

The world’s libraries. Connected.

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


583 tag usage in WorldCat

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
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

Millions of Detailed Holdings Records
35
30
33
25
26
20
22
15
10
11 13
5
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


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

Report includes:
 Summary of activities
 Metadata guidelines
 Sample title data
 Implementation
checklist
 Recommendations
for libraries
 Recommendations
for OCLC


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


Collectively, we are
making progress:

As of 1 June 2012, 32 new
shared print / print archiving
symbols in WorldCat


making progress:

As of 1 June 2012, more than
2800 titles with print archiving
commitments in WorldCat


making progress:

LHR 583 tag data indexed in
Connexion – use “IO” label for
searching, with or without shared
print symbols


What‟s Next?

• 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


Constance Malpas
malpasc@oclc.org

Questions?
Comments?


Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management

Similaire à Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management (20)

Plus de Constance Malpas

Plus de Constance Malpas (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management