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

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management

More from Constance Malpas

Recently uploaded

Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management