1 / 40

The Access Level Record for Serials

The Access Level Record for Serials. Regina Romano Reynolds Post-ALA New Orleans update June 28, 2006. Note: the statistics included in this presentation are in the process of being finalized for the written final project report to the PCC.

berget
Download Presentation

The Access Level Record for Serials

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Access Level Record for Serials Regina Romano Reynolds Post-ALA New Orleans update June 28, 2006 Note: the statistics included in this presentation are in the process of being finalized for the written final project report to the PCC.

  2. “I like the idea of simplifying records; it helps the average patron to have a cleaner, uncluttered looking record; and it helps those who work on and with the records to pare down non-essentials.” “…most users don’t look at all the extra stuff we put in [records] anyway.” Survey responses from reference staff

  3. “I am a fanatic for detail; I need to have, or feel that I have, every possible detail in order to do the best work. Probably in 99 out of 100 reference desk transactions, an access level record would be sufficient; but I still prefer to have as much detail as possible.” Survey response from a reference librarian

  4. Project Objectives • Develop a single “CONSER-standard” record; a floor not a ceiling; able to function in local and shared systems • More cost-effective to create & maintain; quicker and easier to train staff to create • Compatible with current standards • Applicable to ALL resources, not just “e”

  5. A Structured, Collaborative Process • Build the record based on user needs • Evaluate core data set of elements using FRBR tasks • Determine mandatory element set: primarily only elements receiving a value of “high” • Brainstorm and develop cataloging guidelines • Test via pilot projects • Revise based on pilot results

  6. Core Data Set for Access Level MARC/AACR2 Records 1. FIND a specific resource User Task Attribute Relationship Value Data element Value MARC element

  7. Selected Leader and Fixed Field codes Control or ID #s: (ISSN, LCCN, CODEN) and 042 code Main entry Abbreviated title Titles: title proper, variant, former titles Edition statement Publisher Place (in limited cases) Extent (non-text only) Current frequency Date/designation (all unformatted) Specified notes: source of title, DBO, LIC, reproduction, system details (limited), language, index Subject & Name a.e.’s Most linking fields Series a.e.’s URLs (as specified) Mandatory Elements

  8. What’s Omitted? • 006 and 007: all but 1st 2 bytes • 008 22: except for microforms • Distinguishing Uniform Titles (except with generic titles) • Other title information, Stmts. of Resp. (generally) • Parallel titles from 245 (retained in 246) • Place of publication generally (later reinstated) • A.E.s that duplicate linking fields • Extent unless non-print • Formatted 362 (all will be unformatted) • Many notes, including 321, 580, 550, 440 730, 740, 787

  9. Cataloging Guidelines Goals • Eliminate or minimize redundancies • Use system display capabilities more fully • Guidance for cataloger decision-making • Allow for omitted elements (e.g., place) to be supplied in future by publishers or others • Make records clearer for users • “Floor” approach: “It is not required to…”

  10. Guidance for Catalogers • Establishing corporate headings • Preferred solutions and “if in doubt” help about forms of headings, subordination • Guidance on qualifying headings • Major/minor changes • Rules of thumb for problematic situations • Title change analysis

  11. Title Change Analysis* Is there a change in meaning or subject matter in the title that would require new subject headings? YES MAJOR CHANGE NO MINOR CHANGE YES Is there a change in the first five words that is not a minor change (as defined in AACR21.2A2)? MAJOR CHANGE NO MINOR CHANGE YES MAJOR CHANGE Is there a different corporate body in the title? NO * Rules of thumb; “cheat sheet” MINOR CHANGE

  12. Preliminary Pilot Project Results:Cataloging Phase

  13. Summary Cataloging Phase Data • 38 catalogers at 12 institutions • 327 records created over 5 weeks: • 167 access • 160 control • 256 (78.3%) original; 71 (21.7%) copy • Average # of records/cataloger: 8.9 • Mean # of records/cataloger: 8

  14. Time to Create Original Records • Bibliographic Descriptions Only • Average time for 148 access records: 25.4 min. • Average time for 136 control records: 31.8 min. • Time savings: 6.3 minutes/record = 20% • Complete Records • (including subject analysis, authority control) • Average time for 67 access records: 37.3 min. • Average time for 65 control records: 45.7 min. • Time savings: 8.4 minutes/record = 18%

  15. % Time Saved, by Institution* Average time saved on description of 8 titles done in common: 25.7% *HUL, NLC FUG/STF, omitted due to data collection problems

  16. The Learning Curve • Access record #1 took longer than control record #1 • Marked improvement occurred after 3rd or 4th access level record • Control record times had wider variations • Record times can be expected to improve as access level records become more routine

  17. Minutes

  18. Access level records are projected to save 20-25% of the time needed to create complete serial records

  19. Pilot project factors • 8 titles cataloged by all institutions + 12 “institution-specific” • Some common titles (e.g. online, medicine) not usually cataloged by some project catalogers • Some catalogers worked in unfamiliar systems (e.g., NLM on OCLC) • Project design and instructions—in addition to access level record-- were unfamiliar

  20. Comments from catalogers • “Liberating!” (multiple catalogers from different institutions) • No serious negatives; guidelines worked well, need some expansion, examples • Learning curve • “easier…since it does not require extensive notes…” • “no question, access level records take less time to create… adequate? I’ll be interested…”

  21. Possible reasons for time savings • 22.8% omitted a uniform title needed on control record • 32.9% were online serials where place can be time-consuming to find • Removal of “fear factor”/ agonizing some catalogers have about creating full CONSER standard records in OCLC

  22. Applicability to copy • Correct data retained; incorrect/outdated/mis-leading data that would not be provided in access level record removed • E.g., Former frequency • E.g., Former system requirements • Full records used as access copy can result in odd mixtures of included and omitted data • As more records begin as access, or will be maintained at access level, inconsistencies should be minimized over time

  23. Control Record

  24. Access Level Record

  25. Pilot Project Results:Record Review Phase

  26. Summary Reviewer Data • 88 reviewers at 13 institutions • 36 reference staff (41%) • 20 acquisitions staff (23%) • 12 systems staff (13%) • 20 “other” (23% cataloging staff, supervisors, etc.)

  27. Biggest Success: A win, win, win! Unformatted 362 (all beginning and ending info: “Began with… ended with”) • Easier for patrons and library staff to understand (will not be confused with holdings information) • Quicker for catalogers to construct • Easier to train catalogers to create

  28. Biggest Concern • Removal of mandatory place of publication (260 subfield a) –since replaced • Particularly problematic when accompanied by no distinguishing uniform title (130) • 42.1% of reviewers noted missing place as an adverse impact

  29. 72%

  30. 66%

  31. Record Acceptance by Job Category (if place of publication were made mandatory) * *“Other” = cataloger, supervisor, curator, miscellaneous titles

  32. Access level record acceptance • If place had not been omitted, ca. 66% - 72% of reviewers would have found the access level record acceptable • Place is now mandatory in most cases; guidelines to be provided: • Multiple places • Online serials • Commercial, multinational publishers

  33. Other concerns • Complex titles require more information • Could result in need to retrieve material to distinguish one title from another • May not be sufficient for scholarly research • Lack of cross-checks, e.g., justification of added entries • Training of future catalogers to a lower standard could impede their knowing when to go beyond access requirements

  34. “I’m not concerned about UCLA as long as we have Melissa and Valerie, but I hope implementation of access level does not lead to poorer serials cataloging elsewhere.”UCLA reviewer

  35. What Lies Beneath…

  36. OPAC Display

  37. Display! Display! Display! • Many comments concerned display issues, not cataloging issues • Better displays could save cataloging time (redundant keying, show place, body, to distinguish titles in lists) • Better displays (e.g, suppression of non-public data, addition of elements to indexes) would result in better reviewer acceptance

  38. Next steps • Review by CONSER Operations group--positive! • Prepare final report to PCC by July 21 • Obtain PCC approval • Recommend changes to MARBI, AACR2/RDA • Implementation preparation (as of 06/24/06) • Recommended name: The CONSER record • Target implementation date: Oct. 1, 2006 • Determine encoding level and authentication code simplifications with BIBCO reps • Prepare a single compact document that combines element set + guidelines + examples • Training: CONSER reps to do locally; ALA Midwinter CRCC meeting

  39. Columbia Harvard Library and Archives Canada GPO Library of Congress U Washington NAL NLM Oklahoma State Stanford/U Florida UCLA U Chicago U Georgia Pilot Project Participants

  40. Diane Boehr, NLM, co-chair * Regina Reynolds, LC, co-chair * Hien Nguyen, LC, CONSER ex officio William Anderson, LC Melissa Beck, UCLA Edith Gewertz, NYPL Carolyn Larson, LC (reference) Kristin Lindlan, U Wash Peter McCracken, Serials Solutions * Vanessa Mitchell, CSA (formerly Bowker) Tina Shrader, NAL * Steve Shadle, U Wash * Diana Snigorowitz, LC Working Group * Data analysis group

More Related