1 / 25

MARC Content Designation Utilization: Inquiry and Analysis

MARC Content Designation Utilization: Inquiry and Analysis. Can Empirical Evidence Help Shape the Future of MARC? Amy Eklund, Research Asst., MCDU Project; Catalog Librarian, Georgia Perimeter College.

harley
Download Presentation

MARC Content Designation Utilization: Inquiry and Analysis

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. MARC Content Designation Utilization: Inquiry and Analysis Can Empirical Evidence Help Shape the Future of MARC? Amy Eklund, Research Asst., MCDU Project; Catalog Librarian, Georgia Perimeter College Research funded by a National Leadership Grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Additional support provided by the University of North Texas College of Information and the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge.

  2. Presentation objectives • Background on MCDU project • Background on comparison of PCC BIBCO guidelines with MCDU findings • Implications of MCDU study for the future of MARC in light of RDA and the future of bibliographic control ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  3. MCDU Project goals • Document MARC 21 content designation used by catalogers • Explore the evolution of MARC content designation • Develop a method to understand the factors contributing to MARC content designation use ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  4. MCDU Project components • Database creation, parsing, set extraction • Analysis of format-specific sets • Identification of commonly-occurring elements in each set • Comparison with Nat. and Min. Level requirements, PCC BIBCO, and FRBR • Creation of HistoriMARC database housing MARC documentation 1972-present • Analysis of date-of-creation sets (incomplete) • Methodology to identify factors influencing cataloger use (incomplete) ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  5. ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  6. Analysis of sets • Ran “general profile” queries on the format-specific sets • Record length, status, type, encoding level, descriptive cataloging form, etc. • Ran frequency counts of fields and subfields • Total occurrences of field, Total number of records where field occurred • Compiled data and processed ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  7. Frequency Counts ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  8. Frequency Counts • What about the fields/subfields that are used in <1% of all records? • All WorldCat – 62% of fields are used in <1% of records; 83% of subfields are used in <1% of records ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  9. Books – Frequency Counts ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  10. Determining commonly-occurring elements • Identification of commonly-occurring elements using a calculated threshold of usage • Non-cataloger supplied fields were removed (001, 003, 005, 019, 029, 040, 066, 938, 994) ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  11. Commonly Occurring ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  12. Books – Commonly Occurring ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  13. Mapping elements to existing standards • National and Minimal Level Requirements (maintained by LC) • PCC BIBCO core-record standards and CONSER record standards • Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) using Tom Delsey’s MARC to FRBR mapping ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  14. National, Minimal, and Core-level records standards comparison Article in Journal of Library Metadata (coming later in 2009): “Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization in OCLC WorldCat Records with National, Core, and Minimal Level Record Standards” ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  15. ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  16. ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  17. Task Group on BIBCO Standard Record Requirements • Interim report: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/TG_InterimRpt_BSR-MAP5_20Mar09.pdf • Final report: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSRFinalRepJune-12-2009.pdf MCDU project hopes to provide data for use in revising these requirements. ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  18. Implications • These data provide an empirical basis for decision-making about what fields constitute a “core” record • Empirically-based information to use in decision-making about changes to cataloging rules, standards, policies • Tools and methodologies can be applied by any institution to their MARC records ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  19. Future of MARC... …informed by empirical evidence and other factors to improve bibliographic control! • RDA and MARC compatibility • MARC-XML crosswalks with other standards • Streamlining (incl. “core” records) • Etc. ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  20. Questions • What does low occurrence of fields/subfields suggest? • Can these results inform local practices? ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  21. Questions (2) • What about the fields used in <1% of the records? • What is needed in a bibliographic record? • How do our systems use the infrequently used data? ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  22. Questions (3) • Can you argue persuasively for the cost/benefit of your existing practice? • Should the focus be on high-value, high-impact, high-quality data in a few fields/subfields? • Can you identify these few fields/subfields? • What would it mean for costs of cataloging? • What would this mean for training? ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  23. MCDU Project further info Visit http://www.mcdu.unt.edu/ to view project documents Contact information for principal investigators on the website Presentation available online by early next week: http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~aeklund/ Email: Amy.Eklund@gpc.edu ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  24. Special thanks MCDU Principal Investigators: Dr. William E. Moen, TxCDK; College of Information, UNT Dr. Shawne D. Miksa, College of Information, UNT MCDU Research Assistants: Serhiy Polyakov, Gregory Snyder, Iryna Shevchuk, Lee Fulton, Megan Charters ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

  25. References • Moen and Benardino. 2003. Assessing Metadata Utilization: An Analysis of MARC Content Designation Use. http://www.unt.edu/wmoen/publications/MARCPaper_Final2003pdf.pdf • Moen and Miksa. “Informing the Future of MARC: An Empirical Approach”. ALA presentation, June 23, 2007. http://www.mcdu.unt.edu/wp-content/ALA2007Moen22June2007.pdf • Eklund, et al. “Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization in OCLC WorldCat Records with National, Core, and Minimal Level Record Standards”. To be published 2009 in special issue of Journal of Library Metadata. ALCTS CCS Forum, ALA Annual, Chicago, 7/10/09

More Related