Shared Collections, Shared Records? Resource sharing at the meta-level

1. Shared Collections, Shared Records?Resource sharing at the meta-level Charley Pennell, NCSU - Natalie Sommerville, Duke TRLN Annual Meeting, 13 July 2012

2. Library co-operation in the Triangle 2 • UNC & Duke cooperation in material purchasing began in 1933! • NCSC joins in activities, 1950s; NCCU in 1995 • Planning for joint automation system started 1979 • BIS, 1983-1993 • DRA, 1993-2003 • Separate ILSs (Sirsi, ExLibris, III), 2003- • Endeca, 2006- (at NCSU only), 2007/08- (TRLN)

3. “TRLN United:one collection, one community” 3 • Search TRLN combines the catalogs of four member systems into a common interface • Each institution also maintains own “skin” • Collection overlap study 2006 (based on OCLC number matches) • Assume greater overlap in electronic

4. Shared e-content 4

5. Bibliographic traits of e-resources 5 • Bib records often sold separately from content • Licenses often disallow loading of records into OCLC or sharing with other libraries • E-resource record often a repurposed print record • Metadata quality varies between collections • Libraries experience difficulty overlaying bibs when source metadata changes; lack of unique IDs • Even where URLs to resource start the same, Libraries proxy to ease access and enable stats collection • Open-access resources often fall out of system developed for paid content

6. Shared e-content in TRLN Endeca 6 • Multiple records describe same content (inconsistent IDs between members prevent roll-up) • Inconsistent loading of collection records between holding institutions • Confusing display of links to remote resources, particularly before suppression of 856$3$y$z • Proxying of open-content titles made them appear to be licensed to single institution

7. TRLN community solutions… 7 • Electronic Resources Access Restrictions TF, 2009 • Looked at display of e-resource links, esp. open-access • Recommended members consider sharing records • Shared Records TF, 2010 • Developed model for record sharing • Implemented model for NC Live, ICPSR, GPO e-records • Created a mechanism for adding additional shared record sets (see last slide)

8. Shared record model 8 • One institution takes responsibility for maintaining metadata (including authority control) for entire set • UNC: GPO DWS • NCSU: NC Live; EEBO • Duke: Oxford University Press • Endeca pipeline to accept collection metadata from maintenance agency only; all others rejected • Appropriate licensee URL to display for all licensed titles • Open access titles to display single URL for all • Open access titles recognized by domain (.gov, .edu, .org) or by record attributes (Item Cat2, 856$z)

9. Pros and cons of record sharing 9 Positive Negative • Most collection reports run from ILS; cannot be done if decision is made to not also load records locally • Loss of local control over metadata; changes subject to priorities of maintenance unit • How to get metadata back if record sharing program ceases Group discounts on metadata! Saves overall cost of authority control Saves disc space/search time Less public display clutter Descriptive metadata for collections in synch Work only done once! Saves staff time and disc space for non-maintenance libraries

10. Statistics of record sharing at TRLN 10 Authority processing savings across membership $50,103.03 @ $.10/title (ICPSR not under NAF)

11. Shared record examples 11 • Early English books online

12. Documents Without Shelves (GPO) 12

15. Duke Context • Workflow efficiencies are a core value for managing discovery of the Libraries’ resources • Efficiencies include loading of vendor-supplied MARC records for print, microform, and electronic collections • Loading of records for electronic resources dates back to the early 2000s

16. Initial reaction • Support for TRLN and its shared mission • Support for the efficiency of sharing records BUT • Discomfort with the ILS not being the MARC repository of record

17. Agents of Change • Migration to Serials Solutions in Fall 2010 • Provided a centralized and accurate picture of electronic resource holdings • The knowledgebase becomes the place to retrieve data about electronic resource holdings • Vast majority of electronic resource discovery managed through Serials Solutions products; e.g. 360MARC service and Summon

18. Cross-departmental team works to improve the electronic resources workflow process Move from ILS OPAC to separate discovery layer underscores the already-acknowledged need for clean data Case in point: Documents Without Shelves Need for a data clean-up project for U.S. Documents electronic resources identified DWS shared record project facilitated this effort Agents of Change continued

19. Current environment • Record sharing is part of the workflow for providing access to new eBook packages • Duke manages first shared record project for TRLN • University Press Scholarship Online • Shared collection of electronic and print resources • UNC manages the print • Duke manages the eBooks

20. Records by one, discovery for all

21. Records by one, discovery for all

22. Where to go to suggest new collections! 22