A. Rose, by any other name A workshop on authority control

1. A. Rose, by any other nameA workshop on authority control Cataloguing & Indexing Group CILIP HQ, London Friday 23 October 2009

2. Cooperative name authority data –The LC/NACO Authority File Hugh Taylor Head, Collection Development and Description Cambridge University Library

3. Objectives • Session aims to answer the following: • What is the LC/NACO Authority File? • Who creates and maintains it? • How is it “created”? • And, passim … • … Why is any of this important (right here and now)?! • But first – what about the audience?

4. Preaching to the converted? • NACO participants? • Active users of LC/NACO authority data? • Believe in the continuing value of controlled access points? consistency? • In what contexts? • Users inputting searches? • Linked data? • Have institutional OPACs offering “browse” searches? • … That make use of references in authority records (if you have them)?

5. What? • International cooperative project • >25% of current non-LC contributions come from outside United States (and ca. 50% of those from the BL) • Authority records for • Personal names • Corporate/conference names • Works and expressions - name/title, title (incl. series) • >7 million records in total • (Also serves as LC’s in-house authority file)

6. What? • Community effort to try to provide most of the authority records that will be needed to support authority control in library systems • Available in MARC 21 (and soon as Linked Data?) • Should be able to meet most needs of staff, end users, and (traditional library) systems • But there are limitations in what can be (or is) achieved • And there’s no formal list of expectations against which to measure “success” – or even definition of “authority control”

7. Who? (starting at the beginning) • 1976 – MARC Authority format published • 1977 (April) – LC started inputting machine-readable authority records • 1977 (Oct) – US Government Printing Office joined with LC in sharing authority work • 1979 – Texas State Library joined • 1980 – The explosion began! (10 members by 1980, 24 by 1982, 37 by 1985, 55 by 1992, and so on, until…)

8. Who (now) • FY 2008 – 379 institutions contributed to LC/NACO • Of whom 51 contributed more than 1000 records • Wide range of contributors: • National libraries • Libraries of other national institutions (e.g. US Army) • Various tiers of education (mostly Higher) • Public, state, etc. libraries • OCLC • Publishers • Vendors • Etc.

9. Who (now) – moving towards How • With membership comes obligations/expectations • Follow standards • Contribute through a utility • Commit staff and undergo training • Meet minimum contribution levels • Achieve independent status within 12 months of joining • Most contributors are individual members • But a number of “funnel projects” also exist to cater for those creating more modest numbers or records and/or with some sort of shared interest (e.g. Music, Art)

10. Who (now) – partly driven by How • Standards • AACR2, ch. 22-26 • MARC 21 Authority Format (incl. additional LC Guidelines Supplement) • Subject Headings Manual, H 405 (“Division of the World”) • LC Rule Interpretations, ch. 22-26 • ALA-LC Romanization Tables • Additional guidance • NACO Participants’ Manual • Descriptive Cataloging Manual (LC). Z1. Name and Series Authority Records • Various other smaller pieces of documentation on NACO and LC Policy Standards Division web pages

11. Who (now) – partly limited(?) by How • Since closure of RLIN, OCLC is currently only utility through which contributions can be made – so appropriate level of OCLC membership is de facto requirement • Normally a 5-day training programme • There are currently no NACO trainers based in the UK • Significant investment of time and effort (backed up with cash!) on part of would-be member

12. Who (now) – partly limited(?) by How • Minimum contribution is 200 records per annum (100 for smaller institutions) • New members are assigned a reviewer to check work for first 3-6 months, then to be available for advice/feedback until independent • Series authority training is separate from the other types – would expect to be independent in other types of heading before considering contribution of series

13. Who (now) – partly driven by How • All UK and Irish members are independent • And there are no Funnel Project members here (I think) • For Cambridge, adherence to (even reading) LCRIs was biggest shock (and, at the time, using USMARC Authority Format when we were still on UKMARC for bibliographic records) • How much the requirements (not just the Standards) are an obstacle to increasing UK/Irish membership is an interesting question (something to discuss over tea?) • (Or is there simply a different attitude here to cooperation? Or to authority control? Or to…?)

14. How • What follows is a somewhat simplified workflow (lacks wrinkles, doesn’t all apply to the BL, etc.) • Identify that no NAR exists for the person, etc., for whom/which a heading is needed in a bibliographic record • Double check an authorised copy of the LC/NACO file (local version won’t be complete/current, even if you have one) • Construct (mentally) an NAR from the resource to hand – if resulting heading (+ any references) doesn’t conflict with what’s already established then create NAR from information to hand

15. How • If proposed heading conflicts with established heading (or reference) attempt to break conflict, firstly by adding something to the new NAR, but if need be by changing existing heading/reference • For personal names, if conflict can’t be broken (you’d be surprised how difficult this can sometimes be, even for new publications), designate an “undifferentiated” heading (008/32=“b”) • Always break conflict for corporate, conference, name/title and title headings

16. Undifferentiated headings – diversion! • Undifferentiated headings are a problem for everyone • Other databases/services take different approach (e.g. IMDb) • Distinctions permitted in LC/NACO are limited to those defined in AACR2 and LCRIs • “Solutions” acceptable to librarians may not be helpful to users (but is Smith, John, 1952- any worse than John Smith (III)?)

17. How • Go beyond resource to break conflict, verify form of headings used as subjects and of corporate bodies, resolve doubts, etc. – less often needed than one might imagine • Foreign languages/scripts may raise more problems – national library databases, authority files, VIAF, may all offer help • Create the record in OCLC (Connexion software) – when “finished”, submit it • OCLC sends each day’s new and updated records to LC for loading into the master database; LC exports these master versions to OCLC and BL for loading into “slave” copies of the master

18. How • LC needs to ensure its bib records are in synch with the LC/NACO file, so most NACO work that requires BFM on LC bibs needs to be reported to LC for action locally • Only LC staff can delete records from LC/NACO! • Little a contributor is obliged to do (other than adhere to standards ) – OK to duck proposal if it turns out to be too difficult, or sparks off chain reaction and you don’t have time • And participant can decide if certain categories are never contributed (e.g. Chinese, retrocon projects, theses) • But we’re all in this together, so if I don’t do it, then …

19. LC/NACO maintenance • Restrictions on types of changes that can be made to authorised headings – these are the main ones permitted: • Correcting errors • Changing heading to break potential conflict • Adding death date where “open” date of birth given (1949-) • Upgrading pre-AACR2 headings • Other data changes can be made more or less as needed: • Adding references (in accordance with AACR2/LCRIs) • Adding further citation information • Changing form of reference to avoid/break conflict • Many older records (keyed from LC slips) lack essential information

20. Some numbers • Total new name and series authority records FY 2008: • 213,404 • Total changed name and series authority records FY 2008: • 503,613 (>80% of these done by OCLC) • Total new records by international partners • 54,926 • Total new records by UK & Irish partners • 33,294

21. Credit where credit’s due • UK & Irish contributors FY 2008 • Bodleian Library, University of Oxford* • British Library • Cambridge University Library* • National Art Library • National Library of Scotland • National Library of Wales • Trinity College Dublin Library • University of Strathclyde • Wellcome Library *contributes both name and series records (remainder only names)

22. Why • Cataloguing is labour-intensive (£££$$$) – the more of the effort we can share, the more we can ultimately save • (This is widely accepted within the UK in respect of bib records, why shouldn’t it also apply to authority data?) • Membership quickly pays dividends • Participating in NACO is both a good discipline (you think more about what you’re doing) and a rewarding activity for your staff (satisfaction in both the challenges and the achievements)

23. Why – and for how long? • Getting in first – practical benefits in knowing the form just used in a bib record is the one that is (or will be) what’s in the LC/NACO file –these benefits (or their extent) will vary depending on the way individual institutions exercise “authority control” • Members have a voice • But it’s not perfect and many of us accept that the community (that’s all of us!) need to be looking at even more powerful and effective solutions – which will likely not depend on such an “enclosed” community of contributors • Still… the achievements since 1977 have been tremendous and are a firm foundation on which to build that future

24. A personal wish list • Things that Cambridge UL would most appreciate random order): • More NARs that cover the mass of 1850-1950 publications • More series authority records, especially for UK-published series – and even more especially for UK grey literature • More Greek script added to existing authority records • More compact, and less diffuse, documentation – less places to refer to or in which to check something • Other means of contributing than via OCLC Connexion • A more logical approach to the use of LCCNs covering undifferentiated names • A similar workflow for submitting subject authority proposals (which is out of scope for this presentation, I know…)