Cambridge University Library

A. Rose, by any other nameA workshop on authority controlCataloguing & Indexing GroupCILIP HQ, LondonFriday 23 October 2009

Cambridge University Library

Cooperative name authority data –The LC/NACO Authority FileHugh TaylorHead, Collection Development and DescriptionCambridge University Library

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?

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)?

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)

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”

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…)

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.

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)

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

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

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

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…?)

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

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

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)?)

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

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 …

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

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

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)

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)

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

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…)