Preserving the integrity of the National Research Collection

Michael Emly

University of Leeds

10 September 2012

Objectives

• Give a brief overview of the Copac Collection Management Tools Project

• Illustrate the potential for re-purposing of metadata aggregations like Copac – and some of the issues involved

• Discuss the metadata framework required to support the National Research Collection

Copac Collection Management Tools Project

• JISC funding• Pilot project ran Oct.2011 – July 2012• Partners: Mimas, RLUK, Leeds, Sheffield, York• To develop tools, based on the Copac database, to improve

collection management decisions• Particular focus on retention and disposal of materials

[Background: space pressures on major research libraries, digital vs. print, conservation needs, etc.]

Focus on 3 key areas

• An individual item – is it widely held or rare?– Allows for informed decision-making around retention, conservation, etc.– With support for automated procedures and batch processing

• Assessing collection strengths within the wider national context– How many of the titles in a collection are widely held in the UK and how many are

rare– To what degree other libraries’ holdings overlap with this collection– Provides a collection profile

• Retention and preservation – safeguarding access to materials in the long term

– Identified as a key community concern– Potential for relevant metadata to be added to Copac to support this

Use case - stock editing

• In LMS, identify titles for potential discard• Export record identifiers as a text file• Batch search against Copac >> file of identifiers is enhanced with

number of copies held nationally• Reload this information back into LMS• Proceed with discard where more than “x” holdings nationally• • Avoids unknowing disposal of “last copies”• 70% or greater saving on manual checking

Some thoughts for cataloguers 1

What identifier?

• ISBN– Not always reliable– Only more recent titles – less likely to be candidates for disposal

• Record number– Copac does store and index unique local identifier– But Copac doesn’t currently have all copies on one record!– However database migration at end of 2012/early 2013 should rectify this

Caused a lot of confusion and problems during the Project!

Some thoughts for cataloguers 2

FRBR-isation

• What if you don’t need precision regarding edition, publisher, etc. - could you use a FRBR model to broaden your search?

• Some work done already on merging results using very simple author/title algorithm – but would also require a search expansion which is more challenging.

• Jury currently out on how viable this is within the Copac Tools• Possible applications?

Some thoughts for cataloguers 3

How MARC is MARC?

• Need to export holdings information back into local LMS• Full MARC record could be “mis-used” (IP concerns)• Chose to use MARC “shell” to encode necessary information:

– Record identifier - 001– Local record identifier (for local LMS matching) in 035– Brief bibliographic details all output in MARC 245– Data regarding national holdings in 959

• Uses format for which routines already exist for import into LMS

Retention and Preservation

• Ran workshop in March 2012 with practitioners and experts representing the various stakeholder interests

• Consensus that the key requirement is to provide mechanism whereby a library can signal its intentions to retain a title “for the long term”

• Additional information desirable:– Physical condition / preservation status of the copy– Any access restrictions, esp. whether the copy is available for ILL– Availability of digital surrogates (commercial or in-house)

• Copac database provides a mechanism for the community to share this information

• Also requires a national focus of “authority” and leadership – RLUK?• Objective is to safeguard access for scholars by preserving the integrity of the

National Research Collection

Establishing a Metadata Framework

• MARC tag 583 – “Action note” (formerly “Preservation actions”)• Need for lack of ambiguity suggests using a controlled vocabulary• pda (Preservation and Digitization Actions) and stmanf (Standard

Terminology for MARC21 Actions Note Field) are recommended for 583 – but neither currently has a term for “commitment to retain”

• Other precedents:– UKRR – used 583 but very loosely– OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot – used 583 with intention of conforming

to pda

Recommended way forward

• Use 583 + pda• Work with OCLC to get small changes to pda needed for this

application• Set minimum input standard very low to enourage participation • Use of pda allows fuller preservation information to be recorded if

desired• Explore options for automatically populating this field – in whole or

in part - where possible

Level 1 - Minimal level of input

The OCLC Pilot permitted a 583 tag with only one subfield. For monographs, this would need to be unambiguously associated with a given institution within the shared system. This might be achieved by adding an institutional symbol in subfield $5 at point of loading into Copac if one is not already present.

583 1 $a Committed to retain

Level 2 - Recommended

This fully complies with standard practice, albeit with a minimal level of information.

$a Action e.g. Committed to retain

$c Date e.g. 2012

$f Authorization e.g. UKNRC (UK National Research Collection)

$2 Source of term e.g. pda

$5 Institution code e.g. UkLeU (may be able to be supplied by Copac software on loading?)

Level 3 – Full use of 583

Where a library desires to record additional information, the full range of MARC and pda can be used. This might either:

Relate to the intention to retain & be within the same 583.

583 1 $3 v.1 only $a Committed to retain $c 2012 $d 2022 $f UKNRC $f SCURL $5 UkLeU

Or relate to additional information about the item held & be expressed in one or more subsequent 583 tags.

583 1 $a Committed to retain $c 2012 $f UKNRC $5 UkLeU

583 1 $a Condition reviewed $c 2012 $l mutilated $z pages 9-15 damaged $5 UkLeU

583 1 $a Housed $c 2012 $i box $5 UkLeU

Next steps

• Copac database migration• Obtain funding for appropriate service model for the Copac

Collection Management Tools

• Obtain RLUK support for taking forward the National Research Collection of Monographs

• Firm agreement on standards and mechanisms

• Project website at: http://copac.ac.uk/innovations/collections-management/

• Email m.emly@leeds.ac.uk for more information