# Presentation: 315337

## 

Regina Romano Reynolds

Post-ALA New Orleans update
 June 28, 2006

- Regina Romano Reynolds
- Post-ALA New Orleans update
-  June 28, 2006

***The Access Level Record for Serials***

- Note: the statistics included in this presentation are in the process of being finalized for the written final project report to the PCC.

## “I like the idea of simplifying records; it helps the average patron to have a cleaner, uncluttered looking record; and it helps those who work on and with the records to pare down non-essentials.”

*“...**most users don’t look at all the extra stuff we put in [records] anyway.”*
-                       Survey responses from reference staff

## “I am a fanatic for detail; I need to have, or feel that I have, every possible detail in order to do the best work.  Probably in 99 out of 100 reference desk transactions, an access level record would be sufficient; but I still prefer to have as much detail as possible.”

- Survey response from a reference librarian

## Project Objectives

- Develop a single “CONSER-standard” record; a floor not a ceiling; able to function in local and shared systems
- More cost-effective to create & maintain;
- 	quicker and easier to train staff to create
- Compatible with current standards
- Applicable to ALL resources, not just “e”

## A Structured, Collaborative Process

- Build the record based on user needs
- Evaluate core data set of elements using FRBR tasks
- Determine mandatory element set: primarily only elements receiving a value of “high”
- Brainstorm and develop cataloging guidelines
- Test via pilot projects
- Revise based on pilot results

## Core Data Set for Access Level MARC/AACR2 Records

**Core Data Set for Access Level MARC/AACR2 Records**

- 1. FIND a specific resource

- User Task

- Attribute Relationship

- Value

- Data element

- Value

- MARC element

## Mandatory Elements

- Selected Leader and Fixed Field codes
- Control or ID #s: (ISSN, LCCN, CODEN) and 042 code
- Main entry
- Abbreviated title
- Titles: title proper, variant, former titles
- Edition statement
- Publisher
- Place (in limited cases)

- Extent (non-text only)
- Current frequency
-  Date/designation (all unformatted)
- Specified notes: source of title, DBO, LIC, reproduction, system details (limited), language, index
- Subject & Name a.e.’s
- Most linking fields
- Series a.e.’s
- URLs (as specified)

## What’s Omitted?

- 006 and 007: all but 1st 2 bytes
- 008 22: except for microforms
- Distinguishing Uniform Titles (except with generic titles)
- Other title information, Stmts. of Resp. (generally)
- Parallel titles from 245 (retained in 246)
- Place of publication generally (later reinstated)
- A.E.s that duplicate linking fields
- Extent unless non-print
- Formatted 362 (all will be unformatted)
- Many notes, including 321, 580, 550, 440
- 	730, 740, 787

## Cataloging Guidelines Goals 

- Eliminate or minimize redundancies
- Use system display capabilities more fully
- Guidance for cataloger decision-making
- Allow for omitted elements (e.g., place) to be supplied in future by publishers or others
- Make records clearer for users
- “Floor” approach: “It is not required to...”

## Guidance for Catalogers

- Establishing corporate headings
- Preferred solutions and “if in doubt” help about forms of headings, subordination
- Guidance on qualifying headings
- Major/minor changes
- Rules of thumb for problematic situations
- Title change analysis

## Title Change Analysis*

- subject matter in the title that would
- require new subject headings?

- Is there a change in the first five words
- that is not a minor change (as defined in
- AACR21.2A2)?

- Is there a different corporate body in
- the title?

- MAJOR
- CHANGE

- MAJOR
- CHANGE

- MAJOR
- CHANGE

- MINOR CHANGE

- MINOR CHANGE

- MINOR CHANGE

***YES***

***YES***

***YES***

***NO***

***NO***

***NO***

-                 * Rules of thumb;
-                    “cheat sheet”

## Preliminary Pilot Project Results:Cataloging Phase

## Summary Cataloging Phase Data

- 38 catalogers at 12 institutions
- 327 records created over 5 weeks:
-  167  access
-   160 control
- 256 (78.3%) original; 71 (21.7%) copy
- Average # of records/cataloger: 8.9
- Mean # of records/cataloger: 8

## Time to Create Original Records

- Bibliographic Descriptions Only
-   Average time for 148 access records:  25.4 min.
-   Average time for 136 control records: 31.8 min.
- Time savings:  6.3 minutes/record =  20%
- Complete Records
- (including subject analysis, authority control)
-   Average time for 67 access records:  37.3 min.
-   Average time for 65 control records: 45.7 min.
- Time savings:  8.4 minutes/record  = 18%

*Time to Create Original Records*

## % Time Saved, by Institution*

*% Time Saved, by Institution**

**Average**
**time**
**saved on**
**description of**
**8 titles done**
**in common:**
**25.7%**

- *HUL, NLC FUG/STF,
- omitted due
- to data
- collection problems

## The Learning Curve

- Access record #1 took longer than control record #1
- Marked improvement occurred after 3rd or 4th access level record
- Control record times had wider variations
- Record times can be expected to improve as access level records become more routine

## Minutes

## Access level records are projected to save 20-25% of the time needed to create complete serial records

## Pilot project factors

- 8 titles cataloged by all institutions + 12 “institution-specific”
- Some common titles (e.g. online, medicine) not usually cataloged by some project catalogers
- Some catalogers worked in unfamiliar systems (e.g., NLM on OCLC)
- Project design and instructions—in addition to access level record-- were unfamiliar

## Comments from catalogers

- “Liberating!” (multiple catalogers from different institutions)
- No serious negatives; guidelines worked well, need some expansion, examples
- Learning curve
- “easier...since it does not require extensive notes...”
- “no question, access level records take less time to create... adequate? I’ll be interested...”

## Possible reasons for time savings

- 22.8% omitted a uniform title needed on control record
- 32.9%  were online serials where place can be time-consuming to find
- Removal of “fear factor”/ agonizing some catalogers have about creating full CONSER standard records in OCLC

## Applicability to copy

- Correct data retained; incorrect/outdated/mis-leading  data that would not be provided in access level record removed
- E.g., Former frequency
- E.g., Former system requirements
- Full records used as access copy can result in odd mixtures of included and omitted data
- As more records begin as access, or will be maintained at access level,  inconsistencies should be minimized over time

## Control Record

**Control Record**

## Access Level Record

**Access Level Record**

## Pilot Project Results:Record Review Phase

## Summary Reviewer Data

-  88 reviewers at 13 institutions
-  36 reference staff (41%)
-  20 acquisitions staff (23%)
-  12 systems staff (13%)
-  20 “other” (23% cataloging staff, supervisors, etc.)

## Biggest Success: A win, win, win!

- Unformatted 362 (all beginning and ending info: “Began with... ended with”)
- Easier for patrons and library staff to understand (will not be confused with holdings information)
- Quicker for catalogers to construct
- Easier to train catalogers to create

## Biggest Concern

- Removal of mandatory place of publication (260 subfield a) –since replaced
- Particularly problematic when accompanied by no distinguishing uniform title (130)
- 42.1%  of reviewers noted missing place as an adverse impact

##     72%

**    ****72%**

##     66%

-     66%

## Record Acceptance by Job Category

*Record Acceptance by Job Category*
*    **(**if place of publication were made mandatory)*

- *“Other” = cataloger, supervisor, curator, miscellaneous titles

- *

## Access level record acceptance

- If place had not been omitted, ca. 66% - 72% of reviewers would have found the access level record acceptable
- Place is now mandatory in most cases; guidelines to be provided:
- Multiple places
- Online serials
- Commercial, multinational publishers

## Other concerns

- Complex titles require more information
- Could result in need to retrieve material to distinguish one title from another
- May not be sufficient for scholarly research
- Lack  of cross-checks, e.g., justification of added entries
- Training of future catalogers to a lower standard could impede their knowing when to go beyond access requirements

## “I’m not concerned about UCLA as long as we have Melissa and Valerie, but I hope implementation of access level does not lead to poorer serials cataloging elsewhere.”UCLA reviewer

## What Lies Beneath...

## Slide 36

## Display! Display! Display!

-  Many comments concerned display issues, not cataloging issues
- Better displays could save cataloging time (redundant keying, show place, body, to distinguish titles in lists)
- Better displays (e.g, suppression of non-public data, addition of elements to indexes) would result in better reviewer acceptance

## Next steps

- Review by CONSER Operations group--positive!
- Prepare final report to PCC by July 21
- Obtain PCC approval
- Recommend changes to MARBI, AACR2/RDA
- Implementation preparation (as of 06/24/06)
- Recommended name: The CONSER record
- Target implementation date: Oct. 1, 2006
- Determine encoding level and authentication code simplifications with BIBCO reps
- Prepare a single compact document that combines element set + guidelines + examples
- Training: CONSER reps to do locally; ALA Midwinter CRCC meeting

## Pilot Project Participants

- Columbia
- Harvard
- Library and Archives Canada
- GPO
- Library of Congress
- U Washington

- NAL
- NLM
- Oklahoma State
- Stanford/U Florida
- UCLA
- U Chicago
- U Georgia

## Working Group 

- Diane Boehr, NLM, co-chair *
- Regina Reynolds, LC, co-chair *
- Hien Nguyen, LC, CONSER *ex officio*
- William Anderson, LC
- Melissa Beck, UCLA
- Edith Gewertz, NYPL

- Carolyn Larson, LC (reference)
- Kristin Lindlan, U Wash
- Peter McCracken, Serials Solutions *
- Vanessa Mitchell, CSA (formerly Bowker)
- Tina Shrader, NAL *
- Steve Shadle, U Wash *
- Diana Snigorowitz, LC

- * Data analysis group