1

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 ObjectivesDevelop 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 tasksDetermine mandatory element set: primarily

only elements receiving a value of “high”Brainstorm and develop cataloging guidelinesTest via pilot projectsRevise based on pilot results

Core Data Set for Access Level MARC/AACR2 Records

1. FIND a specific resourceUser 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 redundanciesUse system display capabilities more fullyGuidance for cataloger decision-makingAllow for omitted elements (e.g., place) to

be supplied in future by publishers or othersMake records clearer for users“Floor” approach: “It is not required to…”

Guidance for CatalogersEstablishing corporate headings

• Preferred solutions and “if in doubt” help about forms of headings, subordination

• Guidance on qualifying headingsMajor/minor changes

• Rules of thumb for problematic situations• Title change analysis

Is there a change in meaning orsubject matter in the title that wouldrequire new subject headings?

Is there a change in the first five wordsthat is not a minor change (as defined inAACR21.2A2)?

Is there a different corporate body inthe title?

MAJORCHANGE

MAJORCHANGE

MAJORCHANGE

MINOR CHANGE

MINOR CHANGE

MINOR CHANGE

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Title Change Analysis*

* Rules of thumb; “cheat sheet”

Preliminary Pilot Project Results:Cataloging Phase

Summary Cataloging Phase Data38 catalogers at 12 institutions327 records created over 5 weeks:

• 167 access• 160 control

256 (78.3%) original; 71 (21.7%) copyAverage # of records/cataloger: 8.9Mean # of records/cataloger: 8

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*

Averagetimesaved ondescription of8 titles donein common:25.7%

*HUL, NLC FUG/STF,omitted dueto data collection problems

The Learning CurveAccess record #1 took longer than control

record #1Marked improvement occurred after 3rd or

4th access level record Control record times had wider variationsRecord times can be expected to improve as

access level records become more routine

Average Time to Catalog Based on Sequence (Complete record)

01020304050

AccessControl

Minutes

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

Pilot project factors8 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, examplesLearning 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 savings22.8% omitted a uniform title needed on

control record32.9% were online serials where place can

be time-consuming to findRemoval of “fear factor”/ agonizing some

catalogers have about creating full CONSER standard records in OCLC

Applicability to copyCorrect 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

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 constructEasier to train catalogers to create

Biggest ConcernRemoval 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

Question 7: Omissions or changes resulting in adverse effects on user's ability to find, identify, select, or obtain an item. Number PercentageNo adverse impact 21 23.9%Place of publication only 32 36.4%Not relevant or no change from current standards* 10 11.4%Place of publication + other issues 5 5.7%Uniform titles 5 5.7%No answer 4 4.5%Physical description 3 3.4%Other 3 3.4%Lack of justification for added entries 2 2.3%Publication Date 2 2.3%Subtotal of adverse impact answers 66 75.0%Skipped question 1 1.1%Total 88 100%

72%

Category Number PercentageRecord meets needs 41 46.6%Place of publication only 12 13.6%Okay much of the time 5 3.4%Issues not related to access level standard 2 2.3%Various issues including place of publication 5 5.7%Lack of detail for ongoing maintenance 4 4.5%Lack of detail for identification of items 4 4.5%General lack of detail 4 4.5%One or more issues other than place 3 3.4%Uniform titles 3 3.4%Objections based on specific types of serials 3 3.4%Objections based on needs of different users 1 1.1%Subtotal of problems cited 46 52.3%Skipped question 1 1.1%Total 88 100.0%

Question 13: Would an access level record be sufficient to meet your needs for the work you do?

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

ReferenceAcquisitonsSystemsOther

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

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

*

Access level record acceptanceIf 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 concernsComplex titles require more information Could result in need to retrieve material to

distinguish one title from anotherMay not be sufficient for scholarly researchLack of cross-checks, e.g., justification of

added entriesTraining 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…

OPACDisplay

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 stepsReview 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