preserving the integrity of the national research collection michael emly university of leeds 10...

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