A Crisis in Cataloging:The Impact and Implications of the Library of Congress’ Series Authority Decision on Cooperative Cataloging

March 5, 2007Richard Sapon-White

The Library of Congress’ Role

The official library of the United States Congress

Technically, not a national library Functionally, a leader for US and world

libraries in creation of catalog records and promulgation of cataloging standards

LC’s Product History

Catalog cards Cataloging-in-Publication (CIP) Library of Congress Classification Library of Congress Subject Headings

(LCSH) MARC, METS, MODS, EAD

LC’s Role in Quality Control

Maintains the National Authority File (NAF) Name, series, and subject authority records Since 1990’s, other libraries could contribute authority

records LC retains control of NAF through approval of

authority record proposals Until recently, LC has had primary role in training

(increasingly in hands of Program for Cooperative Cataloging)

April 21, 2006

Internal announcement Suspend the creation of series authority

records on May 1 Record all series as “untraced” – 490 0b But would continue to provide training in

the creation of series authority records

Immediate Concerns of Library Community No consultation or discussion conducted

outside of LC No studies done to evaluate impact Some ILS will search untraced series,

others will not

Reaction

Petition circulated on the web Signed by many notable US librarians

Guild of LC workers resolution Thomas Mann, LC reference librarian and noted

speaker on library research ALA/ALCTS reaction Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)

response

LC’s Response

Reasons for making decision are economic Insufficient funds to continue same level of

service as in the pastNeed to redirect $$$ into digital products

Refusal to back down, but delayed implementation until June 1, 2006

OCLC Responses

OCLC no longer treating LC’s records as uneditableAny library can edit series fields for quality

control490 0b from LC records will not overlay series

tracings in OCLC records

Oregon State University Evaluation

Since August, OSU has been examining the impact on series

Questions to be answered: How many untraced series are being added to the

OSU catalog? What is the source of cataloging of these untraced

series? Is the form of the series title in 490 0b different from

the form in the series authority record? Do series authority records exist for these untraced

series?

Conducting the Monthly Examination Innovative Interfaces, Inc., system allows

queries by MARC field Search for all records entered within the

past month which have a 490 0b Sort by series title, then search each in

National Authority File (NAF)

Data: Summer 2006

For June-August, 2006: 10,940 records reviewed 179 have at least one untraced series

heading 21% of 179 (37 records) require addition

of a traced series that differs from the untraced form

Fall 2006 Data

Records with untraced series

Series titles needing revision

Records revised

Sept. 66 5 11

Oct. 54 13 20

Nov. 17 7 6

Discussion

The number of records needing revision each month is relatively small

Takes one person 1 to 1.5 hours to complete analysis and revision of records each month

Most of the records needing revision are from either government documents or retrospective conversion of serials!

Very few are records from Library of Congress

Discussion (cont.)

Other libraries are editing LC records in OCLC to provide traced series and adding series authority records to the NAF

More untraced series expected in future Will other libraries be able to keep up with

revisions and series authority record creation?

Conclusion

Impact on library has been small so farFew new series coming inFew needing revision of bibliographic recordsNo complaints from users

Over time, expect the numbers to increase However, many libraries are changing CIP

and other records as they become available in OCLC

Is This The End of the Story?

More significant is the impact on LC’s role LC continues to be a significant player BUT Shift has occurred in responsibility from LC to

other US and international libraries Concern over whether other libraries will follow

LC’s path or if they will try to counteract the impact

What Has This Experience Shown Us About the Role of LC? Reducing its role as metadata creator Encouraging cooperative efforts of others Channeling funds and effort into digital

projects

What is the Future for Cooperative Cataloging? Two opposing forces:

Traditional cataloging community Seeking to continue traditional role of catalog and cataloging Also making efforts to incorporate new modes of metadata

creation and management in the digital world Library administrators

Seeking cost savings as digital world escalates View traditional – and possibly all – metadata creation as a

too-costly activity Look to business models for answers (Google, Amazon)

What About Non-U.S. Libraries?

LC records are used around the world National Library of the Czech Republic

uses OCLC and collects US imprints, so likely uses LC catalogingLC cataloging then becomes available to

Czech libraries The future National Technical Library will

also use LC records

Děkuji za Pozornost!

Richard Sapon-WhiteHead of Monographs CatalogingOregon State Universityrichard.sapon-white@oregonstate.edu