Hi Amy and everyone,
Here at the
Like DUKE, shortly after
learning about LC’s decision we met with public services staff. The science
librarians, in particular, informed us that they rely heavily on numbered series as important access
points. They also pointed out that other citations for science titles refer to
the series title and series vol. number rather than to the individual vol.
title, leading many users to search them as though they were serials.
Although we
haven’t yet done any studies to assess the impact of LC’s decision
locally, we have made the decision to continue to support public services staff
and the rest of our patrons (and the PCC) through controlled series access.
Priscilla
Head, Authorities and
Metadata Quality Unit
NACO & BIBCO
Coordinator
300 Smathers Library
352-273-2732
352-392-7365 fax
From: Program for
Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy H Turner
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007
7:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Seeking
information on series practice
In a month or so, the PCC Ad Hoc Series Review Task Force
will post a discussion paper on the future of PCC series authority control.
At this point, we would like to hear from PCC libraries about their current
practices. We would also appreciate any information on studies
that have been done on how series are used (by both library staff and by other
users), costs of series authority control, etc.
To
open the discussion, here is a description of series authority control at Duke:
Soon
after LC announced their decision to cease series authority control, we
discussed the matter in Open Forum, a library-wide monthly meeting.
Public services staff expressed support for tracing series.
We had already determined that with our authority control vendor, LTI, we could
continue to do so easily. LTI offers an option of converting 490 fields
with first indicator zero to 830s and verifying them. Except for choosing
that option, and making a small adjustment to how we process LTI reports (see
below) we did not need to make any changes in response to LC's decision.
Duke
defines "copy" as records that can be accepted with no (or minimal)
editing. Changes such as the addition of call numbers are referred to
original catalogers, and changes are made in OCLC as well as the local catalog.
Access points (including series) are verified when replacing the master
record in OCLC. Catalogers are encouraged, but not required, to make name
and series authority records for any headings not yet in the LCAF. Last
year 17.6% of our cataloging was "original."
For
"copy" name and series headings are not verified as part of
cataloging. Every week, we send newly cataloged records to LTI, and they
match the headings to the LCAF, make needed changes, and produce a list of
"unlinked headings." This is a totally automated process
I
analyzed a sample of the unlinked series headings on 10,500 records cataloged
in the first quarter of 2007 There were 231 unlinked series
headings out of 4012, or about 6%. We do not verify unnumbered
series from the lists. Sixty-five different numbered series
headings were represented in the 231 unlinked headings. After searching
these in the catalog and the LCAF, I made corrections to twelve. Seven of
these corrections resulted from the LC series decisions. The other five
were to errors on copy from other libraries.
After
this study, we decided to focus staff time spent with LTI's unlinked headings
on series, because the error rate on name and topical headings is much lower.
Typically,
less than an hour a week is needed to review the unlinked series headings.
The most common type of change is the addition of a qualifier, for example
"Data series" to "Data series (Geological Survey (U.S))".
Most headings are left unchanged, as they appear to be valid, just not
supported by an authority record.
In
conclusion, Duke was able to adapt to LC's decision without any measurable
increase in staff time spent on authority control We haven't seen
definitive research to support the usefulness of series authority control, but
given the support from public services staff and the low cost, there is no
reason for us not to continue.
The
PCC Ad Hoc Series
Review Task Force looks forward to reading
your descriptions of current practices, and your input on future directions.
Amy
Amy Turner (Duke)
(Co-chair) |
Les Hawkins (CONSER
Coordinator) (Co-chair) |
Joe Kiegel (SCS
member) |
Peter Fletcher (SCS
member) |
Gordana Ruth ( |
Robert Bremer (OCLC)
|
Renette Davis (U of |
Heather Rosie
(British Library) |
Judy Kuhagen (CPSO
liaison) |
Carolyn Sturtevant
(BIBCO Coordinator) |