Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management

The world’s libraries. Connected.

A Strategy for Network Disclosure using MARC21 Format for Holdings

Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Collections

5 June 2012#SharedPrintMgt

Constance MalpasProgram OfficerOCLC Research

@[email protected]


Shared Print: What’s the Problem?

• Shift in scholarly attention from print to electronic means low-use retrospective print collections are perceived to deliver less library value

• Competing demands for library space: teaching, learning, collaboration vs. “warehouse of books”

• Among academic libraries, a shrinking pool of institutions with mandate, capacity to support print preservation

• As transaction costs for managing legacy print collections decrease, libraries will seek to externalize print operations to shared repositories


The Future of Shared Collections

• Economic and space pressures will make shared print management strategies more prevalent

• An active archive isn’t “just move it and forget it”• Ongoing management of collections is required

• Workflows need to be mainstreamed with other resource management practices

• Retrospective vs. building shared collections through new acquisitions

• Relationship to HathiTrust, Portico and other digital archiving efforts


Implications for Bibliographic Infrastructure

In emerging environment, registration of item (copy) level data is required to support:

• Preservation risk assessment – how many copies exist in the system? What is their condition? Are they subject to archival / persistence agreements?

• Collection management – which copies in local collection should be retained? How can space recovery be maximized? How can inventory be optimized?

• New business models – what is the total value of outsourcing preservation and access to shared repository?


Fundamental requirements

• Print archiving institutions need:• A mechanism to record and disclose institutional

archiving commitments at title and volume level

• Decision support to identify/select titles and volumes suitable for archiving

• Print archive clients need:• Decision support to identify/select titles and volumes

suitable for withdrawal, based on existing archiving commitments, and/or donation (to fill gaps in archive)


Shared Print: OCLC Research

Active portfolio of work since 2007:• North American library storage capacity (2007)

~70M volumes in storage; further capital investment unlikely

• Policy requirements shared print repositories (2009)critical need: disclosure of print preservation commitments

• Leveraging infrastructure: MARC21 583 Note (2009)copy-level retention, condition statements are required

• Cloud-sourcing research collections (2010)mass digitization of monographs accelerates shift to shared print


Print Archive Activities at OCLC

• Evaluate ways in which OCLC can help to support immediate and future needs for shared print management

• First priority: address needs for registering and disclosing retention commitments for print resources

• Leverage existing library investment in WorldCat

• Shared Print Archives Disclosure Pilot project


Why use MARC 583?

• Defined for use in both bibliographic and local holdings record; flexible implementation

• Successfully deployed for cooperative microfilming projects in US, web archiving in Australia, DLF/OCLC Registry of Digital Masters

• Existing PDA thesaurus includes terms appropriate for print archiving actions (retained, condition reviewed, etc.)


Registering Print Archiving Actions

583 Action Note • Action – committed to retain, condition reviewed etc.• Authorization – identifies Print Archive program• Status – condition or completeness statement• Method of Action – level of validation• Materials Specified – if different from the 85x/86x• Institution – identifies archiving agent


5,820,316 bib level MARC 583 tags in WorldCat (Apr 2012)

• Vast majority (91%) are for monographic titles• Very few (2%) include $3 “materials specified”

detail

583 tag usage in WorldCat

As presently implemented, ill-suited to registration of cooperative preservation commitments

For serial holdings, especially, greater specificity of holdings and stewardship responsibility is needed


Registry of Digital Masters

5,096,007 title-level digital preservation commitments registered in WorldCat (May 2012)

• 5,040,330 (99%) from HathiTrust • 55,680 from other digitization projects

‘Industrial scale’ aggregation led to streamlined process, created critical mass in WorldCat

Centralizing, automating metadata creation facilitates upstream quality assurance


Example 1: Registry of Digital Masters

This print edition held by 169 WorldCat libraries. The University of Chicago has digitized it and has registered a commitment to preserve the digital surrogate


Example 2: UK Research Reserve

This print edition held by 5 WorldCat libraries. St Andrews University Library has registered a commitment to preserve a print copy.


Why implement at local holdings level?

• Recording preservation commitments at title level in bibliographic record is practically impossible for serial publications (gaps in holdings, condition may vary from one volume to the next)

• LHR implementation supports distributed archiving efforts in which multiple libraries commit to preserve partial runs; less resource intensive than consolidating complete runs at a single institution


Local Holdings Records in WorldCat

32,842,128 detailed holdings records (May 2012)

• Contributions from >10,000 libraries• 38% of detailed holdings contributed by 85 ARL (1% of

contributors)Institutions most likely to assume print archiving responsibility are already contributing holdings

Easier to reinforce an existing behavior than to institutionalize a new one


Growth of Local Holdings in WorldCat

2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

11 13

2226

33

Millions of Detailed Holdings Records


Print Archive Pilot

• Worked with 8 print archiving institutions to establish and test LHR-based approach

• CRL JSTOR archive

• WEST partners (UC San Diego, UCLA, Stanford, University of Oregon, SRLF)

• CIC Shared Print Archive (Indiana University)

• University of Minnesota dark JSTOR archive

• Pilot ran through 2011 and early 2012


Print Archives Pilot activities

• Drafted metadata guidelines (2011)• Developed controlled vocabulary (2011)• Tested LHR contribution via OCLC Connexion

Browser and batch-load utility (2011/2012)• Evaluated resource sharing workflows (2012)• Documented implementation processes,

identified critical roadblocks (2012)


Print Archive Pilot – Final Report, April 2012

Summary of activities Metadata guidelines Sample title data Implementation checklist Recommendations

for libraries Recommendations

for OCLC

Report includes:


Recommendations for Disclosure (1)

• Establish new Print Archive institution symbols• For a shared storage Print Archive model, only one symbol

needed – for the Archive itself

• For an “archive-in-place” model, need new symbols for each participating institution

• Less than ideal, but necessary to support resource sharing

• Contribute LHRs containing 583 tag data• Establish best practices for use of the 583 and other LHR fields

for print archiving

• For shared model, need a consolidated file of LHRs since load replaces rather than merges


Recommendations for Disclosure (2)

• Create Group Access Capability (GAC) to facilitate discovery

• LHR 583 data also indexed in Connexion (use “io:” label)

• Assumption of an active archive requires support for resource sharing

• Prioritization, deprecation or deflection for lendingNB Proposed method is optimized for serials but

extensible (in principle) to monographs


Model implementation: Registration of print archiving commitment

Title held by 1100 libraries;hundreds of

local holdings profiled


Recommendations for Print Archives

• Wherever feasible, contribute detailed holdings statement with 583 Action Note in accordance with Print Archives guidance

$a-Action, $c-Time/date of action, $l-Status $2-Source of term are critical (and mandatory per PDA)

$d-Action interval $f –Authorization, $i-Method of action, $j-Site of action etc. required where applicable

• If registration at local holdings level is not possible, record print archiving commitment in the bibliographic record $a-Action, $3-Materials specified, $5-Institution are critical


As of 1 June 2012, 32 new shared print / print archiving

symbols in WorldCat

Collectively, we are making progress:


As of 1 June 2012, more than 2800 titles with print archiving

commitments in WorldCat




LHR 583 tag data indexed in Connexion – use “IO” label for

searching, with or without shared print symbols


• FAQ for print archiving support at OCLC will be published soon:

• How to request new ‘shared print’ symbol

• Set up for batchloading LHR

• Metadata guidelines

• Resource sharing tips

• Exploring application of 583 strategy for monographic print archiving

What’s Next?


Questions? Comments?

Constance [email protected]

Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management

Automotive

worldcat libraries

print repositories

print operations

print archiving actions

neededthe worlds libraries

legacy print collections

print archive activities

academic libraries