Authority Control Services

VENDED AUTHORITY CONTROL

IN UNICORN

TASK GROUP

REPORT

FEBRUARY 2, 2001

Ria Collee (Chair)

Joe Harmon

Marty Joachim

Linda Kelsey

Ralph Papakhian

Sylvia Turchyn

The Vended Authority Control in Unicorn Task Group was charged by the IO Cataloging Congress in August 2000 with investigating the feasibility and desirability of vended authority control in Unicorn. (See Appendix I.) Below are detailed responses to the questions posed to the task group. In addition to the charge to the group, the appendices include a select bibliography on vended authority control.

1. Examine the pros and cons of vended authority control. What are the potential uses for current cataloging?

PROS

·  Catalogers will be able to catalog more materials if they don’t need to spend time on authority work.

·  Authority control will be provided for materials cataloged in units that are unable to do authority work.

·  The cost of buying the Peter Ward authority file updates and maintaining the file would be eliminated. The vendor would provide necessary new authority records for headings not previously provided.

·  Authority vendors also offer to notify libraries of new and revised authority records that affect previously authorized headings. We have kept our subject authority records up-to-date because they are listed on LC’s Subject Headings Weekly Lists. We do not have an efficient mechanism to identify updated name headings.

CONS

The quality of vended authority control is only as good as the sophistication of a vendor’s computer program-matching and never as good as the skills of experienced catalogers or authority control staff:

·  No determination can be made whether an authority record that matches a heading is indeed the correct one. Some authority records will match headings, but the headings will be incorrect.

·  If a heading matches a see reference in an authority record, the heading in the bibliographic record will be changed to match it. No evaluation is done to make sure it is correct. Some false matches will inevitably be made.

·  When faced with a split heading, the vendor chooses the “broadest” one. No evaluation is done to choose the “correct” one. Or the vendor may report the heading as unresolved.

·  Untraced series do not receive authority control during standard processing. If the series should have been traced, it does not get corrected.

·  The authority vendor cannot add literary call numbers to authority records for literary authors or add local series decisions.

·  The vendor corrects filing indicators based on a list of articles and the language code in the fixed field. If the language code is incorrect, the “correct” filing indicator may be undone.

Implementing automated authority control does not free us from shared responsibility for the quality and integrity of the IUCAT database, but it can be an effective means for libraries to improve use of time and resource management.

2. Which other research libraries are using vended authority control for current cataloging? Which Sirsi academic library customers are using vended authority control? Are they doing weekly, monthly, semi-yearly batch loads? Are they doing daily real-time loads? Have they employed any special strategies?

The task group surveyed the top seven academic libraries (by size) that are Sirsi customers. They are Brigham Young University, Emory University, Rutgers University, Stanford University, University of Oklahoma, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University. Responses were received from all but Oklahoma and Virginia. The following questions, with a summary of responses received, were posed:

·  Is your library using vended authority control?

Emory, Stanford, and Vanderbilt are using vended authority control. BYU is currently investigating several vendors and will submit a 2000-record test set in February 2001.

·  If so, are you doing weekly, monthly, or semi-yearly batch loads?

Emory does weekly batch loads. Stanford sends out one batch of newly cataloged records to its vendor per week. They get the bibliographic records back after processing by the vendor and load them back into their system. They also receive a batch of new matching authority records. In addition to this weekly service for new bibliographic records, Stanford subscribes to a quarterly update service (from the same vendor) that provides a copy of any updated record in the NAF and SAF that is in Stanford’s authority file. This service also captures new authority records for headings that were found to have no match in the weekly procedure; such headings are saved and searched quarterly against an updated authority file.

·  If so, are you doing daily, real-time loads?

Emory does not do daily, real-time loads; staff do some maintenance work using SmartPort and load or replace individual records. Vanderbilt does daily batch loads.

·  If so, has your library employed any special strategies?

Stanford sends weekly files on Saturday and loads the results of the processing on Sunday to avoid the need for any maintenance moratorium on records that are out to the vendor. For Vanderbilt the vendor also processes records for tables of contents.

In addition, libraries were asked to provide any URLs that link to vended authority control documentation at their institutions. Stanford and Vanderbilt provided the following links:

Stanford: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/catdept/policy/authority/authority-01.html

Vanderbilt: http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/rs/TOCwithMarcive.htm

Yale University Library is a non-Sirsi institution that has contracted with OCLC for its vended authority control. Detailed accounts of the overview and schedule of implementation for automated authority control as well as authority control workflow for Yale catalog librarians can be found in the documents linked to the URLs provided under Yale University Library in the select bibliography in Appendix II.

3. Investigate the services offered and the various cost options of vended authorities through OCLC and LTI. Are there other vendors that handle authority control? Would the vendor require a copy of our entire authority file? Does the vendor also supply updated LC authority records. Locally created authority records?

VENDED AUTHORITY CONTROL BASICS

OCLC and LTI provide automated authority control services for all LC name, title and subject headings as well as NLM, MeSH, and LC children’s subject headings. These services include pre-processing fixes and MARC updates, machine linkage of headings to authority records including limited manual review of headings that remained unlinked following machine processing, optional full manual review of unlinked headings, final re-linking, writing of bibliographic and linked authority records to separate files for transmittal to the library, and an optional provision of “brief” authority records. After each processing LTI provides a summary statistical report showing the number and percentages of fully linked, partially linked and not linked headings. They can also provide an unmatched headings report. OCLC provides an unmatched headings report, an incorrect and suspicious tags/usage report, a suspicious filing indicator/initial article report; and an invalid data format report.

·  Preliminary Processing

LTI and OCLC perform very similar preliminary processing, which includes numeric field form validation, MARC field conversions, initial article and filing indicator validation, obsolete subfield deletions, correction of spacing, capitalization, punctuation, correction and/or insertion of subfield codes, etc.

·  Provision of National Authority Records for New Headings

After all possible headings are matched to authority records, both vendors extract the linked LC authority records and return them along with the bibliographic records for loading into the local system's authority module. Separate authority records are extracted for each level of multi-level headings, and records are provided for each level of hierarchy and for the full headings.

LTI and OCLC also use supplemental authority files of more than a million records during the authority matching process. They also have many additional cross references, which are not part of the national authority file, to aid in matching the headings. These records are not distributed..

·  Provision of Authority Records for Unauthorized Headings

Both vendors can supply, on request, brief or provisional authority records, which are created for headings either not matching or not fully matching any national authority records. These are skeleton authority records containing the unverified heading and default data. Provisional authority records do not contain cross-references or 670 fields.

Ideally a library would want to “re-authorize” its complete bibliographic records file before batch authority control is done for current cataloging so that the existing authority records are brought up-to-date and authority records are provided for headings that did not have matching authority records.

AUTHORITY CONTROL SERVICES FOR CURRENT CATALOGING

Both vendors provide on-going authority control services after authority control has been done on a library’s entire database.

LTI offers “Authority Express” (AEX). One can send files daily, weekly, monthly, etc. either by accessing the LTI-FTP server or through LTI’s web-based user login. Files of up to 10,000 records are usually processed within an hour. Files returned to a library include: a) a file of MARC catalog records, now containing fully authorized headings, b) a report showing the results of the processing, c) an ASCII text file containing any unlinked headings, d) a file of new LC name authority records, and e) a file of new LC subject authority records. Where LTI has performed the library's batch authority control processing, LC authority records from AEX runs are deduped automatically against those previously provided to a library. If LTI has previously authorized a library’s entire database, a portion of the database, or they have a copy of the library’s authority file, they will extract and distribute only new authority records.

A more state-of-the-art model, based on client-server technology, is available from LTI but has yet to be integrated into local system record editors. Using Real-Time Authority Control (RTAC), the library clicks on an "authorize this record" icon, which sends the catalog record for authorization to LTI over the Internet, using a TCP/IP protocol. The record is authorized and returned to the local system's record editor almost instantly, along with all appropriate authority records.

OCLC offers “Current Authorities Service,” which provides the same services as LTI’s Authority Express. Files are usually submitted via Internet FTP. One can send files daily, weekly or monthly with forty-eight hour turn-around.

Authority Update and Notification Services

Both vendors offer this service. If they have previously authorized a library’s entire database, a partial database or they have a copy of a library’s authority file, they notify the libraries when authority records are deleted, replaced, or changed. This service also captures new authority records for unmatched headings the vendor processed previously. Both vendors can provide this service four times a year, twice a year, or once a year. OCLC can also provide it monthly.

Each week LC distributes about 7,600 name authority records and 400 subject authority records. About 30% of weekly name authority records are corrected, updated or deleted and about 50% of weekly subject authority records are corrected, updated or deleted. LTI offers “Authority Update Processing” (AUP). For Level I a library can choose to receive an ASCII text file, and staff can make the changes in the local system or they can receive files containing the updated authority records for loading into the database. If LTI has authorized a library’s complete database, it can provide replacement bibliographic records with changes already made to the headings in the records (Level II). This service is accomplished by a library overlaying the existing bibliographic records with replacement records containing the corrected headings. As with new and revised LC authority records, replacement bibliographic records are retrieved via FTP from LTI's server.

OCLC offers “Authority Update & Notification Service,” which is similar to LTI’s Level I service. Libraries receive files of updated authority records and printed reports.

Costs

Services LTI COSTS OCLC COSTS COMMENTS

LC name, title & subject authority control for re-authorizing our entire database / Limited manual review: $0.05 per record. Full review: $0.12 per record / Limited manual review $0.04 per record; full review $0.14 per record / Full review is recommended only for data bases that were never under authority control
Create IU Authority Master File / $1000.00 to set up
the base file / $0.005 per auth. record / Price assumes they will generate the master authority file based on the authority file provided by IU Libraries only
Authority update and notification services / Level I quarterly: $750.00
Level I semi-annually:
$1,000.00
Level I annually:
$1,250.00. The prices are doubled for level II processing / Weekly: $275.00. Monthly: $900.00
Quarterly: $1,800.00 / LTI’s figure is based on a database of one million plus bibliographic records. OCLC’s figure is based on 4.5-5 million records.
Authority control for new cataloging / “Authority Express” $0.10 per record plus $10.00 per file transmitted / $0.06 per record plus a minimum charge of $250.00 per batch processed
Real Time Authority Control / $0.12 per record

Both vendors offer to work with libraries to develop pricing plans that can work for them.

More information about LTI’s authority control and full pricing information can be found at: http://www.librarytech.com/

More information about OCLC’s authority control and full pricing information can be found at: http://www.oclc.org/oclc/auth/auth_wlnmars.htm

Are there other vendors that handle authority control?

The only other viable authority vendor is Marcive. Several other smaller vendors were identified in the Librarian’s Yellow Pages, but an evaluation of their web sites revealed that they are too small or too limited in scope of services offered to meet the needs of the IU Libraries.

Would the vendor require a copy of our entire authority file?

In order for the vendor to know which authority records we already have, they would need to have a copy of our authority file. We would also want to extract the Kinsey subject authority records.

Does the vendor also supply updated LC authority records?

Both OCLC and LTI provide these authority records.

Locally created authority records?

Although LTI and OCLC use locally created authority records to augment their authority matching, they do not supply these authority records. We would not want these authority records because many of them have creative references that do not follow LC guidelines

4. Assuming that we go with vended authority control, which cataloging agencies would be included?