March 5, 2007 Richard Sapon-White

1. A Crisis in Cataloging:The Impact and Implications of the Library of Congress’ Series Authority Decision on Cooperative Cataloging March 5, 2007 Richard Sapon-White

2. 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

3. LC’s Product History • Catalog cards • Cataloging-in-Publication (CIP) • Library of Congress Classification • Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) • MARC, METS, MODS, EAD

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. LC’s Response • Reasons for making decision are economic • Insufficient funds to continue same level of service as in the past • Need to redirect $$$ into digital products • Refusal to back down, but delayed implementation until June 1, 2006

9. OCLC Responses • OCLC no longer treating LC’s records as uneditable • Any library can edit series fields for quality control • 490 0b from LC records will not overlay series tracings in OCLC records

10. 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?

11. 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)

12. 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

13. Fall 2006 Data

14. 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

15. 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?

16. Conclusion • Impact on library has been small so far • Few new series coming in • Few needing revision of bibliographic records • No 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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 cataloging • LC cataloging then becomes available to Czech libraries • The future National Technical Library will also use LC records

21. Richard Sapon-White Head of Monographs Cataloging Oregon State University richard.sapon-white@oregonstate.edu Děkuji za Pozornost!