MARS Authority Control

Authority Control Interest Group (ACIG)

About twenty years ago I attended my first American Library Association Conference.  I was relatively new to the library world and really looking forward to the ALA experience.  I had heard so much about the great meeting being held about all topics known to “Library” Mankind.  It was a long time ago, and I don’t remember the details of any of the meetings I attended with the exception of one.  It is as clear today as it was some twenty years ago.  I stepped into a rather large conference room, standing room only, as I recall.  There was a panel of experts placed at the very front of the conference room on a stage with microphones for each and pitchers of water placed strategically on the table for all to share.  There was a standing microphone placed in the middle of the isle and as the panel completed their discussion, an anxious group of librarians lined up behind the microphone to say their piece.  Soon an angry tirade of heart felt opinions emerged.  I don’t remember the exact discussion, but I do remember it had something to do with the creation of an authority control record for “nuns”.* I was amazed at the passion and at times anger expressed in the varying opinions.  I remember thinking to myself, “What is wrong with these people!”

That, ladies and gentlemen, was my first introduction to what we know today as the ALA Annual Session of the Authority Control Interest Group.  Oh yes, there is great passion in authority control.

So, you may ask: what is the Authority Control Interest Group (ACIG), and why should I care?    We will start with the group’s history and mission.  The ACIG was established in 1984 by Barbara Tillett.  Its original name, “Authority Control in the Online Environment Interest Group” highlights the original purpose of the group, which was to bring about awareness to technical service librarians who were moving to the online environment. At that time most of the existing ILS systems had not configured authority control into their ILS systems.  In 2006 the name was shortened to, “Authority Control Interest Group”.   The goal of the group was to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to authority control for online cataloging.  The forum is used to raise the level of awareness on authority control issues and to encourage ideas for new approaches to authority control.  Each year officers are elected to coordinate overall activities of the interest group.  The group is co-sponsored by the LITA and ALCTS divisions of the American Library Association.  A program is presented at each ALA conference.  The programs typically address what is new in the world of controlled vocabulary.  A representative for the Library of Congress typically gives an update of what is going on with authority control within their organization.  OCLC usually sends a presenter to update the library world on OCLC involvement with authority control.   The rest of the panel usually consists of people who are either experts in an area the group is focusing on for that particular meeting, or people who have done research in the area that the group is focusing on for that meeting.  The sessions are usually well attended.  You can expect several hundred for the summer session.

Upon completion of the presentations, the ACIG group gathers to have a business meeting.  All who are interested are invited to attend.  In this meeting officers are elected and the next conference presentation is discussed.  Over the next six months, the Vice-Chair works with the library community and the ACIG committee to put together a presentation for next conference.

I have been involved with the Authority Control Interest Group for the last four years.  I found it a very good vehicle for keeping a pulse on the authority control world.  The group is always looking for volunteers and welcomes new members.  For more information on the ACIG please visit their wiki site at http://wikis.ala.org/lita/index.php/Authority_Control_IG

*Out of curiosity, I looked to see if there was a heading for nuns and there is.  It is listed below.  For the life of me, I don’t remember what the debate was about!

LDR                   00385cz   2200145n  4500

001                     sh 85093287

003                     DLC

005                     19961001105801.6

008                     860211i| anannbab|          |a ana |||

010                     $ash 85093287

040                     $aDLC$cDLC$dDLC

150         0         $aNuns

450         0         $aSisters (in religious orders, congregations, etc.)

550         0         $wg$aChristians

550         0         $aMonasticism and religious orders for women

Record Info

Ctrl No: sh 85093287

Record Date: 10/1/1996 10:58:01 AM

Last Updated/Loaded: 3/4/2009 1:56:25 AM

Usages: Subject

Rec Status:

**Post by John Reese, Chief Operating Officer of the Utah dept. of Backstage Library Works

John Reese, the former Product Manager for Authority Control, has been promoted to Chief Operating Officer within our company. John is still available to all of us and we welcome his input whenever we get a chance to hear it (jreese@bslw.com).

Nate Cothran has been promoted to Vice President of Automation Services and continues to look for innovative ways to serve you better. Nate has chosen Jeremy Myntti (jmyntti@bslw.com) as the new Project Manager for Authority Control services, which also includes Judy Archer (jarcher@bslw.com).  All of us look forward to working with you on your future projects and welcome any questions, concerns or suggestions.

You may have noticed that we’ve recently changed the name of this blog from MARS Authority Control to MARS Automation Services. Why the change? I’ve asked our Chief Operations Officer of the Utah location, John Reese, to explain why. Here is what he had to say.

***

Before the purchase of MARS from OCLC, Backstage Library Works ran several bibliographic automated products.  These services include Non-MARC or Brief MARC Record Upgrades (Machine Matching), Deduplication and Consolidation of bibliographic data, Union Database creation, Marcadia and Custom Programming.  Prior to this week, these services were run independent of the MARS 2.0 Automated Authority Control Service.  Backstage is happy to announce the consolidation of all of the above mentioned services and MARS 2.0 Automated Authority Control under one division to be called, “Backstage Library Works Automated Services.”

We found that there was a lot of overlapping in client needs involving authority control with the above mentioned automated bibliographic services.  All of these services require technical knowledge of the automated process.  At Backstage we are now sharing this valuable resource under one umbrella, Automated Services.  We look forward to having one department work with your sales representative in offering the most efficient automated solution for you.  Below is a list of all of the services under our newly formed Automated Services department.  If you have question about this change please contact John Reese, jreese@bslw.com.

MARS 2.0 Automated Authority Control:

MARS 2.0 service is one of the oldest and most reliable automated authority control offerings on the market. With our new system upgrade introduced in 2008, managing your authority records has never been easier.  MARS 2.0 offers name and subject authority control based on the Library of Congress name and subject authority databases (and other available National databases like MeSH, NLC, etc.).  The authority control process standardizes name, subject, series and Uniform title headings.

Automated Machine Matching:

This service offers several options to upgrade non-MARC or brief MARC records to full MARC bibliographic records.  This process searches electronic records against Backstage Library Works database and the Library of Congress Bibliographic Database to return a full standard MARC record.  There are over twenty million records to match against in this database.

Automated Deduplication:

Backstage Library Works offers a deduplication process that consolidates bibliographic or authority records in a library’s database(s).  This process is performed according to the profile specifications of the library and is often used when a library or a library consortia is forming or adding new libraries.

Union Database Creation:

Library consortia or library districts often require a central database for their consortia to work from. Backstage helps libraries create Union Bibliographic as well as Union Authority databases.

Marcadia:

Marcadia is an automated batch copy cataloging service offered jointly by OCLC and Backstage Library Works.  This product finds, evaluates and delivers catalog records from OCLC WorldCat.  It is based on search records you supply from your local system and a selection criterion you provide.  Marcadia selects matching records from WorldCat and delivers them to you.

Custom Programming:

It has been a long standing Backstage Library Works’ tradition to customize our services to the needs of our libraries.  Many libraries require special programming to accommodate either earlier cataloging practices that no longer meet current standards and need to be changed or special programming to create unique processes for their library.  Backstage takes pride in its ability to accommodate these special needs.

Adding a Juvenile Subfield $v to your Library of Congress Heading

Children’s subject headings are a separate file within the LC subject file. They are designated by a second indicator of 1 in the 650 tag. The adult representation found under Library of Congress Subject headings uses a $Juvenile qualifier. The LC Children’s authority file contains just over 950 authority records.

In the automated authority control world many of our libraries are interested in changing all of their children’s subject headings to their Library of Congress equivalent.  We have always had the ability to search these children’s headings against their adult equivalent.  Recently, our clients requested that we add a juvenile subfield $v at the end of a heading that we flipped from Juvenile to Adult.  That was easy enough to do we simply added a $vJuvenile at the end of the tag once the heading was flipped to an adult heading.  However, this still did not adequately define the type of juvenile subdivision we wanted to represent the heading.

We knew that there were fixed fields within the bibliographic record that more precisely defined the type of Juvenile book we were looking at.  What we decided to do is base the juvenile designation on these specific codes.  If the bibliographic record is a book format (leader/06 = ‘a’or ‘t’) then we check byte 33 of the fixed field to determine what type of juvenile heading this is.  There are fourteen different characters that define the Juvenile book from Comic Strips to Speeches.  However, there is not a valid subfield $vJuvenile …. for each representation.  What we decided to do was translate the ones that did have a valid representation to that heading.  For instance if byte 33 was a ‘d’ we created the juvenile heading $vJuvenile drama.   The following charts indicate what heading are assigned to what code in byte 33.

All headings that did not have a valid subfield $vJuvenile representation in byte 33 were defaulted to Juvenile literature.

We also looked at leader byte six to determine if the bibliographic record was something other then a book and assign an appropriate juvenile designator to the headings.  For example, if leader byte 6 is ‘e’ or ‘f’ for maps we add $vMaps for children or if byte 6 is a ‘g’ and byte 7 ‘m’ or ‘v’ we add $vJuvenile films to the adult heading.  The following example illustrates what this change will look like once your juvenile headings have been converted to Library of Congress.

Examples

        Child heading:

        650   1 $aRain forests.

        650   1 $aCollies$vFiction.

        Matched LC adult with "Juvenile" description added:

        650   0 $aRain forests$vJuvenile literature.

        650   0 $aCollies$vJuvenile fiction.

For a more detailed account of subfield $vJuvenile assignments please review section 3.8 of our planning guide: http://ac.bslw.com/community/wiki/index.php5/Profile_Guide_Step_3.8

Definition:

Blind References:  A subject, name or series title authority record contains a blind reference if there is no heading in the database corresponding to the valid form stored in the authority file.  Usually the last bibliographic record that contained the heading has been deleted.  These authority records are to be deleted from your ILS system authority file.

On a library’s ILS system the blind reference will either not be included in the authority index or will be included in the index with zero hits (bibliographic connections) associated with it. When an authority file is in place on an ILS system only the authorized heading 1XX or the see also reference 5XX of the authority record can be a blind reference. The nature of the see reference 4XX always points to the authorized heading 1XX and can not be a blind reference though on some ILS systems a search on the see reference will have the same result as a search on the authorized heading if the authority record is a blind reference. That is no bibliographic record will be found.

Example of a Blind Reference: Note the 0 that is in yellow is a blind reference.  The other 0 under Topographic Brain mapping is a see reference.

Subject                                                                                    Titles

Topographic brain mapping.                                      0 

• See: Brain mapping.                                           1

Topographic maps – Databases. 2

Topographic maps — Databases — Software. 0

Topographic maps — Software. 2

How a Blind Reference gets on a Library’s ILS system

There are several ways an ILS system produces Blind References.  The following is a list of a few.

1.      If a library deletes the last bibliographic record associated with an authority it will become a blind reference unless it is removed from the system.

2.      If a new authority does not match up to an existing authorized bibliographic heading it will become a blind reference.

3.      If an authority automation vendor delivers an authority that the library no longer owns it will become a blind reference.

The first description of how a blind reference gets on a library system can be avoided by making sure that you delete any authority associated with a deleted bibliographic record.  Most ILS systems automatically generate a report of these occurrences.

The second blind authority problem occurs during the automation authority control process.  In the past these had to be reconciled or connected through a semi automated and sometimes time consuming process.  Backstage now has a process called “Heading Tracker” that makes manual reconciliation almost obsolete.

The last blind authority problem also occurs during the automated authority control process but can be easily remedied by routine maintenance described below.

Maintenance:

The library needs to send their authority deletes to their automation vendor.  There is no automatic removal from the master authority file your vendor keeps with the library’s authority database.  The process can be part of a simple routine maintenance. Most ILS systems automatically generate a file of deleted authority records that can be accessed through reports.  If a list of the deleted records is sent to Backstage we can remove them from your master authority file.  That list should include the control number (001) of the authority record.

Backstage Library Works is pleased to announce Heading Tracker, a much-anticipated enhancement to the MARS^™ Authority Control Service. This enhancement is free to MARS clients using ongoing authority control services — Current Cataloging, Notification Services, or both.

In response to requests from many of our clients, the MARS team has developed this Heading Tracker enhancement to bridge the gap between antiquated and updated headings provided by the Library of Congress, when LC does not formally establish a see reference to connect the old heading to its new version.

This gap is most often noticeable in the problem whose solution we’ve long referred to as the ‘death date fix’ — where LC adds a death date to a name heading, causing a disconnect between your records with open death dates and the new authorized headings with closed dates — but it shows up in changes to uniform titles and other headings as well.

To resolve this problem, the Heading Tracker subroutine automatically generates a see reference (4XX) in your authority record, using the old Library of Congress heading. This see reference is marked as a local tag with a subfield ‘5′ and Backstage’s institution code: $5UtOrBLW. The see reference is also prefaced with a subfield ‘w’ and the appropriate coding to hide the reference from the library’s public access module: $wnnea.

An example of a see reference (4XX) correcting for the addition of a death date would look like this:
(Note that the $w and $5 are highlighted in yellow.)

001 __ n 50000918
003 __ DLC
005 __ 20090218072944.0
008 __ 800208n| acannaabn |a aaa
010 __ $an 50000918
035 __ $a(OCoLC)oca00036619
040 __ $aDLC$beng$cDLC$dOCoLC
100 1_ $aParker, Fan,$d1908-2004
400 1_ $aPockrose, Fania M.,$d1908-2004
400 1_ $wnnea$aParker, Fan,$d1908-$5UtOrBLW
670 __ $aOCLC, Feb. 17, 2009$b(hdgs.: Parker, Fan, 1908- ; Parker, Fan, 1908- ; usage: Fan Parker)

As with most functions of MARS 2.0, options for the Heading Tracker can be selected in your profile. For instance, if you want to display in the Public Access module, we can do that. If you want the enhancement, but you would rather not include undifferentiated or generic headings, we can specify that, too. The standard options available for this feature are listed below.

• Display in public access, or not. The default will be to not display.
• Create an undifferentiated or generic see reference, or not. The default is to create the reference.
• Clean up see references (other than a 430) by making the second indicator of that tag blank, in compliance with Library of Congress standards. The default is to not adjust the LC-provided indicator.
• Run a second file without Heading Tracker data, directly after the first file, to remove the Backstage-created see references. This provides the connection between old and new headings when importing the files to your ILS, but removes the old references when the second file is loaded. The default is to not provide a second file.

If there are options that you are interested in that are not listed above, let us know and we’ll work to accommodate your needs.

To incorporate the Heading Tracker process on your next Current Cataloging or Notification run, please contact your MARS project manager.

The MARS staff hopes this enhancement will further streamline your automated authority control process. Your input is always appreciated. Contact us if you have questions or concerns.

To learn more, ask questions, or make comments on this enhancement, click over to the Heading Tracker thread on our Control Center Community Forum.

Yours,

John Reese
Vice President, Authority Services
Backstage Library Works
1-800-288-1265 x.249
jreese@bslw.com

An update from Polaris Integrated Library Systems – $z in the 010 tag

Polaris ILS versions prior to version 3.5 do not allow an incoming authority record to overlay if the Library of Congress authority record is replaced by an older version of that authority record.  When a newer record replaces an older record at the Library of Congress a “$z” with the old authority control number is added to the 010 of the new record.  This tells the library that there was an old version of this record and it has been replaced with this new version.  Prior to Polaris version 3.5, the Polaris system would not recognize the $z as the old record and the overlay would not take place.

According to Brad Rogers, Director of Implementation Services at Polaris, version 3.5 addresses this issue with a new dedupe rule added specifically for authority record importing.  Version 3.5 is slated for release by Polaris in just a few weeks.  The following Polaris importing setup screen reflects the change.

Screenshot showing new import rules allowed by the soon to be released latest Polaris update.

WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA TO LOAD YOUR AUTHORITIES IN THE ORDER WE PROCESSED THEM

We have often had clients ask us in what order they should load their authorities, if they have several groups to load.  Perhaps you’ve found yourself in the situation where you haven’t loaded your last set of authority updates and now you’ve sent in new bibliographic records to be processed, or maybe your next scheduled update has arrived.  You find yourself looking at two or more batches of authorities and you wonder, “Does it really matter which goes first?”  Absolutely!  And here’s why:

    *  Say you had a scheduled authority update in December, but things went crazy busy and you haven’t had time to load those authorities yet.  Now it’s March and you have a large group of new bibliographic records that need processing, so you send them in.  Thinking you can save time by loading both the December updates and the bibliographic authorities at the same time, you wait for the new group to be returned.  But now … which to load first?  You should load the December updates first.  Example:

    *  You have a heading for Doe, John,$d1955-   and sometime last year LC updated that to Doe, John Joseph,$d1955- (and if we’re lucky, LC added the “old” heading as a 400 see-reference).  This changed authority would deliver with the December group you hadn’t loaded yet.

    *  Now you’ve sent in your bib records and in there is the heading for Doe, John,$d1955-  .  However, between December and today’s date LC decided to edit the record again and they put out a new authority with the new heading of: Doe, John J.,$d1955- (and still kept the original “old” heading of Doe, John,$d1955-  in a 400 see-reference tag).

    *  With the processed bibs you’d get back the very newest authority for Doe, John J.,$d1955-, which is what you’d want in your system.

    *  But if you decide to load the bibliographic records and associated authorities first and the December authority updates second, the middle version of Doe, John Joseph,$d1955-  (from the December updates) would overwrite the newest authority sent with the bibs, and you would be stuck with an older, not current LC version of this heading.

Which is why it’s always wisest to load oldest-to-newest, when you’re working with several projects at once.

What do you do with open ended subject dates, when the Library of Congress has created authorities with closed dates and no open ended see references? This was the question we sought to answer over the last week.

Take for example, you have a bib record with the following heading:
650 _0 $aWorld politics$y1955-

The authority for this heading has the following authorized and see references:

sh 85148226
150 _0 $aWorld politics$y1955-1965

Although these records are related, in an automated process they wont be linked, and the ending date will not be supplied. We decided there had to be a better way to link these up, and the process wasn’t very difficult, in fact, we’ve been doing it for names forever!

The answer is in the hierarchy. If we allowed our hierarchy system to include the closing date for subjects, we could provide the open ended bib dates a form of hierarchy to match against.

In essence, our Authority record above would create 2 possible heading matches. They would be (after following our normalization routine):
$aWORLD POLITICS$1955-1965
$aWORLD POLITICS$1955-

Now your bib heading $aWorld politics$y1955- could match and update against the proper LC Authority record. When we started researching this, we discovered another caveat. In some cases there are 2 authorities, one with an open ended date and one with a closed date. Our conclusion is that it’s obviously better in this case to trust what the original cataloger selected and match the open ended authority, rather than the closed authority. An example of this would be the authorities:
sh 85007061
151_0$aArgentina$xPolitics and government$y1810-
sh 85007060
151_0$aArgentina$xPolitics and government$y1810-1817

In this case, our bib record heading of 651 _0 $aArgentina$xPolitics and government$y1810- would match the first Authority.

After figuring that out, we discovered a real surprise, headings that were exactly the same, but had different closing dates. For example, France — History — 1789 has the following Authorities:

sh 85051348
151_0$aFrance$xHistory$y1789-
sh 85051347
151_0$aFrance$xHistory$y1789-1900
sh 85051346
151_0$aFrance$xHistory$y1789-1815
sh 85051314
151_0$aFrance$xHistory$y1789-1793

Obviously there are different meanings for different time periods starting from 1789. Now, if the bib record had an open ended date, it would take the open ended authority. And, if the bib record had any of the closed dates, it would take the authority with the matching date.

Our focus here, has been making sure that open ended authorities take the best possible match, and if there are no open ended authorities, matching it to the correct closed date authority, without creating false positive results.

Bibliographic Record Update Service

Due to popular demand, Backstage Library Works is now offering a third ongoing service product that we call Bibliographic Record Update Service.  This service updates your bibliographic records during our Notification Service.

Over the years Backstage has offered two ongoing products for automated authority control.  For all of your new bibliographic records we provide a product called Current Cataloging.  Current Cataloging is designed to pick up where you left off with the original automated authority process.  We take all of your new bibliographic records and process them exactly like we processed your original bibliographic database.  With this process we return to you newly validated bibliographic records with updated authority headings that match the new and updated authority records we return to you.  We retain in your master authority file all new and updated authority records.

To complement our Current Catalog product Backstage offers Notification Services.  Notification Services matches your library’s master authority file against the National Databases on pre determined intervals to give you updated and new authority records that replace the old authority records on your database.

Both of these products together are a very efficient and cost beneficial way to maintain your authority database.  For most libraries this is sufficient.  However, with the Notification product it is left to the Library’s ILS system to reconcile new authorities delivered by Backstage with existing authority headings in their bibliographic records.  The process of importing and updating the Library’s authority records is straightforward.  Control numbers are matched up and the newly imported record overlay the old authority record.  However, for some ILS systems the updating of the authority heading is done by a string match on the 1XX or the 4XX of the authority record.  If neither are the same as the old bibliographic authority heading the record will not automatically reconcile.  Typically, this is done through reports but the effort to reconcile or to populate the authorized heading in the bibliographic record can be partially manual and can be time consuming depending on the ILS and the library.

How big of a job is this?  It really depends.  Up until the advent of the closed death date Backstage did not receive a call involving the amount of time you spent on reconciling new authority records to existing authority headings but that has changed.  Recently, we have noticed an interest in having this part of the ongoing authority process further automated.  As a result we have developed a complimentary service we call Bibliographic Record Update Service.

What we will do during our Bibliographic Record Update Service is maintain your bibliographic records along with your authority records.  With this service, Backstage will have a master bibliographic file as well as a master authority file for your library which we will maintain for you.  When Notification Services run on your database, our Bibliographic Record Update Service will also run.  Backstage will update or reconcile your bibliographic database as well as your authority file before we send records back to you.  We will deliver to you updated bibliographic records along with your updated and new authority files.

How does this help you?  The time spent reconciling your new and updated authority records to their associated bibliographic records will disappear.  Your library will simply need to upload updated bibliographic records along with new and updated authority records.  The process will be identical to what you do for Current Cataloging.

To maintain your bib file we will need any changed bibliographic records sent to Backstage prior to your Bibliographic Update service.

If you are interested in this new service please contact your sales representative or the MARS authority control team for more information.

<-->