MARS Authority Control

Any time we process a file for your institution, we generate a Statistical Summary report.  Within this report, we list match-rates, types of records processed, as well as the number of fields changed during processing.  While this is all well and good, as soon as that report is sent out to you, those statistics have been forgotten.

We thought it would be a good idea to keep you informed of some of those statistics on a regular basis, all completely tailored to when you send us files for processing.  And we wanted to do this in a graphical way so that you’re not just looking at lists of numbers and confused as to their relevancy to your records.

As we started planning on what to do with the statistics, we realized early on that not everyone goes through our website to process their files.  Some of our clients use external FTP servers, while some use the website.  We never want our customers to feel left out on any functionality we have implemented.

Whenever a file is submitted to Backstage for processing, we keep track of certain statistics within our tables.  We have to keep track because this is how we generate that Statistical Summary report that we deliver for base files, ongoing current cataloging, and samples.  It doesn’t matter how the file reaches us (website, ftp, email, etc)—once we process it, we keep track of the data.

This statistical tracking helps us determine the busiest times of the year and how we should structure the time on our side to meet the expectations on your side.  We also realized that this could be a useful tool for you and your staff to track the trends in your own processing.  Throughout the year, how often do you send in files for processing?  What kinds of match-rates or types of records do you usually see?

We have created two sections for you:

1. Record Statistics
2. Match Statistics

For Record Statistics, we’ll show you how many books, serials, and other types of records were processed:

Of those records, how many were changed vs unchanged?

We’ll also plot how many records you sent throughout the year:

We think it makes sense to only include months where you send us bib files to process.  Each part of every graph has parts that can be clicked to determine more information, or isolate that part of the process for you.

With Match Statistics, we go a step further than our Statistical Summary report and tell you about the kinds of matches you’ve received on your records:

Finally, we wanted to also show you how many of your headings (1xx, 6xx, 7xx) found full or partial matches, as well as the number of unmatched headings:

Over the next few weeks, we plan on putting this information in place for all of our clients.  Whenever you log into our website to view your profile or current jobs, you can also view your stats.  Again, it doesn’t matter whether you send us your bibs through the website, ftp server, or email—once we process them, those stats will be added to your stats page.

As a bonus to those clients that do send us their files through the website, each one of those website bibliographic jobs will have its own set of graphic statistics as well.

We hope this information gives you the edge you may need for your staff.  As always, feel free to let us know if you would like to see other statistics.

New Optional Report – R08 Generic Names

Backstage has a new optional report that can be generated during Current Cataloging or Basefile processing.  The new report lists all generic name headings.  Below is a brief description of the report as well as a few examples of how headings on this report appear.

The fields in this report contain a primary name heading which is considered generic (i.e. names without qualifiers such as a date or fuller form of the name). Choosing to flip on generic name headings will give you a greater match rate, but it can cause mismatched headings. The MARS 2.0 software allows for the flip of all name authority headings including the generic heading if there is a match to a See reference (400) in the LC authority record.

Sometimes a national authority record just lacks some of the key information that your library needs. Maybe it’s an important cross-reference, a note, or some sort of field identifier. If you just receive the latest Library of Congress authority, for example, you could lose all that hard work that you and your staff have gone through to find the information and add it to your authorities.

Thanks to our project manager for writing that up. Preserving fields is one of the services many of our libraries find most useful, and we have even more options than listed above when it comes to preserving your data for cases where adding a $5 would be unreasonable or impossible. so feel free to talk to on of our project managers about how we can help you with your situation.

We’re excited to announce that the 300 field validation that we’ve been working on is now in place and working.  We add this to the hundreds of other corrections and validations that we make to bibliographic records as we process them. Judy, one of our Project Managers, explains the new process:

In an effort to continue improving our bibliographic validation services, we’ve been writing some cleanup steps for the 300 field.  Nothing drastic of course — just some “straightening out” changes.  The cleanup takes place only on records marked with ‘a’ in leader byte 6 … non-print bibs such as media, electronic resources, microforms, etc. are left as-is.  Here’s a list of what the programming will do:

• * 300 $a = ‘unp.’ [or] ‘n.p.’ is changed to ’1 v. (unpaged)’
• 300 $a = a comma is added to #### page numbers if missing (ex.: 5332 p. becomes 5,332 p.)
• 300 $a = ‘l.’ is changed to ‘leaves’
• 300 $a = ‘approx.’ is changed to ‘ca.’
• 300 $a = preliminary leaves and it’s abbreviation (p.l.) are removed (ex.: 4 p.l., xv, 312 p. = xv, 312 p.)
• 300 $a = ‘unnumbered’ is removed and brackets added (ex.: 48 unnumbered leaves = [48] leaves)
• If the p. is up against the :$b or the illustrative matter is up against the ;$c we add a space to separate
• 300 $a = Missing periods are added to ‘p’ (ex.: 135p. = 135 p. )
• 300 $b = The illustrative matter is rearranged to be in correct order
• 300 $b = Obsolete illustrative matter is replaced with ‘ill.’ (ex.: ‘tables’ or “fronts.’ = ‘ill.’)
• 300 $b = If ‘ill.’ is followed by the parenthetical illustrative matter, ‘ill.’ is dropped and the parenthetical matter remains (example: $bill. (ports.) = $bports.)
• 300 $b = illus. is changed to ill.
• Adds missing semicolon before $c
• Adds ;$ccm. if missing from 300 field
• [various pagings] = changes brackets to parentheses
• If there is no 300 and the record is a book, the default of $ap. ;$ccm. is added
• If there is numbered plate info in the $b that is moved to the $a – if plate designation is not numbered, it’s deleted

As with any of validation rules, these are optional, and if necessary, we can work with you to develop exactly what you’d like. These rules are now being included by default in our processing. We hope you find them useful!

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