Archive for the ‘Authority Control’ Category

Juvenile Subfield Additions

Monday, June 8th, 2009

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.

= “1” : add “$vJuvenile fiction”
= “d” : add “$vJuvenile drama”
= “h” : add “$vJuvenile humor”
= “p” : add “$vJuvenile poetry”

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

Helpful links on RDA, FRBR, and FRAD

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Helpful links on RDA, FRBR, and FRAD

Here are some links on related to RDA (Resource Description and Access), FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records), and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data) that I have found very helpful and informative.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rda.html– This is the RDA main page at the JSC website.  There are links to the full draft, background information, and much more.  The links under Scope and Principles are particularly good, especially the mapping.  Also the FAQ’s are really helpful.

http://www.rdaonline.org/ – This site is where a demo of RDA online will be up sometime in the near future.  When I last checked it, they said they plan to have the demo ready in May.  Don’t hold your breath, but keep checking the site.

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/ – This is the IFLA site for FRBR

http://www.ifla.org.sg/VII/d4/FRANAR-ConceptualModel-2ndReview.pdf – This is the IFLA site for the draft of FRAD.

http://www.bn.gov.ar/archivos/anexos_proyectos_especiales/encuentro/ponencias/ponencia_Patton_ingles.pdf – This paper from 2007 gives really good background on FRAD.

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/rdawebcasts.html – This site has two really good presentations by Barbara Tillett of LC.  You can download the needed player from the website.  They are about an hour each, but well worth listening to.  There should be more webcasts coming up in the future so keep an eye out.

http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/documents/4_Hello%20RDA,%20Goodbye%20AACR2!_15April2008.pdf -This is a great presentation.  It gives a very good overview in some detail with very understandable language.

http://nla.gov.au/lis/stndrds/grps/acoc/documents/Walls2008.ppt – Libraries Australia have done a lot with FRBR and RDA.  This is a good presentation and at the end there are more good links.

http://www.nelib.org/netsl/conference/2009/RickBlock.pdf – This very thorough presentation talks about RDA and MARC.  A lot of it is concatenated from other presentations, but it brings everything together nicely.

http://www.loc.gov/marc/development.html – This has copies of the Proposals and Discussion Papers for changes to the MARC21 formats.  Just click on MARC Proposals or MARC Discussion Papers.  They are arranged by year, most recent first.  Most of the 2009 proposals and discussion papers deal with RDA elements.  Also take a look at 2008-05/1-4, as these deal with RDA too.  You may also gain insights by looking at older ones.  Also see link below for the decisions made on the ones discussed at ALA midwinter.

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/marbi0806.html – Summaries of what was discussed at ALA midwinter 2008 and the actions taken.

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/marbi0901.html – Here are the report of the 2009 ALA midwinter meeting of MARBI.

http://wikis.ala.org/midwinter2009/index.php/ALCTS – From this site you can access the presentations from the CCS Forum: FRBR and RDA: a glimpse into the future of cataloging and public displays.   Barbara Tillett’s and John Espley’s on the VTLS OLE project were particularly pertinent.

http://vtls.com/products/virtua – This from John Espley’s presentation.  It’s an example of a FRBRized catalog.  From this page, click on Virtua Enriched User Searching Presentation.  It takes a couple minutes to download because its rather long.  It automatically pages down and it went rather quickly, but scrolling up or down would move between the slides, so you can go back and get what was missed.

http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/10/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records/ – This is another well written and easy to understand explanation of FRBR.

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/775 – This is an article titled “Identifying FRBR Work- Level Data in MARC Bibliographic Records for Manifestations of Moving Images.  In code[4]lib journal  Issue t, 2008-12-15.

http://celeripedean.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/code4lib-and-frbr/ – This blog  post has lots of really good links in it.

There are lots more link out there.  These are just the ones I have found most helpful.  If you know of some others, please share them.

Happy reading!

Karen Anderson

Authority Control Librarian

Backstage Library Works

Blind References

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

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.

Announcing: Heading Tracker a death date fix and more

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

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

Loading Replacement Authorities into Polaris

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

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.

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

Always Load in Correct Order

Friday, March 20th, 2009

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.

Written by: Judy Archer