ALA NACO Participants' Discussion Group Meeting

June 28, 1992
Report

This year's annual ALA NACO meeting was devoted to a single topic: future directions for national cooperative authority programs. After welcoming remarks and introduction of Library of Congress staff, John Byrum, Chief, Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division, turned the floor over to Sarah Thomas, Director for Cataloging. Thomas pointed to the opportunity the NACO meeting provided for the Library of Congress to consult with other interested libraries in developing new directions for national authority control. She introduced three speakers invited to begin the discussion by making brief presentations. These were Brian Schottlaender, Assistant University Librarian for Technical Services, UCLA, Joan Swanekamp, Head, Monographs Special Processing Services, Columbia University Libraries, and Jennifer Younger, Assistant Director for Technical Services, Ohio State University.

Authority control is an umbrella term encompassing several concepts, according to Brian Schottlaender. "Authority work" is what we do and how we do it, "Authority control" is why we do it. In separate studies evaluating authority work reviewed by Schottlaender, research indicates that a majority of authority records for personal names have no cross references, many references (approximately 47%) were for simple word order inversions or less than full form of the established heading, and approximately 65% of reference headings could not be retrieved by the keyword-searching capabilities of online systems with the significant exception of references which are simply rearrangements of terms in the established headings. Schottlaender pointed out the studies demonstrate authority work has not changed much since the card catalog despite significant differences between card and online catalogs. Catalogers continue to make cross references which are no longer necessary in a system of automatic right-hand truncation and keyword searching capabilites.

Cost of authority control is another problem area. A 1977-78 estimate from Bruce Miller put costs for ARL libraries at a combined $5,000,000 for partial authority control. Schottlaender calculates expenditure for authority control at UCLA is approximately $300,000 annually. Part of these costs are incurred because:

1. the de facto national authority file includes only records from LC and NACO contributions; and,
2. the LC name authority file functions only as a national authority file, not as national authority control.

A possible solution to the latter problem might be to develop links between bibliographic headings and authority records at the network level.

Schottlaender suggested two ways to reduce authority control costs without affecting user access:

1. Only do authority work which needs doing.
2. Do not repeat authority work done by others.

Jennifer Younger discussed new approaches to creation of name authority headings in a national cooperative name authority file.

She made several recommendations to improve LC NACO operations including development of a procedural manual written from the participants' point of view to replace current documentation that contains internal LC procedures. She also recommended examining the continuing use of Linked Systems Project (LSP), the current means of transmitting headings between individual libraries and LC,

She argued for greater consistency and a broader base among all participants as to what "research" is needed to support establishment of a heading.

Younger made several proposals to improve the name authority file for post-cataloging authority control, i.e. the verification of name headings on new bibliographic records. One of these was to expand the number of authority records in the file. At present 40% to 60% of headings used in cataloging at Ohio State University are found in the authority file. Ideally, this proportion should be 90%.

Name authority records should be established on the basis of a "national file". Although such a file now does not exist, both OCLC and RLIN could be used, since they contain not only the member catalogs but the LC catalog as well. Currently the headings contributed to the name authority file are established based on the item in hand and a search of the LC catalog.

Maximum use should be made of the computer to create an expanded authority file. For example, basic authority records could be generated from headings on bibliographic records with some types references created by algorithms.

Joan Swanekamp presented a series of proposals from Columbia University Libraries for improving NACO. The recommended changes are intended to make NACO more responsive to the needs of its member libraries as they attempt to maintain and optimize cataloging operations in the current environment.

The proposals:

1. Development of a Participants' Manual
   A single generic manual should be developed and made available. The generic manual would:
   1. be based on working in the bibliographic utilities,
   2. be based on working via LSP, and
   3. include references as necessary to specific section in the LC Descriptive Cataloging Manual.
2. Base Authority Work on the Shared Database
   The "National" file is not the Library of Congress bibliographic file, it is the OCLC and RLIN databases; either of these files is sufficiently authoritative to serve as the basis for heading establishment.
3. Adopt a "Whole Book" approach to NACO procedures
   NACO participants should be able to establish all types of geographic and name headings.
4. Broaden Governance
   CONSER should serve as model for establishment of a steering committee or some other form of governance structure to include participant representation.
5. Develop a More Participant-Oriented Training Program
   NACO libraries should be able to train each other and LC staff should work at member libraries to facilitate training, because the existing method of training new participants is too LC-centric. Training time at LC should be decreased as well.
6. Develop Consistent Guidelines
   Responsibility for revision is widely dispersed at LC and expectations of revisor-catalogers are widely variable. There is no commonly held view of the appropriate levels of research. Documented guidelines, developed jointly, would provide an improved, consistent approach toward authority work.
7. Adapt Rule Interpretations to the Current Environment
   Many rule interpretations and other requirements embody LC-centric file requirements and do not reflect changes brought about by online catalogs.

Lively discussion followed the presentations. One audience member noted, in response to Schottlaender's proposal to stop creating authority records for headings with no cross references, that some systems require the creation of authority records for all entries in bibliographic records. Another described an online system which creates authority records automatically. Younger, in response to a query on LSP, pointed out that LSP represents yet one more system catalogers have to deal with.

Several suggestions were made for change in the content of name authority records, including a review of 670 fields, expansion of the use of the "c" subfield for names, and the inclusion of subject to name cross references on name authority records. There was a request to see a continuation of discussions with LC on authorities based on automated online catalogs, not card catalogs.