Cooperative Cataloging Council

Task Group on Authorities

Recommendations and Final Report

October 30, 1993

CCC Task Group III--"Authorities" Members: Barbara B. Tillett (University of California, San Diego), Chair Karen Calhoun (OCLC) Ana Cristán (LC), LC Liaison Bill Garrison (University of Colorado) Amy McColl (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collections Libraries) Sue Phillips (University of Texas at Austin), CCC Liaison

1. GOAL/OBJECTIVE

   Cooperative Cataloging Council Goal and Task Group Objective From National Cooperative Cataloging Program Goals and Objectives: Goal 1. Together, increase the timely availability of bibliographic and authority records by cataloging more items, by producing cataloging that is widely available for sharing and use by others, and by cataloging in a more cost-effective manner.

   Objective 1.6. Ease and broaden contributions to the national authority files (name and subject). [Task Group III -- "Authorities"]

2. APPROACH

   The Task Group on Authorities would like the Cooperative Cataloging Council to assure an orderly approach to changing the way in which contributions are made to the national authority file. A system for change must be developed that will include guidelines on:

   • governance
   • training
   • standards
   • documentation.

   The issue of quality control must be addressed, as we have found this to be an extremely important concern for all prospective contributors. (See also below, Section IV.E.)

3. WHAT IS THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY FILE?

   The file should include records for headings for names, series, uniform titles, and subjects.

   A national authority file must support multiple uses, including

   • use for unique identification and differentiation between headings
   • use for collocation functions
   • use for syndetic structure
   • use for machine-validation and manipulation of records
   • reference use of information found in records
   • use by cataloging units to easily identify the level of completeness of a record and the source, to determine the usefulness of that record for in-house files.

   The national authority file must not be proprietary to the Library of Congress or any one institution in that it should be freely available to all users.

   There should be a "lead agency" which will administer the national authority file, and copies will reside at the Library of Congress and at each of the bibliographic utilities. The files should be synchronized, so that copies are identical and current. Distribution of the national authority file records should preserve or improve upon the efficiencies of the current method now managed by the Library of Congress. Subscriptions should continue to be available for the national authority file records and updates. (See also Section IV.B Governance.)

   The national authority file should be available for use by non-U.S. libraries.

   The file should include foreign resource authority files. We would recommend that the model presented by the Task Group on Foreign MARC (Recommendation 2.3 in their report) be followed, with a merging of the Library of Congress, National Library of Canada, and British Library authority files, but we feel that this may be achieved by several different means. These files may be integrated into one file, or they may reside in separate files but be searchable as one single file (this would follow the "Future Use of OLUC Task Force" model).

   The Library of Congress Subject Authority File and LC Name Authority File should be merged into one single file, in order to avoid redundant authority records for names and uniform titles.

   The file should facilitate human and/or machine validation of all headings. One way to accomplish this would be to have an authority record for every heading for the machine to match. Ideally, separate subject subdivision records should be created for all valid subject subdivisions in order to facilitate their use in the online environment.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS/ASSUMPTIONS

   1. PARTICIPATION

      Participation in the authorities program should be open to all libraries meeting the following four criteria:

      1. Have view access (at a minimum) to an official online copy of the National Authority File
      2. Commit to following the mutually agreed upon national authority file standards
      3. Commit the resources needed for initial and ongoing training, as described elsewhere in this report
      4. Submit a formal application for participation with the national cooperative program or the lead agency administering the file

      Group projects that allow participation by libraries that otherwise might not be able to participate should be encouraged. Current examples of such projects are PACSCL and the NACO Music Project.

      The application process itself must be clearly articulated, widely publicized, and as simple as possible. The concept of an application process, as opposed to a selection process, allows participation by libraries of all types and sizes who are willing to make the required commitments. A standard application form for participation should be devised that is readily available (online).

      Broad participation must be supported by a technical environment which accommodates contributions through a variety of methods: online or batch ftp, work done in local system, work done in utility, etc. No single means of contribution can satisfy the needs of the cataloging environments in today's libraries.

      Broad participation must be supported by a program environment which makes contribution of authority records as easy and convenient as possible.

   2. GOVERNANCE

      Ideally, a coalition (hereafter referred to as "the coalition") will be formed which may be comprised of LC, the bibliographic utilities, and other institutions or entities, which will govern the national authority file.

      The coalition would determine the "lead agency," a role which the Library of Congress now plays.

      Distribution of the file should continue to be a Library of Congress function (including MARC authorities subscriptions to the file). However, we have concerns about the economic implications of this when a large percentage of the contributions to the file are from participants other than LC.

      The coalition should ensure widespread communication on the importance of authority control and information on how to become a participant in contributing to the file, including:

      • education of libraries about the current methods (NACO & CSCP), in order to boost contributions
      • recommendation of information to include in library school curricula
      • widespread announcement and encouragement of participation in future programs for contributing to the national file
      • education of administrators and managers about the value of authority control to their local systems/catalogs.

      The coalition should seek funding to pay for authority control trainers and workshops.

      The coalition should also try to find ways in which contributors will be credited (either monetarily or through free searches or some other suitable reward) when new records are added to the file.

      The coalition will be responsible for improving and facilitating distribution of documentation.

      The coalition should assure the availability of multiple contribution methods for the participants and keep participants up to date about the technologies available.

      Additional files should be accessible through the national authority file, including:

      • other thesauri (MeSH, the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, the National Agricultural Library, etc.)
      • other national files (British Library, National Library of Canada, etc. See Section III for more on this.)

   3. STANDARDS

      The Task Group on Authorities assumes that there will be a set of standards which would be adhered to by participants.

      There will be a set of input and editing standards which will determine the record content for a national level record.

      • A task group should be appointed to determine these precise standards. Task Group on Authorities survey respondents felt that 1xx, 4xx, and 5xx were essential for national-level records; support for making the 670 field mandatory was weaker.
      • Participants should be able to input a "core" record which is less than full. New encoding levels in authority records may need to be examined as well as setting standards for the record content of such a record.
      • When a less than full record exists, participants need to have the ability to upgrade the record.
      • Standards for the editing of records (including addition, deletion, and modification of fields) need to be determined. Authorized heading fields (1xx) should be changed as infrequently as possible.

      The Task Group assumes that AACR2R will be the cataloging rules which will be used.

      AACR2R and the LCRIs need to be reviewed. (A separate Appendix has been forwarded to the Cooperative Cataloging Council for specific recommendations on needed changes.)

      • Addition of and rules for references in authority records need to be liberalized to accommodate local as well as national needs.

      The Descriptive Cataloging Manual needs revision.

      • Participants in cooperative authorities work should not have to notify LC when bibliographic file maintenance is needed in LC's database.
      • Rules for formulation of and data included in 670 fields in authority records need to be simplified.

      Participants need to have the ability to enrich existing authority records.

      • Provision for adding additional data to a record beyond the "full" national standard must be a part of the standards.

      The USMARC Authority Format may need to be examined and expanded to accommodate the standards recommendations. - New data elements may be needed to permit minimal, machine-generated, and/or full-level records to be distinguished from one another. Codes may also need to be established for inclusion of foreign authority records.

      The Task Group assumes that LCSH will continue to be the standard for the creation and assignment of subject headings.

      The editorial process for subjects needs to be streamlined. Participants need to be able to create subject authority records in an LSP-like environment (even if the records are coded provisional). Turnaround time for subject proposal approval needs to be faster.

      The syndetic structure and integrity of LCSH need to be maintained.

      Authority records for subject subdivisions need to be created and maintained to allow for better online control of subject heading/subject subdivision combinations.

   4. TRAINING

      The Task Group realizes that training is an important part of this process. Based on the survey results, most respondents felt that training should be accomplished locally whenever possible.

      A comprehensive training program should be developed.

      Training should be provided in local regions, on-site as appropriate or through local-regional workshops.

      Initial training of participants should be provided by authorized training staff of the coalition.

      Ongoing training should be provided through a regional trainer network to train new staff and update trained staff on rule changes, etc.

      Trainer certification will be granted and trainers monitored by the coalition.

   5. QUALITY CONTROL

      New records would follow agreed-upon standards and be submitted to the target system(s) of their choice.

      Controls should be established for record maintenance involving replacing records online, deletes, and merges. We suggest such maintenance functions be tightly controlled by the lead agency.

      A distributed quality control model should be used similar to that in place now for OCLC (i.e., participants would be able to upgrade/enhance authority records and report problem records to the coalition).

      Participants should be required to undergo refresher training if quality drops, as determined by an inordinate number of complaints by other participants or utility members.

   6. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

      Recommendations on new system development will ease contribution to the national authority file.

      The ability to input and output data in USMARC format should be generic to all bibliographic database systems to facilitate sharing of bibliographic and authority information.

      Online input and update capabilities need to be improved for name, series, uniform title and subject authority records so that contribution will be faster and easier (e.g., windowing, word processing features, templates/workforms, ability to mark headings, temporary save file, etc.). This might include, but is not limited to, enhancing LSP capabilities for subject authority contributions.

      Global change capabilities should be generic to all bibliographic database systems to facilitate database maintenance.

      Machine-assisted creation of authority records and machine validation of bibliographic records against authority records needs to be developed. In addition, capabilities for machine-created authority records need to be examined and developed in order to take advantage of technology to reduce the human effort involved in creating authority records.

      The following USMARC Authority Format elements need to be implemented by LC, utilities, and local systems:

      • Implement subfield 5 in all fields where currently defined.
      • Implement fixed field elements and variable fields to support the creation of subject subdivision records (e.g., 008/09, 18x, 48x, 58x fields).
      • Implement/develop capability to input authority records in non-Roman scripts.
      • Implement heading/subdivision linking fields (7xx) to allow links between headings in different authority files/thesauri.

      Develop the ability to load additional files either as integrated or as separate files (e.g.,foreign authority records) along with providing the ability to interface the files, to perform cross-file/interfile searching, and to search the files as a single file.