Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection

RLG Programs
Assessing Uniqueness in
the System-wide Book
Collection
Constance Malpas
Program Officer
RLG Webinar
24 April 2008

RLG Programs Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection
RLG Webinar – 24 April 2008
2
Why investigate unique print books?
 Future of library print collections is in question
 We need better “management intelligence” about where
continued investment in print collections – both legacy
holdings and future acquisitions – should be directed
 Uniquely-held content may be an asset or liability
 Institutional assets that may be leveraged through
digitization and resource-sharing agreements
 Potential preservation risks, if the content is not
adequately cared for
 Size, character and distribution of aggregate
collection has broad implications
 Digitization – identifying distinctive collections
 Disclosure – maximizing discoverability
 Distributed print archiving – sizing the need

3
Who’s Involved:
OCLC Programs & Research
Constance Malpas, Program Officer
Ed O’Neill, Senior Research Scientist
Brian Lavoie, Research Scientist
RLG Partners
Arizona State University
Columbia University
Duke University
Florida State University
Harvard University
Indiana University
Library of Congress
New York Public Library
New York University
University of Alberta
University of Arizona
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Chicago
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Pennsylvania
University of Texas, Austin
Yale University…
among others

4
Unique vs. rare: a distinction with a difference
 “Unique” = single holding attached to master
record in WorldCat describing a distinct
manifestation / edition
 some uniquely held titles may be associated with
multiple local copies
 “Rare” typically describes material that is in
limited supply and has special value to particular
audience
 Few copies were produced
 Few remaining copies available on the market
 Distinctive intellectual content or artifactual features
(binding, signatures)

5
Growth of Unique Holdings in WorldCat
Jan -03 Jan -05 Jan -07 Jan -08
Date of Snapshot
MasterRecords
50%
49%
42%
44%
Proportion of master records with a single holding
has increased 8% since 2003

6
Background
 Anatomy of Aggregate Collections (2005)
 Thin duplication of book holdings across “Google Five” libraries
(~40%) and between aggregate collection and rest of
WorldCat (~30%)
 Proportion of uniquely held titles decreases as publication date
advances – until 1980s
 Books without Boundaries (2006)
 9.5M uniquely held works representing 36% of works in
WorldCat; preservation implications
 Unique titles in WorldCat represent ~2/3 of total print
production; significant collection gap
 Last Copies: What’s at Risk? (2006)
 “last expressions” – a conceptual model
 26K unique titles at Vanderbilt; typically “old, foreign, short”
 Global Resources Report (2007)
 Limited redundancy in ARL holdings of non-North American
imprints (~3 to ~6 holdings per title)

7
Importance of FRBR
 Measuring duplication at the “work” or expression
level provides maximum measure of overlap for
intellectual content
 Uniquely-held manifestations may represent
artifactual treasures
 Book history – bindings, printers
 Provenance – autographs, annotations
 Implications for collection management
 Unique works represent distinctive intellectual assets
 Unique manifestations may require curatorial care

8
FRBR: Group One Entities
Is
exemplified by
Is embodied in
Work
A distinct intellectual or
artistic creation
Is realized
through
Expression
The intellectual or artistic
realization of a work
Manifestation
The physical
embodiment of an
expression
Item
A single
exemplar of a
manifestation
Is
embodied in

9
Goals of current last copies work
 Evaluate relative proportion of unique works in a
representative and statistically significant sample
 Application of FRBR
 Characterize material and content types
 “old, foreign, short”
 Examine distribution of holdings by library-type
 preservation infrastructure
 Assess preservation status and circulation history
of selected titles
 In 1995 study of titles published 1850-1940, 12% were
not available for study – missing, not on shelf

10
Sample Characteristics
Fractional sample of 250 records representing:
 January 2007 snapshot of WorldCat
 74.5M bibliographic records
 Master records with a single holding symbol
 36.8M records
 Monographic language-based titles, excluding non-print
formats (electronic resources, microforms, braille)
 14.7M records
Further limits were applied to facilitate analysis:
 English-language cataloging only
 Common descriptive standards
 Titles published before Y2000
 Avoid ‘first copy’ (cataloging lag) problem

11
Research Methods
 Independent assessment followed by team review
 Combination of machine- and manual analysis
 Connexion, FirstSearch, MARCView
 Level of uniqueness
 work: content is not duplicated within WorldCat
 expression: distinctive expression of duplicated content
 manifestation: alternate editions available in WorldCat
 analytic: content is part of a larger published work
 duplicate record found: cataloging anomalies
 Material / content types
 Non-fiction books; technical reports; language /
literature; archival materials; ephemera
 Theses and dissertations (baccalaureate, masters, PhD)
 Government documents (national, state, local)

12
Levels of Uniqueness within Sample
non-unique
unique analytics
unique manifestations
unique expressions
unique works
N = 250 records
>60% of titles in
sample represent
unique intellectual
content
cataloging shortfalls

13
Content and Material Types
33%
20%
15%
10%
7%
3%
12%
Non-fiction published books
Theses and dissertations
Technical reports
Serials
Literature, poetry
Archival materials
Other (ephemera, catalogs,
manuals, direcotories, etc.)
N = 250 records
Academic and technical content predominates . . .

14
Range of Unique Works by Material Type
Material types representing >5% of titles in sample
“grey literature” contains
greatest proportion of
unique intellectual content
more
manifestations

15
Theses and Dissertations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Masters Doctoral Baccalaureate
Total in sample
Unique works
Held by issuing
institution
N = 49 records
75% are unique works

16
Language of Publication
Non-English publications account for
<40% of uniquely held books in sample
vs. ~75% of uniquely held books in
Vanderbilt study
N = 250 records

17
Place of Publication
32%
68%
US imprint
Non-US imprint
A majority of uniquely held print books were published
outside the United States
63%
37%
5% more than print books
with multiple holdings
US
Non-US

18
Subject Access
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2
No Subject Cataloging
Subject Cataloging
Unique works Multiple holdings
19%
9%
~20% of unique print books lack subject cataloging
NB: unique works do
not benefit from FRBR-
enhanced
discoverability; no
related manifestations

19
Sample Holdings by Institution Type
54% of sample
23% of sample
Academic and
research libraries
hold the greatest
share of unique
print books
N = 250 records
Non-ARL academic libraries
have the greatest number of
aggregate holdings in
WorldCat – but are less
likely than ARL institutions
to hold unique titles

20
Age Distribution of Unique Titles
N = 250 records
>70% of titles in sample
were produced after 1950
Relative proportion of
unique works increases in
post-WWII period
increased print production?
rise of scientific and technical
enterprise?
increased library collecting activity?
Date of Publication
Percentageoftitles(records)insample

21
Characterizing Unique Works
Foreign, but accessible
Limited discoverability
Challenging inventory control

22
In Sum . . .
Uniquely-held print books containing unique
intellectual
content are typically:
 Non US imprints
 English language titles
 Produced after 1950
 Technical, non-fiction content
 Sparsely described
 Short (~100 pages in length)
 Held by academic and research libraries

23
Preservation and circulation status
 Surveyed 27 RLG partners regarding shelf status,
condition and circulation history of selected titles
from ‘only copy’ sample
 Responses (to date) from:
Columbia University University of Arizona
Harvard University University of Chicago
Indiana University University of California, Los Angeles
New York Public Library University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
University of Alberta University of Pennsylvania
University of Texas, Austin
 Subset representative of larger sample:
~70% unique works / expressions

24
Survey Results (to date)
Inventory control and item condition
 100% of requested titles were available for examination
 Multiple copies held for 3 titles in sample, all theses
 None had significant condition problems
Location and status
 50% housed in off-site shelving facility
 Mostly transferred in the 1990s
 50% non-circulating (local or off-site)
 Some availability via SHARES
Use (value, discoverability?)
 None requested or circulated in past 5 years
 Limited usage data for non-circulating collections

25
Implications
Preservation
 ~50% of uniquely held works are potentially at risk in on-
site, circulating collections
 Limited discoverability and low-use of these titles
diminishes relative risk
 Recent publications less likely to have inherent condition
problems
Access
 Preponderance of recent publications, and non-North
American imprints, is likely to limit potential impact of mass
digitization
 Inter-institutional access and borrowing programs (e.g.
SHARES) will test the limits of cooperative collection
management
 Effective disclosure (holdings, condition, policies) may
require additional investment

26
Opportunities for Joint Action
 Cooperative access agreements
Increase the mobility of scarcely-held content; empower resource-
sharing networks to lend and borrow unique holdings
 Distributed print archiving
Leverage existing on- and off-site storage infrastructure as
network resource
 Shared digitization infrastructure
Reposition off-site repositories as digital delivery hubs
 Continue to build new uniqueness into system-wide
holdings…strategically
Local collection development priorities will be trumped by
economic realities; plan accordingly.

27
Short, foreign …
and competing for attention

28
Questions, Comments?
OCLC Programs & Research Agenda
Managing the Collective Collection
Constance Malpas
malpasc@oclc.org

Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection

Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection (20)

More from Constance Malpas (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing Uniqueness in the System-wide Book Collection

Editor's Notes