1. The British Library’s implementation of LCMPT
Caroline Shaw, Music Processing and Cataloguing Team Manager
Presented by Thurstan Young, Collection Metadata Analyst

2. Contents The Printed & Manuscript Music Processing & Cataloguing Team
Background to LCMPT
Why the decision was taken to implement LCMPT
How LCMPT was configured on Aleph
Documenting the assignment process
The number of records processed so far
LCMPT/FAST comparison
Lessons learned and any other issues

3. The Music Cataloguing Team
Part of Content and Metadata Processing (South)
A small team made up of one manager and three cataloguers, two full-time and one part-time.
Catalogues printed music, manuscript music and musicians’ archives.
Uses appropriate international standards for encoding and description: RDA, MARC21, ISAD(G)
Applies international standards and vocabularies: LCSH, LCGFT, LCMPT, DDC
Applies and creates NACO authorities
Note: We don’t apply LCMPT etc. to cataloguing of manuscripts; in addition to the cataloguing team, some curators also carry out cataloguing work.

4. Background to LCMPT
Medium of Performance (RDA 6.15) : “An instrument, voice, and/or ensemble for which a musical work was originally conceived.” Library of Congress Medium of Performance Terms (LCMPT) : “a stand-alone vocabulary that provides terminology to describe the instruments, voices, etc., used in the performance of musical works” LCMPT launched on February 24th,
By way of background, the cataloguing standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) defines the element Medium of Performance as “an instrument, voice, and/or ensemble for which a musical work was originally conceived.”
In 2010 the Music Library Association’s Bibliographic Control Committee, Subject Access Subcommittee, and the Library of Congress began collaborating to develop the Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus for Music (LCMPT).
LCMPT is defined as “a stand-alone vocabulary that provides terminology to describe the instruments, voices, etc., used in the performance of musical works”.
The Library of Congress launched LCMPT on February 24, Since then, updates to its list of terms have been released periodically on classicificationweb.net, the most recent occurring in March of this year.

5. What were our initial reservations to LCMPT?
Originally rejected its use in bibliographic records
Medium of performance is a work level element in RDA
Ideally it should not be applied at the manifestation level

6. Why did we change our minds?
To align with the element-based data recording approach of RDA
To anticipate the exchange of data in future systems
To facilitate the future creation of work records
To retain and extend the ability to record medium of performance terms using a controlled vocabulary
LCMPT was already present in our catalogue in records derived from American academic libraries
LCMPT terms work in conjunction with the LCGFT terms which we were already using
The decision could be made and implemented easily, as it only affected a small number of cataloguers
Background to bullet point 4: we implemented LCMPT believing that LC would soon deprecate LCSH music headings containing medium of performance terms in favour of the new vocabulary.
Bullet point 5: we began to see LCMPT appearing in derived records from February 2016 onwards.

7. Training and implementation date
Training was held on 22 June 2016
Training consisted of a tutorial based on MLA Best Practice Guidelines, and practical exercises
Five people (cataloguers, a curator and a cataloguing manager) attended
Implementation date for LCMPT was 30 June 2016
Bodleian Library, Oxford and Cambridge University Library are now also using LCMPT

8. Background on systems configuration
To coincide with implementation (Aleph)
LCMPT terms loaded from classificationweb.net onto authority database
Look up feature provided to support the population of bibliographic records with LCMPT terms
Medium of performance indexed in authority and bibliographic databases
Following implementation (Explore)
Medium of performance displayed in record details view
Medium of performance indexed
The British Library’s ILS has been reconfigured to support the adoption of LCMPT.
To coincide with implementation:
Authority records for LCMPT terms were loaded from classificationweb.net onto the authority database in our staff interface Aleph.
A look up feature was also provided to support the population of bibliographic records in Aleph with LCMPT terms from the authority database.
In addition, indexing for LCMPT was provided on both our authority and bibliographic databases.
Following implementation:
Display of “Medium of performance” was added to the record details view on our public facing resource discovery system “Explore the British Library”.
“Medium of performance” was made searchable as part of Explore’s “Words Anywhere” index.

9. How updates are handled
Aleph load process generates an alert which is sent to the music cataloguing manager
Alert lists system numbers for added and changed authorities
Changes involving 162 field (Heading - Medium of Performance Term) recorded in local COR field
Music cataloguing manager searches for related bibliographic records using the COR field content in ‘Medium of performance’ index
382 field (Medium of Performance) updated where necessary using Ctrl+F4 look up functionality
COR field expiry time set at 30 days from load, allowing time for any related changes in bibliographic records to be made.
The Aleph load process generates an alert which is sent to the music cataloguing manager.
This contains a list of system numbers for added and changed authorities.
If a change involves field 162 (Heading – Medium of Performance Term) then the previous contents of field 162 are recorded in a local COR field. If the change occurs elsewhere then no COR field is generated.
The music cataloguing manager searches for related bibliographic records using the COR field content in the ‘Medium of performance’ index.
They then update the 382 field (Medium of Performance) where necessary using Ctrl+F4 look up functionality.
A COR field expiry time is set at 30 days from load to allow time to make any related changes to bibliographic records.

10. MARC21 Field 382 (Medium of Performance)
Field 382 contains four subfield codes denoting different types of medium, which should all be authority-controlled:
$a (Medium of performance)
$b (Soloist)
$d (Doubling instrument)
$p (Alternative medium of performance)
But full authority control linking not supported by Aleph system
Only first term in string is subject to authority control
Option to record each term in a separate iteration of 382 field
Decision to retain the string approach to recording field 382 and forego authority control (including global amendment overwrite)
Field 382 represents medium of performance in the MARC21 authority and bibliographic formats.
Field 382 contains four subfield codes denoting different types of medium, which should all be authority-controlled:
$a (Medium of performance)
$b (Soloist)
$d (Doubling instrument)
$p (Alternative medium of performance)
However, we found that authority linking by subfield could not be supported by the Aleph system; only the first term in the field could be be under authority control.
It would have been necessary to record each term in a separate, repeated, 382 field in order to have authority control of terms and global amendment overwrite.

11. Benefits of 382 field strings
382 01
$a [medium of performance] piano
$n [number of performers of the same medium] 1
$a [medium of performance] alto flute
$d [doubling instrument] flute
$a [medium of performance] English horn
$d [doubling instrument] oboe
$s [total number of performers] 3
$2 lcmpt
Alto flute player also plays flute
English horn player also plays oboe
The total number of performers is 3
MLA designed the 382 to work as a single field. Meaning derives from the order of the sub-elements and this would be lost if separate fields were used.
In this example, the red text represents some of the context-dependant information which would be lost using a separate field approach.

12. Repetition of field 382 The field should be repeated only to:
1) express an entire medium statement in a different way:
$a piccolo $n 1 $a flute $n 4 $a alto flute $n 3 $a bass flute $n 2 $s 10 $2 lcmpt
$a flute choir $e 1 $2 lcmpt or
2) to express a different medium statement altogether:
$3 Magnificat $b singer $n 4 $a mixed chorus $e 1 $a violin $n 2 $a continuo $2 lcmpt
$3 Beatus vir $b singer $n 5 $a mixed chorus $e 1 $a violin $n 2 $a viola $n 1 $a serpent $n 1 $a continuo $2 lcmpt
Ideally, field 382 should only be repeated in the following circumstances:
1: where an ensemble term and individual instrument terms are recorded as alternatives.
2: where the different works in a compilation have their media of performance recorded separately.

13. Limitations of library systems and MARC
Desirable that future ILS software supports the fully automated management of 382 subfield strings
Field 382 is only a starting point
The goal is to accommodate medium of performance information in future systems and linked data ontologies
In future it would be desirable for ILS vendors to make software changes to existing products which enable data recorded in field 382 strings to be managed by automated means.
However, it should be noted that MARC field 382 is only a starting point; the end goal is to accommodate medium of performance information in linked data enabled systems.

14. Local solutions
Lookup function is available to cataloguers even though there is no authority control for field 382
Subfields saved as input to retain sequence based meaning in 382
As a local solution we’ve made lookup functionality available to cataloguers even though there is no authority control for the 382 field.
Cataloguers had expressed a concern in training that the 382 subfields might re-sort themselves into alphabetical or some other order, rendering the data meaningless.
To avoid this, we configured the Aleph table for field 382 to ensure subfield sequence filed as input and did not undergo a standard, automated sort on save to the server.

15. Documenting the assignment process
Cataloguers follow MLA Best Practice guidelines
Local policy in RDA Toolkit BL Music Workflow: Applying Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus (LCMPT) Terms using MARC 382
RDA basic requirement sometimes acceptable rather than furthest level of granularity
Coverage of implied medium of performance
Piano accompaniment for rehearsal
Some poly-choral works
Cataloguers follow MLA Best practise guidelines on application of LCMPT in field 382.
We also have a local policy document entitled “Applying Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus (LCMPT) Terms using MARC 382” which is hosted on the RDA Toolkit in the BL Music Workflow. The BL Music Workflow has been made globally available to all Toolkit users.
Local policy balances the potential of the LCMPT vocabulary with time constraints – cataloguers will not necessarily go to the furthest level of granularity if RDA does not require it.
The document also contains guidance on some issues not covered by current MLA guidelines, e.g. cases in which the medium of performance is implied but not named, piano accompaniment for rehearsal only and some poly-choral works.

16. Impact on cataloguing workflow (positive)
Single LCMPT terms are easier to apply than LCSH strings:
LCSH:
650 #0 $a Choruses, Secular (Mixed voices) with orchestra $v Vocal scores with piano
LCMPT:
$a mixed chorus $n 1 $a piano $n 1
Certain common combinations can be entered very quickly with the aid of macros.

17. Impact on cataloguing workflow: (negative)
Time-consuming to enter data elements in many MARC subfields
Does not always result in natural language; adding a note which repeats information in “human-readable” form duplicates effort
LCMPT:
$a tenor voice $n 1 $d bongos $n 1 $a baritone voice $n 1 $d cymbal $n 1 $a bass voice $n 1 $d percussion idiophone $n 1 $v woodblock $a trombone $n 3 $s 6
$2 lcmpt
Note:
500 ## $a For three men's voices (singers doubling on percussion instruments) and three trombones.

18. Impact on catalogue data: (positive)
More specific options available for size/pitch of instrument and voice range; improves discovery and can be used in a flexible way:
$a singer $n 3 $a orchestra $e 1 $2 lcmpt OR
$a soprano voice $n 1 $b alto voice $n 1 $b bass voice $n 1 $a orchestra $e 1 $2 lcmpt
New terms, e.g.: Speaker (as a type of voice); Live electronics; Processed sound; Cell phone; Finger-snapping; Foot tapping

19. Impact on catalogue data: (negative)
Syntax not very user-friendly
Display problems in resource discovery system: much intervention needed to show the data in the right order and correctly labelled
Inconsistency between old and new forms of recording; not possible for users to interrogate entire database in the same way
Note on Bullet two: Oxford University’s SOLO implementation of PRIMO has apparently overcome display problems.

20. Number of records processed so far
As of 24 February 2017 there were 3772 records with a 382 field in the catalogue
1457 of these are original cataloguing and 2315 are derived records.

21. LCMPT/FAST comparison
FAST holds many terms in common with LCMPT
BUT
FAST models medium of performance as topic rather than as genre / term
FAST does not have a hierarchical structure for medium of performance terms
FAST allows medium of performance to be recorded as part of a string including a topical subdivision : e.g. “Guitar – Methods”
FAST is not designed to allow flexible recording of number and type of medium (e.g. doubling instrument, alternative instrument, soloist)
FAST has links to equivalent terms in other language thesauri
Summary: In the course of evaluating FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) as a possible replacement for LCSH, we noted that it contains many terms in common with LCMPT. However it has the following major differences: (see slide)
Note on bullet 3: LCMPT is constructed as a hierarchy of broader and narrower terms. There are 3 top-level terms, ensemble, performer and visuals. Within this (apart from visuals, which as yet has no narrower terms), narrower terms exist down to fourth-level terms and beyond. E.g. (from broader to narrower) performer, instrument, electronic instrument, synthesizer.

22. LCMPT/FAST comparison (continued)
The two vocabularies serve different purposes and in some situations both may be applicable. 
FAST and LCSH record what the resource is about, whereas LCMPT is designed to record what medium of performance has been conceived for the content of the resource.
This analysis led us to the following conclusions:
The two vocabularies serve different purposes and in some situations both may be applicable. 
FAST like LCSH records what the resource is about, whereas LCMPT is designed to record what medium of performance has been conceived for the content of the resource.

23. LCMPT/FAST comparison (case study)
Title (245): Harpsichord works / Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de La Guerre ; edited by Arthur Lawrence ; with a biographical essay by Mary Cyr.
Medium of performance (382): harpsichord
Subject (650): Harpsichord music
In the context of a MARC21 bibliographic record, the 382 field describes the resource’s musical content, whereas the 650 field describes its subject.

24. Lessons learned and any other issues
Impact of LCMPT implementation on productivity appears neutral
a small team makes this more difficult to measure
LCSH / LCMPT automated crosswalk which can both :
allow for the complex syntax of LCSH headings
avoid the risk of losing implicit information
The impact of LCMPT implementation on productivity appears to be neutral; however with such a small team applying it, this is difficult to measure because of the impact of other factors.
We hope that in the future it will be possible to use a programme to crosswalk LCSH to LCMPT, but this would not be done lightly, due to the complexity of the syntax of LCSH headings and the risk of losing implicit information.

25. Thank you Thurstan Young, Collection Metadata Analyst thurstan
Thank you Thurstan Young, Collection Metadata Analyst Caroline Shaw, Music Processing and Cataloguing Team Manager