1. SHARED COLLECTIONS, SHARED RECORDS? RESOURCE SHARING AT THE META-LEVEL Charley Pennell, NCSU - Natalie Sommerville, Duke TRLN Annual Meeting, 13 July 2012

2. Library co-operation in the Triangle  UNC & Duke cooperation in material purchasing began in 1933!  NCSC joins in activities, 1950s; NCCU in 1995  Planning for joint automation system started 1979  BIS, 1983-1993  DRA, 1993-2003  Separate ILSs (Sirsi, ExLibris, III), 2003-  Endeca, 2006- (at NCSU only), 2007/08- (TRLN) 2

3. “TRLN United: one collection, one community”  Search TRLN combines the catalogs of four member systems into a common interface  Each institution also maintains own “skin”  Collection overlap study 2006 (based on OCLC number matches)  Assume greater overlap in electronic 3

4. Shared e-content 4

5. Bibliographic traits of e-resources  Bib records often sold separately from content  Licenses often disallow loading of records into OCLC or sharing with other libraries  E-resource record often a repurposed print record  Metadata quality varies between collections  Libraries experience difficulty overlaying bibs when source metadata changes; lack of unique IDs  Even where URLs to resource start the same, Libraries proxy to ease access and enable stats collection  Open-access resources often fall out of system developed for paid content 5

6. Shared e-content in TRLN Endeca  Multiple records describe same content (inconsistent IDs between members prevent roll-up)  Inconsistent loading of collection records between holding institutions  Confusing display of links to remote resources, particularly before suppression of 856$3$y$z  Proxying of open-content titles made them appear to be licensed to single institution 6

7. TRLN community solutions…  Electronic Resources Access Restrictions TF, 2009  Looked at display of e-resource links, esp. open-access  Recommended members consider sharing records  Shared Records TF, 2010  Developed model for record sharing  Implemented model for NC Live, ICPSR, GPO e-records  Created a mechanism for adding additional shared record sets (see last slide) 7

8. Shared record model  One institution takes responsibility for maintaining metadata (including authority control) for entire set  UNC: GPO DWS  NCSU: NC Live; EEBO  Duke: Oxford University Press  Endeca pipeline to accept collection metadata from maintenance agency only; all others rejected  Appropriate licensee URL to display for all licensed titles  Open access titles to display single URL for all  Open access titles recognized by domain (.gov,.edu,.org) or by record attributes (Item Cat2, 856$z) 8

9. Pros and cons of record sharing Positive  Group discounts on metadata!  Saves overall cost of authority control  Saves disc space/search time  Less public display clutter  Descriptive metadata for collections in synch  Work only done once! Saves staff time and disc space for non-maintenance libraries Negative  Most collection reports run from ILS; cannot be done if decision is made to not also load records locally  Loss of local control over metadata; changes subject to priorities of maintenance unit  How to get metadata back if record sharing program ceases 9

10. Statistics of record sharing at TRLN CollectionTitlesHeld byRecord savings Documents Without Shelves83,531Duke, NCCU, NCSU, UNC250,593 EEBO123,521Duke, NCSU, UNC247,042 NC Live Videos423Duke, NCCU, NCSU, UNC1,269 ICPSR8,367Duke, NCSU, UNC16,734 Oxford University Press710Duke, NCCU, NCSU, UNC2,130 TOTAL216,552517,768 Authority processing savings across membership $50,103.03 @ $.10/title (ICPSR not under NAF) 10

11. Shared record examples  Early English books online 11

12. Documents Without Shelves (GPO) 12

15. Duke Context 15  Workflow efficiencies are a core value for managing discovery of the Libraries’ resources  Efficiencies include loading of vendor-supplied MARC records for print, microform, and electronic collections  Loading of records for electronic resources dates back to the early 2000s

16. Initial reaction 16  Support for TRLN and its shared mission  Support for the efficiency of sharing records BUT  Discomfort with the ILS not being the MARC repository of record

17. Agents of Change 17  Migration to Serials Solutions in Fall 2010  Provided a centralized and accurate picture of electronic resource holdings  The knowledgebase becomes the place to retrieve data about electronic resource holdings  Vast majority of electronic resource discovery managed through Serials Solutions products; e.g. 360MARC service and Summon

18. Agents of Change continued 18  Cross-departmental team works to improve the electronic resources workflow process  Move from ILS OPAC to separate discovery layer underscores the already-acknowledged need for clean data  Case in point: Documents Without Shelves  Need for a data clean-up project for U.S. Documents electronic resources identified  DWS shared record project facilitated this effort

19. Current environment 19  Record sharing is part of the workflow for providing access to new eBook packages  Duke manages first shared record project for TRLN  University Press Scholarship Online  Shared collection of electronic and print resources  UNC manages the print  Duke manages the eBooks

20. Records by one, discovery for all 20

21. Records by one, discovery for all 21

22. Where to go to suggest new collections! 22