National Library of Australia
Kinetica Kinetica
This page is an archive page and will no longer be updated.
 

KINETICA ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MEETING

20 and 22 August 2003

 

Agenda papers

Wednesday 20 August 2003,

10.30 am - 4.00pm

Arthur Waterhouse Lounge

Mt Lofty House

Adelaide

Friday 22 August 2003

12:00 -1:00 pm

Working Lunch

Hindmarsh Room

Stamford Grand Adelaide



KINETICA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

August 20 and 22,2003

Wednesday 20 August 2003,

10.30am

ArthurWaterhouse Lounge

Mt LoftyHouse

Adelaide

AGENDA

  1. Welcome, introduction and apologies
 
 
  1. Minutes of the previous meetings and business arising
    • March 2003 meeting
    • Draft Report on the Kinetica Strategic Planning Workshop
 

KAC/2003/2/1
KAC/2003/2/2

 
  1. Director-General"s remarks
 
 
  1. 2002-2003 Kinetica Statistical Information Report (CONFIDENTIAL)

KAC/2003/2/3

 

FOR DISCUSSION

 
  1. Kinetica Future Options Report

KAC/2003/2/4

 
  1. Kinetica Authorities Survey

KAC/2003/2/5

 
  1. Theses Coverage on the NBD

KAC/2003/2/6

 
  1. Development of the Public Library Portal(presentation)

KAC/2003/2/7

 
  1. Sharing Data with Australian SubjectGateways

KAC/2003/2/8

 
  1. Proposal for anExpert Advisory Group for Kinetica Document Delivery

KAC/2003/2/9

 

12:30 - 1.30pmLunch

 
 

FOR INFORMATION

 
  1. Kinetica Status Report

KAC/2003/2/10

 
  1. Electronic and Microform Collections: Progress Report

KAC/2003/2/11

 
  1. Kinetica Subject Headings Review Panel

KAC/2003/2/12

 
  1. National Bibliographic Database: Quality Issues

KAC/2003/2/13

 
  1. Commonwealth Government Metadata Pilot Project Report

KAC/2003/2/14

 

3.00 - 3.20pm AfternoonTea

 
  1. Kinetica Annual Users Meeting
    • Planning for 2003 KAUM - including parallel session reporting with Bronwyn Halliday
    • Kinetica Innovation Award
    • Future KAUMs - 2004, Canberra; location 2005
 

4.00 pm Close

 
 

Friday 22 August2003

12:00 -1:00pm

Working Lunch

Hindmarsh Room

Stamford Grand Adelaide

AGENDA

  1. Kinetica Annual Users Meeting 2003
    • Evaluation of the 2003 KAUM including any recommendations
    • Issues for the 2004 KAUM
 

1.00pm Conclusion

 
 


Kinetica Advisory Committee paper

KAC/2003/2/1

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE KINETICA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday 11 and Wednesday 12 March 2003

National Library of Australia

The Meeting commenced at 1:15pm

Present:

Acting Chairperson

Mr Craig Anderson

Chief Executive Officer, Yarra Plenty Regional Library

Members

Ms Sherrey Quinn

Libraries Alive! Canberra

Mr John Arfield

University Librarian, University of Western Australia

Ms Pam Gatenby

Assistant Director-General, Collections Management, National Library of Australia

Ms Doreen Parker

University Librarian, Victoria University of Technology

Ms Patricia Scott

Bibliographic Services Librarian, University of Adelaide

Mr David Toll

Deputy Director-General, National Library of Australia

Ms Elizabeth Ellis

Mitchell Librarian and Director Collection Management, State Library of NewSouth Wales

Mr Thomas Stoddart- attending on behalf of Ms May Priddle

A/Team Leader, Library & Information Service, National Occupational Health& Safety Commission

Ms Judy Engall

Collection Development Librarian, ANSTO

Mr Chris Taylor

Executive Manager, Information Accessand Delivery,University of Queensland

 
Observer

Ms Jan Fullerton

Director-General, National Library of Australia

Officers in Attendance

Ms RoxanneMissingham

Assistant Director-General, Resource Sharing Division, National Library of Australia

Mr Rob Walls

Director, KineticaDatabase Services, National Library of Australia

Ms Cheryl Brickell

Director, Kinetica Customer Services, National Library of

Australia

Ms Kylie Moloney

Kinetica Customer Services, National Library of Australia

Minutes

Ms Cathy Pilgrim

Kinetica Customer Services, National Library of Australia


Agenda item 1 Welcome, introductions and apologies

Apologies were received from Ms Maxine Brodie and Ms May Priddle.


Agenda item 2 Strategic Planning Workshop (KAC/2003/1/1)

Ian McCallum from Libraries Alive! facilitated the Workshop. A summary of the workshop hasbeen prepared and distributed to all Kinetica Advisory Committee Members.


Agenda item 3 Minutes of the previous meeting and business arising (KAC/2003/1/2) (KAC/2003/1/3)

It was resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 7 and 9 August 2002 and the teleconference held on 12 December 2002 are a true and accurate record of the meetings.

Ms Jan Fullerton thanked outgoing members Ms Jan Maslen, Mr Trevor Wakely and Ms Kaye Hill for their valuable contributions to the Kinetica Advisory Committee. Ms Fullerton also welcomed new Kinetica Advisory Committee Members - Ms Elizabeth Ellis who is representing Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL) and Ms Judy Engall and Mr Chris Taylor who are elected members. A welcome was also extended to Mr Thomas Stoddart who was attending the meeting on behalf of Ms May Priddle and representing government libraries.


Agenda item 4 Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair (KAC/2003/1/4)

Appointment of a Kinetica Advisory Committee Chair and Deputy Chair for 2003 was endorsed. Ms Maxine Brodie was appointed as Chair of the Committee, and Mr Craig Anderson as Deputy Chair.


Agenda item 5 Director-General's remarks

Ms Jan Fullerton reported on the following:

  • the details of the National Library of Australia's budget for 2003/2004 will not be known until May 2003, however it is unlikely that the Library will receive any increase in funding. The Library has a tradition of being resourceful and will need to continue to find ways to maintain services and to develop new services within existing budgets.
  • the Library's Directions Statement for 2003-2005 has been released. There is an emphasis on breaking down barriers to accessing resources and increasing the resources directly available to end-users. All libraries have a role to play in resource sharing and making it easier for all Australians to access information
  • at the Senate Estimates hearing in February 2003 the issue of the Library reducing its staffing numbers was raised. It was reported that the Library is reducing staffing numbers to a more appropriate level over the next few years. This staffing reduction will be done progressively mainly through the processes of natural attrition.
  • the collaborative reference service AskNow! was launched in January 2003. There has been positive feedback from the public in response to this service. Reports show that over 40% of users are located in rural and regional parts of Australia and, contrary to expectations, the service has not been overwhelmed with use by school students. This service is an example of real collaboration between the National and State libraries.
  • the Library is continuing to build on its relationships and to collaborate with other national libraries such as the National Library of New Zealand and the National Library Board of Singapore.
  • a major focus for the Library over the next two years will be the future of the Kinetica service. A Kinetica Futures Group, consisting of executive and senior staff within the National Library has been established to investigate strategies and options.

Agenda item 6 2002-2003 Kinetica statistical information (KAC/2003/1/5)


Agenda item 7 Kinetica Status Report (KAC/2003/1/6)

Ms Roxanne Missingham spoke to this paper.

In line with the upgrade to the KDD software in December 2002, a new KDD manual and KDD workbook have been produced. This is the first time that Kinetica has outsourced the development of Kinetica training materials. The KDD 'At a Glance' document has also been extensively revised. The KDD workbook is the first training workbook to be developed for Kinetica customers.

Kinetica Customer Service plans to conduct a survey of Kinetica customers in the near future to ascertain training needs. Customers will be asked to comment on their priorities for training and offer suggestions in relation to the development of web training packages for Kinetica services.

A Commonwealth Agencies Metadata Pilot Project is being conducted in collaboration with the National Archives of Australia and the National Office for Information Economy (NOIE). Seven agencies, with different publishing outputs and metadata, are participating in the pilot. It is anticipated that a report, including the case studies, will be published at the end of the calendar year. The desired outcome of the project is the development of a sustainable model for the collection of metadata for Commonwealth government publications.

Research Libraries Group (RLG) has sold the Ariel software to Infotrieve. The National Library's Agreement with RLG will cease from 31 March 2003 and Infotrieve will then provide all technical support and distribution of the Ariel software.

ACTION: National Library to send letters to all Ariel users and State User Groups advising of the change in Ariel support and distribution.

The National Library has held discussions with Online Computer Library Centre (OCLC) to extend the pilot agreement for WorldCat access through Kinetica for special, school and public libraries for another three years. Discussion occurred on the possible expansion of access to WorldCat to all libraries through Kinetica.

Ms Cheryl Brickell reported on Kinetica Customer Services activities:

  • Kinetica Help Desk inquiries continue to decrease with more enquiries being received via email.
  • PictureAustralia currently has 23 participants, with 14 more planning to be contributing by the end of the year.
  • the CASL Consortium and Licensing Working Group has extended its membership to include the Queensland Public Libraries Association. A work plan identifying online resources for trialling in 2003 has been finalised.
  • the Public Libraries Portal Project has commenced with the aim of extending access to the NBD to end-users. A workshop with the four pilot participants - Brisbane City Council, Yarra Plenty Regional Library Service, Yarra Melbourne Regional Library Service and Northern Region Libraries (Moree, NSW) will be conducted on 31 March 2003.
  • the Expert Advisory Group on Enhancements workshops conducted in conjunction with State User Group meetings in November and December 2002 were very successful in determining the enhancement priorities of Kinetica Customers.

Mr Rob Walls reported on Kinetica Database Services activities:

  • the upgrade to VDX 2.2.7 in December 2002 means that KDD is now ISO ILL Protocol compliant. KDD is looking at exchanging requests with LIDDAS libraries such as the Western Australian University Libraries as well as extending to other ISO compliant libraries including Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI) and the National Library of New Zealand Te Puna system.
  • the Technology Refresh Project has seen the replacement of the hardware used to operate the Amicus and LibriVision software. This has led to a significant increase of disc space and, since the implementation, marginal improvements in response times for some sites have been reported.

Agenda item 8 Pricing Working Group Paper (KAC2003/1/7)

Ms Doreen Parker and Ms Roxanne Missingham spoke to this paper.

Issue 1. Proposed principles for Kinetica pricing.

The Pricing Working Group proposed a set of principles that can be applied to Kinetica charges in the longer term. These include the following:

  • predictability
  • sustainability
  • simplicity
  • competitiveness.

The Committee recommended the addition of a fifth principle stating that the Pricing Policy must promote and reinforce the objectives of the Kinetica Service.

ACTION: Nto advise Kinetica Customers of the principles for Kinetica pricing through the next issue of Kinetica Update.

Issue 2. Submissions from customers.

Feedback from Kinetica Customers on pricing indicated that there are concerns about the current three-tier model of charging, and that a single model of contributor discounts is preferred.

Issue 3. Pricing models and options: single contributor discount model.

The Committee recognised that this model has the potential to have a significant financial impact on large contributing libraries. There is also an element of risk in this proposal for the National Library, as revenue would be likely to reduce if an additional discount was given to Class B users and Class A users may be disadvantaged if there was a decrease in the level of their discount.

The Committee acknowledged the contribution of holdings and records as critical to the role of the NBD and urged the National Library in reviewing prices, to consider the impact on Class A customers.

ACTION: Nto look at the impact of a move of 3% in an incremental move to a single contributor rate, and report back to the Kinetica Advisory Committee.

It was acknowledged that the move to a single discount would be a staged process. The Committee recommended the first step occur as soon as possible. It was noted that the Nwould give at least three months notice in regard to any changes to the Kinetica pricing structure, however six months notice would be preferable.

Issue 4: Pricing models and options: 3-tier model.

The Committee discussed each of the three proposed models.

Issue 5: Library School use of Kinetica.

The Committee agreed that the charge to Library Schools for educational purposes be waived.

ACTON: Nto develop a strategy to promote the use of Kinetica through Library Schools. Nis to ensure that lecturers training students have themselves undertaken the relevant Kinetica training courses.

Issue 6: Policy for the commercial reuse of NBD records.

The proposed Policy for the Commercial Reuse of NBD records was endorsed. The record reuse coefficient was further explained and the Committee was advised that the formula is based on the likely number of organisations (library suppliers) that would potentially reuse the data. The formula enables the Nto provide consistent advice to library suppliers on how much they will be charged for reusing records. In most cases library suppliers purchase NBD records and load them into local systems for reselling to other libraries as acquisitions products.

The Committee:

  • endorsed the proposed pricing principles;
  • thanked those who made submissions to the group;
  • recommended to the National Library that a two-tiered charging scheme be adopted, with a single discount for contributors, and that this be adopted incrementally;
  • noted the three models proposed by the Pricing Working Group;
  • recommended to the National Library that library school charges for use of Kinetica for educational purposes be waived; and
  • recommended to the National Library that charges for commercial use of NBD records by library suppliers/publishers (such as Blackwells and Thorpe) be a base charge of 30 cents per record plus the reuse fee.

Moved:Mr John Arfield, Seconded: Mr Chris Taylor


Agenda item 9 Expert Advisory Group on Enhancements (KAC/2003/1/8)

Ms Cheryl Brickell spoke to this paper.

The Kinetica Advisory Group endorsed a proposal in August 2002 that a group should be established to investigate and prioritise enhancements to Kinetica services.

In November and December 2002 nine workshops were conducted in conjunction with State User Groupmeetings in all States and Territories across Australia with National Library staff attending all meetings to provide background information.

All suggestions arising from the workshops and those forwarded via email were categorized, and those enhancements identified by more than one state were classified as highpriority.

The high priority enhancements identified for KDD have been included in the development program for future VDX upgrades.

Ms Patricia Scott reported that the process made Kinetica customers feel empowered and encouraged the National Library to take recommendations for system enhancements seriously.

The Committee was advised that e-collections enhancement suggestions have inadvertently not been included in the high priority list within the report; however as they had been recommended by more than one state they should be considered as high priority.

ACTION: NLAwill add e-collections issues to the high priority list.

The Committee thanked theAdvisory Group for undertaking this process. The Committee also agreed that the process of conducting workshops in conjunction with State User Group meetings was extremely successful in obtaining responses and feedback from Kinetica customers.

ACTION: TheKinetica Futures Working Group take into consideration the outcomes of this Expert Advisory Group.

The Committee recommended:

  • the Library continue to implement and monitor the present program of scheduled Kinetica enhancements. The present enhancement program should in the first instance focus on high priority enhancements that have been flagged for attention by more than one user group;
  • the Library continue to work to influence the development priorities of software vendors to ensure that enhancements identified as high priorities by Kinetica users, are included in their development plans;
  • the Library consider commissioning the development of high priority enhancements which are not included in vendors development plans;
  • the Library ensure appropriate resourcing levels are provided to support the management of the Kinetica development program, the investigation of enhancement proposals and, where possible, the development of local enhancements;
  • Kinetica maintain an ongoing consultative approach with users and State groups,by encouraging submission of new enhancement ideas, especially by supporting the annual discussion of enhancement priorities at State user group meetings;and
  • Kinetica-l and the Kinetica website be used to report the findings of this Expert Group, and to provide regular updates to users on the scheduling and progress of enhancements.

Moved: Ms Patricia Scott,Seconded: Ms Sherrey Quinn


Agenda item 10 Recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery: Progress report (KAC/2003/1/9)

Mr Rob Walls spoke to this paper.

A workshop on authorities is planned to be held at the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting in Adelaide in August 2003.

A survey will be conducted by September 2003 by Kinetica Database Services to assess the extent of authority work undertaken by Australian libraries on their local systems and on the NBD and ANCJK services. The survey will also seek information on the use of, and need for, the Kinetica Authorities Service. This survey may also serve to raise awareness of issues with authority files.

The Committee noted the report.

Moved: Ms Sherrey Quinn, Seconded: Mr Thomas Stoddart


Agenda item 11 The Value of National Union Database Services (KAC/2003/1/10)

Ms Roxanne Missingham spoke to this paper.

Two studies have been conducted recently by both the National Library of New Zealand and the National Library of Canada to determine the value of their national union catalogues.

The National Library of New Zealand study focused on the questions of "if you didn't have TePuna what would you use instead" and "how much would it cost?" The objectives of conducting the survey were to lobby the New Zealand Government for funding and to make parts of the service, such as Inter-Library Loan (ILL), free. The intention of the National Library of New Zealand is to progressively, over the next several years, make the whole of TePuna free. In comparison the National Library of Canada's union catalogue was made free of charge last year.

Both surveys reported that the Services gave a good return on investment.

The question was asked if the National Library of Australia should be conducting a similar survey? Mr David Toll reported that the National Library had considered this issue. The cost of undertaking an economic consultancy of this scale is high and the benefits of National Union Catalogues are already well known. The National Library would only make this investment if it believed that there would be increased funding made available. This is not considered likely at present.

The Committee noted the report.

Moved:Ms Doreen Parker, Seconded: Mr John Arfield


Agenda item 12 Electronic Resources:Progress Report (KAC/2003/1/11)

Mr RobWalls spoke to this paper.

Four new e-collections datasets have been recently made available. They are:

  • ProQuest
  • Wiley Interscience
  • Blackwell Science
  • Emerald

Kinetica Database Services is aiming to add one new dataset per month. Currently testing for Gale dataset creation is well advanced.

One of the recommendations from the Expert Advisory Group on Enhancements process was an enhancement to allow users to receive only their own URLs (MARC field 856) in bibliographic records supplied in products output from Kinetica. Currently all of the URLs are included in products and this causes problems for some users. It may be possible to implement this enhancement without major changes to the Kinetica system.

The National Library was congratulated for producing these e-collections sets, which are preferable to records provided by vendors.

ACTION: Nto investigate producing an e-collection set for Australian digital surrogates- records for Australian content material that has been digitized. Through this process the Nshould encourage records for digital items to be added to the NBD.

ACTION: Nwill survey users to ascertain current priorities for e-collection datasets. KAC Members to go back to their members and seek advice on what additional datasets would benefit them, and provide this information to Kinetica Database Service.

The Committee noted the report.

Moved: Ms Patricia Scott, Seconded: Mr Thomas Stoddart


Agenda item 13 Kinetica Subject Headings Review Panel: Information Paper (KAC/2003/1/12)

Mr RobWalls spoke to this paper.

Ms Jenny Kerry is the new Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service (AIATSIS) library representative.

A major milestone for the Subject Headings Review Panel is the proposal put to the Library of Congress for the subject heading Aboriginal Australians to replace Australian Aborigines.

The Committee noted the report.

Moved: Ms herrey Quinn, Seconded: Mr Thomas Stoddart


Agenda item 14 National BibliographicDatabase: Quality Issues (KAC/2003/1/13)

Mr RobWalls spoke to this paper.

Amicus 3.4 (which willnot be implemented) offers limited improvements. The feasibility ofextracting functionality from 3.4 to implement in the current Kineticaenvironment, specifically the removal of stop words, has been investigated and found not to be viable.

Kinetica Database Serviceis working on improved title matching and has developed specifications for truncated title matching to remove the statement of responsibility when matching title data.

NBD Coverage of theses was discussed.

ACTION: Nto email the survey on NBD coverage of theses to all KAC members.

The Committee noted the report.

Moved: Mr Thomas Stoddart, Seconded: Ms Patricia Scott


Agenda item 15 Kinetica Annual UsersMeeting 2003 (KAC/2003/1/14)

Ms Roxanne Missingham spoke to this paper.

The survey of last year's attendees at the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting reported a high level of satisfaction with the Meeting. Comments have been taken into account in planning for this year's Meeting.

The Kinetica Annual Users Meeting for 2003 will be held in Adelaide from 21-22 August at the Stamford Hotel. A planning committee with representatives from libraries in South Australia and Kinetica has been set up and is working well.

Committee members were invited to attend a behind-the-scenes tour of the new State Library of South Australia building, which will precede the launch of PictureAustralia on 20 August 2002.

An annual Kinetica Innovation Award was proposed in order to promote the Kinetica Service.The promotion for this award will be extensive including kinetica-L, other library lists, Incite, Gateways and the Kinetica website. All KAC members were asked to promote the award. The selection of a winner will be done through a panel consisting of two KAC members and a National Library representative. Ms Sherrey Quinn and Mr John Arfield agreed to be the KAC representatives on the judging panel. Up to three awards will be presented at the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting and any Kinetica customer is eligible to enter.

The Committee recommended that an award/s to the library, information service or organisation which has, in the opinion of the judging panel, made the most innovative use of Kinetica be initiated. Up to three awards to be made each year for innovative use of Kinetica.

ACTION: It was agreed that the Nwould identify in the Award Guidelines the length of the application submission, which should be around 500 words.

Minister John Hill, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts will conduct the Official Opening. Committee members will be asked to chair the parallel sessions and Kinetica staff will also be present to clarify or expand upon any issue raised. The sessions will be subject focused, rather then function or sector focused.

ACTION: Nto report on the KAC Kinetica Futures Workshop at the Annual Users Meeting, which will then feed into parallel session discussions. Nto look athow it can present the resulting issues at a strategic level, to assist discussion at the operational level during the parallel sessions.

The Committee recommended that information for KAUM attendees be made available electronically and supplied before the meeting.

The 10th Asia Pacific Specials Health and Law Librarians Conference is being held immediately after the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting from 24-28 August 2002 and cross promotion is occurring for both events.

The 2004 Kinetica Annual Users Meeting will be held in Canberra at the National Library of Australia. A Canberra based planning committee will be established.

The Committee noted the report.

Moved: Ms Doreen Parker, Seconded: Mr John Arfield

Conclusion and date of next meeting

The Committee congratulated Kinetica staff on the format and structure of the papers and thanked the National Library for its hospitality over the two days.

Emailing of the papers in pdf format was successful and a vast improvement over Word documents. It was requested that non-confidential documents be forwarded to members prior to the next meeting as a separate file from the confidential material for easier circulation.

The next Kinetica Advisory Committee Meeting will be in Adelaide on 20 August 2002 prior to the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting.

Meeting closed at 4:05pm





Kinetica Advisory Committee Paper

KAC/2003/2/2

DRAFT REPORT ON THE

KINETICA STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP

Background

Over the afternoon of 11 March and the morning of 12 March a special workshop to consider future directions for Kinetica took place in conjunction with the Kinetica AdvisoryCommittee meeting held at the National Library from 11-12 March 2003. Ian McCallum, an experienced library consultant, was hired to facilitate the workshop and produce a written report on issues raised and on outcomes. Kylie Moloney from the Nworked with Ian to create a record of the workshop as the proceedings unfolded. This report has been compiled from Kylie's and Ian's notes and from subsequent reflection on what took place. For validation purposes, it will be circulated to all workshop participants.

Attendees

Craig Anderson Public library rep. Yarra Plenty
John Arfield (12 March only) CAUL rep. UWA
Cheryl Brickell NKinetica
Debbie Campbell NLA
Warwick Cathro NLA
Elizabeth Ellis CASL rep. SLNSW
Judy Engall Elected member ANSTO
Jan Fullerton NLA
Pam Gatenby NLA
Gerry Linehan NLA
Kylie Moloney NKinetica
Roxanne Missingham NKinetica
Cathy Pilgrim NKinetica
Sherrey Quinn Special libraries rep. Libraries Alive!
Patricia Scott Elected member U of Adelaide
Tom Stoddart FLIN rep. NOHSC
Chris Taylor Elected member UQ
David Toll NLA
Rob Walls NKinetica
Ian McCallum Facilitator

Conduct of the Workshop

Following introductions and clarification of ground rules and procedures, the Workshop agreed to takethe NLA's Background Paper to the Strategic PlanningWorkshop [we should attach this to the Report] as a guide to the order in which issues were discussed. Roxanne then spoke to the Paper, and set a 5-year planning horizon for the Workshop's deliberations.

Topic 1. Services

The Workshop was asked to consider future library requirements of Kinetica. Specifically, would the balance between services such as cataloguing, resource discovery and interlending remain the same - or would new services be required and established services have lesser priority?

These points were made in response:

  • Public libraries are now the major source of growth in Kinetica contributions. For other library types, growth has plateaued.
  • Usability aspects of the Kinetica Client have been less than satisfactory.
  • Kinetica defines the national bibliographic output. Its prime source of value is the provision of high quality catalogue records.
  • In the light of the sustained trend towards decentralised, local cataloguing, then uploading, Kinetica's shared cataloguing capability needs to be re-valued.
  • Given fast batch update capability, full cataloguing functionality may no longer be required. This was seen as a fundamental issue.
  • Special libraries are more interested in using Kinetica as a resource discovery tool. Batch loading procedures are important, but there is little demand for an online cataloguing facility.

The Workshop then felt it could frame its first advice to the NLA.

Recommendation 1

Consistent with the objective of making the resources of Australian libraries available to all Australians, all libraries will be encouraged to contribute appropriate quality records in a timely and efficient manner. The Kinetica Advisory Committee recommends that the National Library of Australia investigate the cost/benefits of simplifying National Bibliographic Database (NBD) update procedures, in a manner which acknowledges the consistent trend towards local cataloguing and uploading. Any new system may not support online shared cataloguing but will be subject to appropriate quality assurance procedures.

Discussion continued on the topic of services, and the following points were made:

  • Interlending and resource sharing are higher priorities than online cataloguing. Reduced acquisition budgets have increased interlending traffic.
  • End user access is becoming increasingly important, as are simplifying the processes of resource discovery and delivery, authentication and payment.
  • The Kinetica Advisory Committee encouraged the Nto investigate ways in which end user access and resource discovery and delivery can be offered through theWeb.
  • It was felt the trend towards end user access could be accelerated through the provision of "Kinetica lite" - a public face (or Google) for the NBD,with an easy entry to the document delivery system. The Workshop considered the NLA"s Public Library Portal a promising step in thisdirection.
  • CAUL members are especially interested in expanding free public access toKinetica. Whilst shared cataloguing is of a lower priority, interlending has equal priority with the NBD itself.

Discussion then turned to new services which built on the strength of a comprehensive, high quality NBD.

1.Gateways - building relationships between different sources of data,"re-purposing" data in more flexible ways, sharing metadata between Kinetica and other directories in a distributed model. It was suggested that the Nmight consider populating a Kinetica Gateway or building a gateway in partnership with other services, through leveraging data held by the NBD orothers eg. Picture Australia or RAAM. This would involve "re-rendering" NBD data for new uses, and enlarging the pool of metadata creators.

2. SDI services - the Ncould re-present existing NBD data for new purposes bywriting scripts that ran automatically in response to updates relevant tostored user profiles. Embedded scripts in the NBD could be used togenerate output for a tailored service using "push" technology.

Topic 2. Changing roles of libraries in Australia

The Workshop was asked to consider the role of Kinetica in a virtual library world. The following points were made:

  • The NBD becomes the national catalogue for users seeking a single point of access - "The Great New Web Interface Kinetica".
  • The balance between traditional and electronic materials will vary with library type.
  • The Workshop endorsed and encouraged the role of the NBD in providing access to electronic resources, especially the ability to respond to different needs and demands. Specific suggestions were:
  • Kinetica's role in providing ongoing access to electronic resources -maintaining links to Australian materials (that can otherwise be erratic and unreliable).
  • "One stop shop" for Government publications (at last).
  • Providing end user access to the full record - as well as the citation.
  • Public perceptions of libraries are changing. Individuals become impatient with multi-step processes in resource discovery.
  • Book loans are very important, and likely to remain very important, especially for public libraries.

Topic 3. Scope of the NBD/Kinetica

The Workshop was asked to consider varying the strategy of seeking to include the majority of Australian libraries in the NBD, to an alternative strategy such as increasing the inclusion of smaller Australian libraries, or reducing the scope to larger libraries only.

  • The Workshop was emphatic in its advice to the NLA: there should be no reduction in scope.
  • It was noted that the NBD has poor coverage of health libraries.
  • Kinetica should broaden its coverage and increase the number of participating libraries by collecting records by library sector/group
  • PictureAustralia was seen as a great model for interlinking and "collecting" libraries.
  • Small special libraries may need incentives to contribute to Kinetica.
  • Small and special libraries are concerned with meeting increased demand for interlibrary loans if their holdings are incorporated.
  • The Workshop endorsed the continuation of Ninitiatives to proactively target small and special libraries with collections and subject areas that are currently poorly represented on the NBD.

Topic 9. Technology directions

At this point theWorkshop moved to Topic 9: Technology directions, in order to consider future directions in the context of steady demand for high quality records, sustained demand for interlending, and the reduced requirement for online cataloguing. Three quite different options were presented by the NLA:

1. Base Kinetica on an available Integrated Library Management System (ILMS), and augment with the required loading, duplicate checking and product procedures.

2. Base Kinetica on an available resource discovery package and develop in-house the additional required functionality.

3. Base Kinetica, either wholly or partially, on an external service provider model- like OCLC.

Most discussion turned around the pros and cons of options 1 and 2, with option 3 considered likely to be quite expensive. It quickly became clear that the functionality and cost profiles of each option were quite different, and the Noffered to bring some new comparative information to the Workshop the following morning.

At this point the Workshop adjourned.

Topic 9. Technology directions(continued)

The morning session began with the Ntabling a paper comparing the high level cost components of Options 2 and 3, and the following points were made:

  • All models under discussion were centralised models. The distributed or decentralised model was considered "an idea for the future"
  • Some of the high classifications allocated to Option 2 could upon further analysis turn out to be medium
  • Option 2 was considered innovative and attractive - provided it turned out to be feasible and capable of attracting resources
  • Integration of Option 2 with public library catalogues could depend on the degree to which Z39.50 was supported by local systems, and it was quite likely that public libraries might have firewall issues already addressed by large rlibraries
  • Option 1 might lend itself to the application service provider model with remote access to application and database
  • In relation to option 1, in order to answer the inevitable question 'Why have yet another ILMS?', the characteristics of a network system, specific to the NBD, would need to be emphasised
  • Option 2 carried distinctive technical (risk inherent in major software development project) and political (funding approval for build vs buy options) risks - although it was acknowledged that whilst there were risks associated with one-off applications, there were also risks associated with proprietary systems. Risks for Option 2 could be mitigated by carrying over software functionality from the current system.

The Committee next framed and passed:

Recommendation 2

That in order to assist the Nto meet the new service directions identified in Recommendation 1, the Kinetica Advisory Committee recommends a study to identify the relative functionality and cost aspects of Options 1, 2 & 3. This study should address issues such as responsiveness to service requirements, costs over five years, and general sustainability for the Nand the library community.

Topic 4. Changing information production

The Workshop was asked to consider whether the current strategy of integrating print and electronic resources is the desired future scenario.

Following a brief discussion the Workshop endorsed the role of the NBD for resource discovery and delivery, and endorsed the current strategy of encompassing print and electronic resources as the desired future scenario.

Topic 5. Complexity and cost of the service

The Workshop was asked to consider a Kinetica with significantly less functionality, lower levels of quality control, less support and lower cost.

Participants found no desirable trade off between record quality and cost, and noted that quality of records and accuracy of holdings data were vital for the continued utility of the NBD. It was noted that improving the speed of update, and encouraging customer involvement in quality considerations were potentially productive avenues.

Topic 6. Kinetica users

It was considered that end user access had already been covered in earlier discussions on Kinetica services, and the Workshop moved straight on to the next topic.

Topic 7. Pricing

The Nraised the possibility of new pricing models for any new system.

It was the view of the Workshop that pricing needs to be looked at in the context of the new service model(s) proposed, and it was noted that the report of the Pricing Working Group would be discussed at the Kinetica Advisory Committee meeting which took place on the afternoon of 13 March.

Further, the National Library commented that its objective was recovery of direct costs from customers, with indirect costs being met under statutory obligations. It was noted that a new system would bring new costs, and additional costs duringany period of parallel running.

Topic 8. Chinese, Japanese and KoreanDatabase

The Nsought comment on the desirability of migrating the CJK database to the same platform as theNBD.

The Workshop responded by acknowledging a series of significant implementation issues, but nevertheless endorsing the concept of an integrated NBD, running on the same technical platform with the NBD.

Topic 10. New service

Patricia Scott outlined an opportunity for the development of a new names and subject authority service, and the Workshop suggested such a service could be specified and costed in any move to a new platform. Patricia agreed to produce an outline issues paper, with input from the NLA, in time for the Committee's next meeting.

Kinetica business plan

The Nadvised that theKinetica Business Plan would be revised in the light of outcomes from theStrategic Workshop.

There being no outstanding issues, the Workshop reviewed progress against the objectives set in the opening session, discussed next steps with documentation, and thenclosed at 12:15pm on 13 March with all tasks completed.

Ian McCallum

14 March 2003




Kinetica Advisory Committee paper
KAC/2003/2/5

KINETICA AUTHORITIES SURVEY

Introduction

Following the report ofthe Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery in 2002, a survey has been conducted to ascertain the level of authority work being undertaken in local library systems, but not included in the National Bibliographic Database(NBD).

It clearly illustrated the significant quantity of authority work carried out on local systems only, and therefore lost to the NBD and to other Australian libraries. The survey results are also consistent with statistics derived from the Kinetica Amicusdatabase.

This report identified the many complex issues associated with authorities and the NBD, in particular:

  • placing priority on the creation and maintenance of Australian authority records;
  • further facilitating the contribution of authority data from those customers who already contribute the majority of data;
  • addressing the low awareness of authority maintenance;
  • investigating the potential alternatives for input of data; and
  • investigating an alternative option for Kinetica products.

There are no simple answers to the issues relating to maintaining or improving authority control on the NBD. Advice from the Kinetica Advisory Committee would be welcomed.

Points fordiscussion:

  • the survey and this report indicate NBD authority files are still wanted and valued;
  • how to encourage authority data contributions to the NBD;
  • how to acquire authority data currently on local library systems so the data can be added to the NBD.

Recommendation:

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee considers the Report

Kinetica Database Services

Contact: Margaret Kennedy

(02) 6262 1129

21 July 2003




Contents


Executive Summary

In August 2002 the final report of the Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery was tabled and discussed at the Kinetica Advisory Committee meeting. One of the ensuing recommendations of the Committee was that a follow-up survey be conducted to ascertain the level of authority work being undertaken in local library systems, but not included in the National Bibliographic Database (NBD).

This second survey was conducted in June 2003. The findings of the survey were very similar to those of the previous survey. Both clearly illustrated the significant quantity of authority work carried out on local systems only, and therefore lost to the NBD and to other Australian libraries. The survey results are also consistent with statistics derived from the Kinetica Amicus database.

The 2003 Survey results indicate that:

  • extensive authority work is carried out, especially in state and national libraries and academic libraries, and by library service providers;
  • the overwhelming proportion of authority work is carried out just on local systems, the major factors being staff resources, library policies and priorities, and in the academic sector, avoiding duplication of work;
  • use of the Kinetica Cataloguing Client and lack of a batch uploading facility were also seen to be limiting factors in non-contribution of authority data to the NBD;
  • currency of data in the NBD is seen to be a problem;
  • many libraries source authority data from elsewhere, mainly from the Library of Congress (LC); and
  • some responses indicated a level of confusion about what authority data is, and failed to distinguish between the number of titles added to their databases, or the number of headings automatically generated in their local systems when new bibliographic records were added to the system, and the number of authority records added to the system.

The decline in contribution of authority data to the NBD is of considerable concern. In the year 2002/2003 NBD statistics indicate that only 1605 new authority headings were added to the NBD. Of these 1160 (or over 72%) were added by the National Library and four State libraries, and 180 (or 11%) by a small number of academic libraries. A comparison of these figures with the estimated number of new authority headings created on local systems, 2,933,784 (sourced from survey responses; not to be considered reliable - see last dot-point above), is indicative of the extent of the problem.

This Report recommends that a number of possible solutions be examined to improve the level of contributions. Such an examination should include a cost-benefit analysis of each option in providing a high quality and relevant service to Kinetica customers. Options may include the following:

  • focusing on Australian authority data. Non-Australian authority data is readily available from other sources (including Library of Congress Subject Headings and Name Authorities via KineticaWeb from Research Libraries Group (RLG));
  • entering into an agreement with the National and State libraries (who contribute more than 90% of authority data to the NBD) to facilitate the acquisition of national or state-specific data from these libraries for the NBD.
  • launching a publicity and promotion campaign to educate Australian libraries about the benefits of an Australian authority file, Kinetica authority record standards and the types of services Kinetica can offer. Promote existing Kinetica support for authority data - searching via Client, KineticaWeb and Z39.50; downloading via Z39.50 or email/ftp to a local file;
  • offering a range of products more tailored to the provision of Australian authority data to Kinetica customers (eg only records with references ornotes);
  • considering the development of an alternative means of online input of authority records (eg Web update);
  • considering the development of an unlinked authority file which supports batchloading and matching of authority records;
  • providing financial means to increase the volume of authority data on the NBD.

Some of the options detailed above are considered problematic. The option, of providing analternative means of authority data input, would be of limited value. As stated in the report, the reluctance to use the Kinetica Cataloguing Client is not considered to be the primary factor in the decision to use local systems for authority work. The major factors are identified in responses as resourcing and workflow issues and library priorities.

The option of batchloading of authority data is problematic as it is much more complex than batchloading bibliographic data. Authority records have very few reliable match points. If the Authority file is to be linked to the NBD bibliographic file then accurate matching also requires a comparison of the bibliographic record(s) linked to the database heading (or authority) and those linked to the incoming authority records, and of course the incoming authority records will not be accompanied by bibliographic records. This scenario may also require matching of an incoming authority record with only a heading (not an authority record) on the NBD. If batch loading of authority data from Kinetica customer libraries is to be attempted then an unlinked authority file may be the only practical option. Irrespective of the approach taken, batch loading of authority data could impact on the degree of duplication in the NBD, and would result in a significant increase in resources required for database cleanup and manual review.

A combination of options is recommended. Our major contributors of authority data are the national and state libraries. Working closely with the these libraries and acknowledging the contribution they make to the NBD, even to the extent of providing monetary incentives for the contribution of authority data, would reward those libraries who currently contribute in excess of 90% of authority data to the NBD, and would encourage those who do not currently contribute. The contributions of these libraries would provide a unique, comprehensive, reliable and up to date source of Australian authority data for libraries, and costs could be passed on with the availability of a range of Australian authority products that would be of relevance to them. This is a market that is not adequately served by other sources of authority data. Meanwhile, we can concentrate on encouraging contribution of bibliographic and holdings data from all Kinetica customers,both online and via Batch*Link, in the interests of resource sharing.

Background

In 2002 the Kinetica Expert Advisory Group on Authority Record Delivery (EAGAD) conducted a survey of Kinetica users and reported on a range of issues relating to authorities and the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). The final report of the group is available online at

http://www.nla.gov.au/librariesaustralia/eag_ad.html.

One of the EAGAD recommendations was "That a more extensive survey be conducted to identify the volume of authority records created on local systems, and to determine the extent of the market for NBD authority records".

The 2003 survey has been carried out to gather information on the extent of authority work being undertaken in Australian libraries on their local systems. The results of the survey provide a valuable base for the National Library and Kinetica Advisory Committee to consider the scope and range of issues relating to authority work that needs to be addressed in the future. This Report outlines the results of the survey.

Respondents

Seventy-four respondents completed the 2003 survey. Of these, twenty-seven responses were received from academic libraries, nine from government libraries, seventeen from public libraries, one from a school library, eight from special libraries, six from state and national libraries, and six library service providers.

Figure 1: Respondents by Library Type

Some respondents did not comfortably fit into any of the categories listed on the form; these have been separated into the additional category of Library Service Providers.

Summary of responses to the 2003 Survey

  • There is a strong correlation between the results of the 2002 and 2003 surveys. Both drew responses from more than seventy Kinetica users[1], representing a range of library types, and both surveys highlighted similar issues regarding the contribution of authority data to the NBD, and the use of the NBD as a source of authority data.
  • Most of the respondents from State/National libraries (five of six) and Library Service Providers have authority policies (five of five). Five of seventeen public libraries, eight of twenty-seven academic libraries, five of seventeen public libraries and three of eight special and school libraries also had policies[2]. Only one government library respondent (of nine) stated that the library had an authority policy. Some respondents stated that they realised the need for an authority policy, and were developing the policy at present.
  • There was clearly a lack of understanding of what authority control entails.Consequently there were inconsistencies in responses to a number of questions relating to authority control. Only thirty-seven of the seventy-four respondents gave a positive response to the question of whether they carried out authority control. However, sixty respondents claimed to carry out authority control on their local system, and fifteen claimed to carry out authority control on the NBD. From some of the comments on authority control, it appears that some respondents considered that the automatic generation of headings when new records were created on or downloaded to the local system constituted authority control.
  • Library service providers would appear to carry out the most rigorous level of authority work on behalf of their clients. Authority work in academic libraries is thorough and far-reaching, with many of the respondents checking all new headings and carrying out necessary authority work on them. In addition, on-going maintenance work is carried out to resolve conflicts. While authority work in academic libraries is considered desirable, even essential, several respondents cite a lack of resources as the reason for limiting their authority work to conflict resolution only.
  • The situation is similar in State/National libraries. In addition, there appears to be little authority work carried out on headings created as a result of copy cataloguing, because of lack of professional staff.
  • The most significant factors identified by respondents that limit their authority work to the local systems are:
    • staff resources
    • library priorities
    • avoiding duplication of work (academic sector)
    • lackof staff skills (Public sector ).
    • many other factors, including cataloguing client issues, lack of uploading and downloading facilities, and the need to use local or specialist thesauri.(These are detailed in Appendices 3 and 4)
  • Most respondents cite their authority sources as Library of Congress (LC) Subject Headings and Library of Congress Name Authorities (from LC, OCLC, or Validator), and Kinetica for Australian headings. There are some local practices and thesauri in place, especially in public libraries (eg local headings for local history), special libraries, school libraries (fiction headings) and library service providers (SCIS).
  • Some respondents were unaware of the facility to acquire authority data from the NBD via Z39.50 or via ftp/email from Stored records in KineticaWeb.
  • Most respondents see themselves carrying out the same amount of authority work ontheir local systems, or the NBD/CJK systems, in the future as they do now.
  • Thirty-one respondents predict that the level of authority work on their local system will increase, and two predicted that their level of authority work on the NBD/CJK systems would decrease.
  • Only a small proportion of respondents (eleven) have purchased authority recordsfrom Kinetica / ABN previously, and the same number state that they maypurchase these files in future. Ten sites (half of them academic libraries)have purchased authority files from other sources, mainly from the Library ofCongress
  • Amuch greater proportion (thirty-three sites) have used Z39.50 or copied andpasted individual records from various sources. Once again the predominantsource is Library of Congress.

Issues arising from the survey

The issues relating toauthority work can be broken down into the following categories:

  • Non-contribution of data to the NBD, and the loss of consequent efficiencies inthe ability to share and reuse data;
  • The changing environment, including local system issues, other sources of data, changes in libraries;
  • Input and output issues, including client issues, downloading and/or uploading facilities, and products;
  • Data quality; including adherence to standards, currency of data, Library of Congress versus Kinetica headings, and the importance of an up-to-date andaccurate Australian authority file, especially for Australian names.

Non-contribution of data to the NBD

From the survey responses it would appear that academic libraries and library service providers are the most prolific sectors when it comes to the creation and editing of authority data on their local systems. This is not surprising, given the number of respondents from academic libraries, and the fact that several have added large files of authority data (from LC) to their local systems, and given that library service providers undertake work on behalf of a considerable number of other libraries. Data from public and special libraries would appear to be unreliable; comments indicate that some sites actually counted the number of titles acquired and catalogued onto their local system as constituting new title authority records. Most of these sites did not count name, subject and title authorities separately.

The more telling factor is the comparison of the statistics[3] for the creation of authority records on local systems as compared to those for the creation of authority records on the NBD, with 2,933,784 new authority records added tolocal systems[4] over the last year, compared with 3,647 added to the NBD. The statistics for changes to authority records are also disparate, with 45,0941 [5] on local systems, and 2,400 on the NBD. A summary of responses can be found in Appendix 2. It should be noted that there is a discrepancy between the figures from the survey and those extracted from the NBD. [6] Whichever figures are considered, there is demonstrably a significant amount of authority control happening in local systems, which is lost to the NBD, and to other Kinetica users.

Figure 2: Authority Work on Local System,NBD and CJK

Changing environment and resourcing issues

The survey responses highlight a number of factors behind the decision of many libraries to carry out authority work on their local system, instead of on theNBD. These factors include:

  • the improved functionality of local systems to support authority data;
  • the pressure on staff resources in libraries;
  • the need to be more efficient and integrate work processes;
  • the need to avoid duplication of effort by doing work on different systems; and
  • use of other authority data sources being perceived to be more cost-effective for libraries than having scarce staff resources creating authorities on-line.

Figure 3: Factors limiting authority work tolocal system

The result is that a significant proportion of authority data is not shared with the Australian library community, because it resides on local systems, insteadof in the NBD, where it could be used by all.

While carrying out cataloguing and all associated work on local systems may be see nby many to be the most efficient way of ensuring that the data is available on the local system quickly, the benefits of resource sharing, including the availability of sharable authority data, would appear to have a lower priority. Most sites appear to appreciate the benefits of sharing bibliographic data; contribution of this data, especially via batch load, continues to grow. This growth is important to ensure that adequate bibliographic and locations data is available to underpin interlibrary loan and other resource sharing activity. For authority data, however, both the number of contributors, and the level of contribution of authority data continue to shrink, with only approximately 40 libraries contributing or editing authority data in 2002-2003.

Input and output issues

The output of Kinetica authority records to local systems is not a problem. Records can be copied from Kinetica using Z39.50, or via the ftp or mailing of saved records from KineticaWeb. Files of records can be requested via the Kinetica Authority Records Service. Some changes have been suggested to both the output of authority records (eg an RMR facility like that for MARC bibliographic records, which triggers downloading of the record via TPS*DLL orMARCLink).

Some suggestions have been forthcoming on the Kinetica Authority Record Service, and the need to be more flexible in providing files that meet the requirements of users (eg Australian name headings only, only records with notes and references). The Kinetica Authority Records Service already provides files of Australian authority headings only, including Name authorities only. It is timely to both advertise the products we already offer, and review the range of existing products to determine what use is currently made of the service, and whether the availability of alternative products would increase the use of theservice.

While many libraries have opted to contribute bibliographic and holdings data via Batch*Link, this option is not available for authority data. The Kinetica Cataloguing Client is the only means of contributing authority data to the NBD,and people are reluctant to use this interface. As stated above, the use of local systems in preference to the Cataloguing Client is very much a workflow efficiency measure in libraries, and a proportion of the libraries currently using their local system for authority work have stated their willingness to add this data to the NBD, should a means of batch loading become available.

Batchloading of authority data is a complex issue. Bibliographic records have a number of match points, some more reliable than others; yet batch loading of bibliographic data via Batch Link has resulted in an increase of duplicate records on the NBD, and a significant increase in the number of records requiring manual review. Authority data has very little in the way of reliable match points. If the data has been downloaded from the NBD, edited, and then uploaded, it will have an Amicus number, but new records from local systems will not have an Amicus number. Incoming authority records will be matched against headings, not authority records. Minor differences in punctuation orcoding (eg a period or space in the wrong place, or an incorrect subfield code), could result in a duplicate record in the Authorities database.

Accurate matching of incoming authority data would also requirecomparison of the bibliographic record(s) linked to the database heading orauthority, and those linked to the incoming authority records, and there willbe no incoming linked bibliographic records linked to the authority recordsbeing loaded.

If batch loading of authority data is considered, the incoming data will require to be matched against an Australian authority file that is not linked to NBD bibliographic records and headings. This means the creation of a 'standalone' authority file.

However, if the NBD is to stay relevant as a reliable source of Australian authority data, some investigation of alternative input options should take place. In addition, Kinetica needs to stress the importance of resource-sharing, not just in an "it's the right thing to do" framework, but in the context that contribution of high quality data enriches the NBD, making it more up to date and relevant, and making authority data easily accessible to all (and subsequently more cost effective than the current situation, ie each library duplicating the work being done by others, each on their own local system.

Data quality

A number of respondents questioned the quality and currency of authority records on the NBD.

Criticism of the currency of data is probably well-founded, given the small number of libraries that contribute to and maintain authority data on the NBD for others to use. In the words of one survey respondent:

'Many libraries, like us, are not contributing as much as we should, hence the records are not as current as they need to be.'

Criticism of data quality, on the other hand, is not so well founded. Some respondents to the 2003 survey remarked on the need for Kineticato 'follow LC' and 'follow LCSH practice'. Some responses also refer to inconsistencies within headings in bibliographic records on the NBD.

Kinetica does follow LC practice for authority headings. Kinetica practice is described on the Kinetica Website athttp://www.nla.gov.au/librariesaustralia/standards.html.Variations to 'LC practice' occurs in the case of Australian Name and Subject headings, where an Australian extension of LC headings is maintained. In the case of subject headings, every effort is made to minimise conflict with LC headings. As stated on the Kinetica Website:

The future development of the Australian extension to LCSH should take account of the changing environment of Australian cataloguing. Australian libraries are obtaining their cataloguing data from a variety of sources (Kinetica, overseas databases, library supplier databases) and they need to contain the cost of maintaining the authority files in their local systems. Accordingly, the development of the Australian extension to LCSH should follow these guidelines:
  1. Where a term already exists in LCSH, an equivalent Australian term may be adopted as a reference to the LCSH term. Australian terminology should not be substituted for synonymous LCSH terms.
  2. Australian subject headings which have previously been substituted for existing LCSH terms, should be reviewed in order to reduce the variations from LCSH. The review should take into account the cost of converting back to standard LCSH, which may outweigh the savings of being consistent with LCSH.
  3. The Australian subject headings which have already been adopted, should be continuously monitored for opportunities to reduce the variation from LCSH.

In the case of Name headings, the following statement applies:

Kinetica will follow the form of heading established in the Library of Congress Name Authorities (LCNA). LCNA will take precedence over name, title and series headings which have already been verified as authorities in ABN or Kinetica, and these headings may be retrospectively changed to conform with LCNA.

An exception will be made for Australian name, title and series headings, because authority records for Australian names, titles and series will usually be established earlier and more accurately by Australian libraries. Therefore, authorities for Australian names, titles and series, which conform to AACR and the Library of Congress rule interpretations, should not be changed retrospectively simply to conform with LCNA.

In order to improve the quality of Australian name, title and series headings in LCNA, the National Library of Australia will offer to the Library of Congress a file of Australian name authorities. To enable Australian headings to be identified within Kinetica, they should be coded as follows:

USMARC field 008, character position 10, code 'z'

This is a valid USMARC code signifying 'other descriptive cataloguing rules', but will be converted to 'c' on output from Kinetica, as the headings will conform with AACR2.

Data Contribution

The following table details contributors of authority data to the NBD between July 2002 and June 2003. By far the greatest contributors are the National and State Libraries, with 88% of authority record additions, changes and deletions being carried out by the National Library, State Library of New South Wales, State Library of Tasmania and the State Library of Victoria. The next largest group of contributors is the academic library sector, with 4.4% of additions, changes and deletes contributed by thirteen universities and the South Australian TAFE network.[7].

Library Type

 

New

 

New %

 

Changed

 

Changed %

 

Deleted

 

Deleted %

 

Total

 

Total %

 

National/State

 

1160

 

72.3

 

8450

 

94.5

 

224

 

36.4

 

9834

 

88

 

Academic

 

180

 

11.2

 

158

 

1.8

 

154

 

25

 

492

 

4.4

 

Government/Special

 

48

 

3

 

15

 
 

2

 
 

65

 
 

Public

 

4

 

0.2

 

5

 
 

1

 
 

10

 
 

Kinetica Administration

 

26

 

1.6

 

28

 
 

235

 

38.1

 

289

 

2.6

 

Other[8]

 

187

 

11.7

 

290

 
 

0

 
 

477

 
 

Total

 

1605

 

100

 

8946

 

96.3

 

616

 

99.5

 

11167

 

95

 

Figure 4: Contribution to authority work on NBD by library type

The contribution of authority data has been an ongoing issue, both for Kinetica and the ABN Network in February 1989 foreshadowed that, with the increasing availability of local library systems,by 1995:

'…software support for cataloguing transactions would be decentralised onto local systems. ….It will be quite difficult to maintain a national authority file in a decentralised manner. Authority control work involves the resolution of conflicting records, the merging of records and the updating of records, more than it involves the creation of new records. It would be much easier to manage this by reference to a centralised authority file. I envisage a small group of major libraries, perhaps 20 to 30 in all participating in this process…'[9]

This prediction would appear to have been correct. An examination of the growth of authority data from 1990 to the present shows a steady decline in contribution of authority data, with the decline being more significant from 1994.

It is also worth noting that during the early 1990s a considerable amount of authority work was outsourced to a number of contractors, particularly authority work on government names (National, State and local government)[10]

Figure 5: Growth in authority records

The decline in authority work on the NBD[11] cannot therefore simply be attributed to a reluctance to use the Kinetica Cataloguing Client, which only came into use in 1999. In ABN days, authority work was cumbersome, with transactions passing through a 'Nitely' process to load it to the database. When complex authority work was in progress (eg merging duplicate authority records), it could take many days, waiting for Nitely to process each change before the next step could be undertaken. This process was much more cumbersome and labour-intensive than using the Kinetica Cataloguing Client.

It would appear that the decline in authority work on the NBD is, to a much greater extent, due to other factors outlined above. Decreasing resources, lack of skills, the availability of authority data from other sources, and shrinking library budgets make it appear to be more cost-effective, at face value, to buy in whatever data is available, and to either carry out other authority work on the system, or to avoid it altogether

Conclusion

While the 2003 survey has failed to deliver reliable and consistent results in some areas, it can still be taken as being indicative of the high proportion of authority work being undertaken in local systems as opposed to the NBD. The continuing downward trend constitutes a significant risk to the long tradition of resource sharing in the Australian library environment, as far as authority data is concerned, and casts doubt on the credibility of the NBD authority files as the definitive source of Australian authority data.

There are some major issues to be considered in determining the future of the NBD as the definitive source of reliable and up-to-date Australian authority data. The first of these is whether NBD authority data is still relevant to, and valued by the Australian library community, and indeed valued as a component of an international authority file, such as the Virtual International Authority File,or the Anglo-American Authority File. The use of Kinetica as a source of Australian authority data by most survey respondents would appear to indicate that the NBD is still valued.

If the NBD authority file is still seen to be relevant and valued, there are two further issues; the first being to examine what can be done to encourage Australian libraries to contribute to the NBD authority files, and the second to determine what can be done to acquire and load the wealth of Australian authority data currently residing only on local systems.

This Report assumes that the NBD authority file is still valued, and recommends the consideration of a range of factors that may motivate Australian libraries to become active partners in resource sharing of Australian authority data by contributing their authority data to the NBD. Consideration should be given to alternative methods of enabling this contribution to occur, as well as the possibility of some form of recognition and/or incentive for the contribution of data. Since the overwhelming proportion of authority data is contributed to the NBD by the National and some State libraries, it would appear logical to target this group of libraries in considering encouraging or rewarding contributions.

If the quality of the NBD is improved by increased contributions of Australian authority data, especially by the State libraries who are currently not contributing, the NBD will provide a unique and valued source of data for Australian libraries. The costs of any incentives provided to contributing libraries could be offset by the vigorous marketing of a revised range of products to Australian libraries, which would be relevant to their needs (as outlined in the 2003 survey responses), and could form part of the proposed Australian National Bibliography service.

In addition, themarketing campaign should be aimed at convincing libraries of the value of the NBD as an immensely important shared asset, and fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility for the NBD as a whole, and not just as a unique repository of Australian bibliographic and holdings data.

Appendices

  1. Respondents by Library Type
  2. Amount of authority control - local systems and NBD/CJK
  3. Limiting factors in carrying out authority control only on local systems
  4. Limiting factors - Summary of comments
  5. Future intentions for authority work
  6. Future intentions - Summary of comments
  7. Use of Kinetica Authority Records Service
  8. Kinetica Authority Records Service - Summary of comments
  9. Other sources of authority data
  10. General comments
  11. NBD authority activity 2002/2003
  12. Survey Instrument

Appendix 1: Respondents by Library Type

Library Type

Number of respondents

Academic

 

27

 

Government

 

9

 

Public

 

17

 

School

 

1

 

Special

 

8

 

State/National

 

6

 

Library Service Provider

 

6

 

Total

 

74

 

Appendix 2: Amount of authority control - local systems and NBD/CJK

Library Type

Number of respondents by library type

Authority control on local system

ILMS New Total

ILMS Amend Total

Authority control on NBD

NBD New Total

NBD Amended Total

Number who carry out authority control on CJK

Authority Work on ILMS and NBD/CJK

Academic

 

27

 

24

 

2847783

 

254324

 

8

 

437

 

1958

 

1

 

6

 

Government

 

9

 

4

 

2227

 

2830

 

1

 
 

23

 

0

 

2

 

Public

 

17

 

16

 

25681

 

3422

 

1

 
 

10

 

0

 

2

 

School

 

1

 

1

 

3300

 
 

0

 
   

0

 

1

 

Special

 

8

 

6

 

160

 

2552

 

0

 
   

0

 
 

State/National

 

6

 

4

 

13275

 

172465

 

4

 

3210

 

299

 

0

 

2

 

Library Service Provider

 

6

 

5

 

41358

 

15348

 

1

 

50

 

110

 
   

Total

 

74

 

60

 

2933784

 

450941

 

15

 

3647

 

2400

 

1

 

13

 

Appendix 3: Limiting factors in carrying out authority control on local systems only

Library Type Academic Government Public School Special State/National Library Service Provider
Respondents by library type 27 9 17 1 8 6 6
Authority control on local system 24 4 16 1 6 4 5
Limiting factors-Staff resources 15 3 13   4 2 2
Limiting factors-Staff skills 5   10   2 1  
Limiting factors-Library priorities 14 2 12 1 4 3 2
Limiting factors-NBD search costs 7 3 4   2 2 1
Limiting factors-Duplication of work 15   3   1 1 3
Limiting factors-Local system issues 3   4        
Limiting factors-Local system practices 3   6 1 3 3 2
Limiting factors-Other 13 1 2 1 2 2 3
Other - Too expensive to use contract cataloguer   1          
Other- No way to contribute without Cat. Client         1    
Other - No facility to merge auth. Records both ways           1  
Other- Have not considered. Plan to upload bib & holdings         1    

Appendix 4: Limiting factors- Summary of comments

(Some comments have been combined, and names of libraries and library systems removed. Otherwise comments from respondents have not been edited.)

  1. Academic libraries
    • Cataloguing Client: awkward; slow response times, limited number of licenses;difficulty of working with name-title headings; difficulty of resolving variants and duplicate forms (a number of responses)
    • Local system: ability to import authorities will mean extra cost and generate duplicate headings (use and maintenance issue)
    • We concentrate on headings where we have specialist information and/or information to resolve conflicts etc.
    • As part of a larger system, we follow their policy and practice.
    • If we were to do authority work, it would be within our local system.
      Unlikely to do it because of lack of staff resources, priorities within the library, and duplication of work.
    • Authorities created on Kinetica cannot be downloaded.
    • NBD is not used for cataloguing so there's no reason to use it for authority work, also our local system offers considerable advantages for cataloguing and authority work.
    • We follow US NAF for non-Australian headings and RLG Z39.50 is so fast; could not justify time to duplicate this work on the NBD.
    • Not a contributing member for records, just for holdings. Authority work usually involves changing subject headings listed in the Cataloguing Service Bulletin.
    • Some work is done on the NBD, especially for Australian headings and conflicts or incorrect headings that we have imported with bibs.
    • Most work is done by importing LC or Kinetica authority records
    • Where work is done for non-Australian headings, it is mostly done on the local system only. Incorrect authorities are reported to LC for non-Australian headings.
      We do not use non-standard headings or local notes. All is done to standards and worth sharing.
      It would seem more efficient to do our own authority work (several responses)
    • In the case of the CJK database, our staff who have the language knowledge to work in the system have no authority work training or experience.
    • Inability to conveniently upload to the NBD the work done in the local system (using headings from Validator).
    • We do not follow Kinetica Authorities.
    • We have always batch loaded our data to the NBD and there has never been afacility to merge authority records both ways. We have never worked online witheither ABN or Kinetica. Our adherence to LC standards has precluded our contribution to some extent.
  2. Government libraries
    • Clean ups of old authority data on system are sometimes needed to maintain consistency of local system.
    • Issues as identified, plus too expensive to use contract cataloguer, PLUS no financial incentive for the Library.
  3. Public libraries
    • We only duplicate authority work on the NBD for authorities related to our Local Studies Collection. Staff costs/time prohibit any other authority work on the NBD.
    • Slowness of Client software.
    • Numerous stepsinvolved to make changes.
    • Software isnot user-friendly.
    • Do not contribute cataloguing to the NBD, download records from Kinetica only.
    • We contribute our holdings, but not cataloguing records. Eg, if we purchase a title not held in NBD, we note it and search again later for someone else's record of the item.
  4. School/Special libraries
    • We are a private institution so do not wish to have our holdings listed. We have many resources dating pre WW1 or have the only copies in Australia. These would be requested for inter-loan. We do not have the staff to do this.Reciprocal rights would be of limited benefit to us.
    • We do not use the Cataloguing Client so have no way of performing authority work on the NBD.
    • Speed of doing work on our local system as opposed to doing the same work onthe NBD, i.e. time taken to create an average authority record.
  5. State/National libraries
    • The slowness of the connection. Correcting one authority would take about 10-15 minutes.
    • We do undertake some authority work on the NBD, but it is limited by the above factors.
    • As we plan to contribute our bibliographic and holdings data via BatchLink (or some other utility), we have not considered contributing authority records to the NBD.
  6. Library service providers
    • We have always batch loaded our data to the NBD and there has never been a facility to merge authority records both ways. We have never worked online with either ABN or Kinetica. Our adherence to LC standards has precluded our contribution to some extent.
    • Time required to carry out Kinetica input: this is not the same issue as the costs of searching but it works out as a cost issue also. It is not the staff time so much as the system response time which makes this out of the question.
    • Time/cost of obtaining Kinetica authority records.
    • [Site] add authority records to its own database which is specifically designed for the needs of school libraries.

Appendix 5: Future intentions for authority work

Library Type Academic Government Public School Special State/National Library Service Provider Total
Number of respondents by library type 27 9 17 1 8 6 6 74
Authority control on local system 24 4 16 1 6 4 5 60
Authority control on NBD 8 1 1 0 0 4 1 15
Number who carry out authority control on CJK 1 0 0 0 0 0   1
Local system - Anticipate decrease   1 1   1   1 4
Local system - Anticipate increase 8 4 9   3 6 1 31
Local system - Anticipate same 19 4 7 1 5   4 40
NBD/CJK - Anticipate decrease   1       1   2
NBD/CJK - Anticipate increase 3   2   1 3   9
NBD/CJK - Anticipate same 24 8 15 1 7 2 6 63

Appendix 6: Future intentions- Summary of comments

(Some comments have been combined, and names of libraries and library systems removed. Otherwise comments from respondents have not been edited.)

  1. Academic libraries
    • We see local authority work as taking precedence over NBD, and cataloguers' time is limited
    • Do authority work when feedback from clients and reader services indicate there is conflict or inconsistent name headings.
    • Current library automation system does not allow for downloading of NBD authorities. Due to staffing constraints minimal work is done on local database. We rely on the correct format for headings on the Kinetica records.
    • Following the EAGAD report, University of XX considered the implications of the report for the University library and made recommendations for improvements to the delivery of records. Investigations into the feasibility of these recommendations are currently taking place.
    • This question is almost impossible to answer and is dependent on technicaldevelopments and resources available.
      In third quarter of 2002 we loaded the full retrospective file of Library of Congress Subject Headings to our local system. We have made decisions to use LC headings and not Kinetica variations. Our resourcing priorities must be to our own system.
    • New local system is allowing us to identify authority record gaps more easily,and reports with new system are better for following up problems. This combined with retrospective effort on serial records, and training/permission now given to copy cataloguers to bring in standard authority records where they exist,should mean that additional authority records are utilised as part of normal workflows. We believe we do sufficient for our purposes.
    • With implementation of new functionality in ILS, the ease of loading authority files should enable an increase in authority work.
    • We want to "clean up" our name headings, some of which are abbreviated andinadequate, having migrated from an earlier inventory file.
    • Improvement to local ILMS.
    • Our current practices are perhaps not ideal but they do work and we are notanticipating any major changes in the foreseeable future.
  2. Government libraries
    • Unlikely that any staff losses will be replaced and authority work would be of low priority with reduced staff.
    • We have only begun creating authorities within the past year and aim to have our entire database under authority control within two years. This is a major project for our cataloguing team.
    • Training in authority work, and on the Kinetica database.
    • I hope to be able allocate staff time to this job.
    • An upgrade to our system will make authority work easier. Currently, local system issues inhibit our doing authority work.
  3. Public libraries
    • The implementation of a new library management system will facilitate authority work.
    • Hopefully staff time will be available to raise the priority.
    • The authority work on our local database has not been done for years, needs to be cleaned up.
    • Upgrade of local system allowing easier use of authority control programs.Change to windows based system requiring more authority work.
    • Delivery of catalogue over the Web.
    • Access to global change facility in new system. Currently this is planned for the next year.
    • Current project to clean up authority files prior to and following a system upgrade. Names complete, started on subjects. Following this, general maintenance only expected as part of normal cataloguing task.
    • Cataloguing backlog has gone - more time to do authority work.
    • New library management system and changed work practices.
    • Still cleaning up the database after merging 3 libraries catalogues 7 years ago.
    • Need to serve public well, and know that current local authorities are in a parlous state
  4. School/Special libraries
    • URL cataloguing.
    • We're in the process of converting our catalogue from XX system to YY system. Many (many) errors have been found and are being cleaned up as part of this (slow) process.
    • We implemented a new LMS 15 months ago and it is only now that the system is properly bedded down that we have the time available to devote to tasks such as authority work. During 2003 this work was a lower priority than other tasks,hence the relatively small number of records created. We have already increased this considerably so far this year and would expect that to continue from now on.
    • We have done a number of retrospective conversions over the past two years and much authority work has resulted from these. I expect the number of new authorities to decrease once this work is completed.
  5. State/National libraries
    • Possible outsourcing of some technical functions freeing up staff to undertake other duties.
    • If the XX transfers its cataloguing operations to [new ILMS], the performance of authority control is likely to also be transferred to [new ILMS].
    • Difficult to assess for a number of reasons. In the last financial year a lot of editing has been due to the migration and data clean up. To the end of 2001 we loaded weekly LCSH tapes and ran reports. To date this has not been possible with the new system. When we are able to do we anticipate another peak inauthority work. Another peak is temporary increased funding for library materials this financial year and the next 2 financial years due to a large extension to the building and increased funding for additional library materials.
    • We are currently setting up the authority record formats we require on our local system, after which we will commence creating authority records in-house as required, as a test phase. Later, we will probably load authority files.
  6. Library service providers
    • Batch contribution would be a major factor that would affect our level of contribution to the NBD.

Appendix 7: Use of the Kinetica Authority Records Service

Library Type

 

Number of respondents by library type

 

Purchased Kinetica authorities previously

 

Likely to purchase Kinetica authorities

 

Academic

 

27

 

6

 

5

 

Government

 

9

 

1

 
 

Public

 

17

 

2

 

3

 

School

 

1

 
   

Special

 

8

 
   

State/National

 

6

 

2

 

3

 

Library Service Provider

 

6

 
   

Total

 

74

 

11

 

11

 

Appendix 8: Kinetica Authority Records Service - Summary of comments

(Some comments have been combined, and names of libraries and library systems removed. Otherwise comments from respondents have not been edited.)

  1. Academic libraries
    • Easy download.
    • Free searches in support of authority work (incl. to select correct authorities).
    • Keeping up with LCNA + LCSH is impossible.
    • If *only* Australian entities had authorities on Kinetica, and they were constructed to NACO standards (names, titles) or LCSH (subjects), we could rely on them and it would be worth making the effort.
    • While standard, maintenance and content of Kinetica authority records falls short of these standards, the NBD can't be taken seriously as a source of Australian authorities.
    • Would use the Kinetica authority record service if it could be easily downloaded into our local system at reasonable cost.
    • Purchasing the authority records is a management issue.
    • A ready-made record would make it easier and less time consuming for us.
    • For new Australian subject headings there is discussion group whereby consensus issought on particular headings. This cannot be done by individual libraries. A central system would be better.
    • If Kinetica authorities were maintained and kept up to date.
    • We did purchase authority files from ABN which formed the basis of the authorities in our catalogue, and now we maintain them individually.
    • Direct downloading of headings with 'see refs' into a local system. An accurate file. Kinetica needs a massive clean up and all duplicate and incorrect headings should be removed.
    • Full compliance with LC name and subject authority files.
    • Ability to downline load individual authority records from Kinetica as required.
    • Cost of authority tapes is expensive, in addition there is the cost of setting up a separate load table. When authorities are obtained in these large batches, if any problems occur with the load, the volume of manual corrections can be overwhelming.
    • We have purchased records in the past, we had concerns about their currency and we found some headings purchased as Australian were not in fact Australian. This resulted in considerable unnecessary work for us.
    • Appropriate references must be included, eg 'see' and 'see also' headings ; downloading authorities in real-time would be an advantage.
    • Flagging of authority records for Australian authors to discriminate between these and overseas authors.
    • We chose the LC files rather than Kinetica because of perceived lack o fcompleteness of the files and accuracy of data.
    • Since we can now download Kinetica authorities by Z39.50 we see no reason to use this service in the future.
    • Have not really investigated their use. We check our headings against the free Library of Congress authorities online.
    • The ability to easily identify Australian authorities and immediately capture them. To be able to capture them through the Client when we make changes.
    • The ability to get updated files of Australian headings that are new or have been worked on between last file load against holdings of our library at regular intervals, at a reasonable cost.
    • In general both inputs and outputs are not as easy as they could be.
    • Name/titles are extremely difficult to input or update, and some of the work done on these, especially in the music area, is flawed.
    • Many libraries, like us, are not contributing as much as we should, hence the records are not as current as they need to be.
    • Make it more reliable (i.e. clean up obsolete and duplicate headings and authorities)
    • Improve authorities by encouraging the use of 670 field for citation as in LC practice.
    • Don't change the code for Australian names in the 008 field, position 10 from "z" (other) to "a" (AACR2) when output to file.
    • We have "kick started" our authorities database by loading approx. 400,000 records in 2000. We have deleted some and replaced others by LC authorities.
    • Although we now import most of our LC authority records from RLIN, we still see Kinetica as the preferred source but only for Australian authorities. Quality source of records and ease of loading records onto local system.
    • The availability of individual authority records for downloading into our III system via Z39.50 searching.
    • A listing of Australian name/title authorities limited to those containing notes and references - from which we could select particular records to be included in a customized file.
    • The possible development of an 'RMR' type functionality for authority records from Kinetica to the local system.
    • I'm not sure we can really comment as I don't think we are familiar enough with the service.
    • The ability to download individual authority records (as exists for bibliographic records) and the ability to select a group of related authority records using Boolean search criteria.
    • Complete conformity with LCSH, apart from distinctly Australian headings. Preferably have the latter incorporated into LCSH.
    • Try to blend with usage in the main international system, LCSH. As LCMARC was adopted in place of AUSMARC, so go full-on for conformity with the big international system for authorities. Many efficiencies flow from this.
  2. Government libraries
    • Higher quality records, simpler browse interface enabling fast identification of authorities and ability to mark for download in batch from hit list or browse display.
    • We have had great difficulty locating upper level authorities (i.e.Police). Those we have found have not been detailed enough for ourpurposes.
    • A training course on authority work complete with an interactive hands oncourse on the Kinetica database
    • Cost. When our system is upgraded, we would like to do more authority work andit may be more effective to purchase a file.
  3. Public libraries
    • The ability to flag and download individual authorities in a similar manner to adding holdings to bibliographic records; cost would be an important factor.
    • To be able to include selected authorities from the record which is being downloaded.
    • XX is a fairly small public library service that has a large multicultural community. For this reason our local database does not require the full level of cataloguing for names and subject headings. If possible it would be great if there was an option on Kinetica that would enable us to retrieve records that are aimed or focused for public libraries. Ideally these authorities/headings would just include the "basic" information. This would then result in reduced staff time in editing/amending records on our local database.
      Cost.
      Ability to loadupdates (not the whole file).
      Ability to import complete referencestructure with the heading.
    • Knowledge of the service.
      Need.
      Cost issues.
    • If you could download them and if they were more consistent.
    • Could be better.
    • Ability to match to Local Authority File.
    • If authorities could be downloaded with catalogue records (we only add our ANF holdings to Kinetica, so couldn't select holdings option for batch authorities).
    • For general searching through Kinetica, if searching display and speed was improved, I would use it more as part of the cataloguing process.
    • Currently not a user friendly display and is slow, sometimes doubtful quality and inconsistencies often occur with Kinetica catalogue records downloaded. I prefer to use LC authorities for their speed, quality, extra detail, and userfriendly display.
    • Accuracy of the authorities is an important issue.
    • Reduced costs.
    • Our current library system is not capable of loading Kinetica authoritydata.
    • Free of cost, like Library of Congress would be an excellent incentive.
  4. School/Special libraries
    • Is good now - we just need to clean up our database before we can acquire it.
    • Records may have been purchased prior to 2000, but I haven't been able to find any records saying so.
    • Lower cost.
    • More information in the records, e.g. references, history notes. Many Kinetica authorities seem to lack these although the information often readily exists elsewhere.
    • We use a custom made subject headings list on philanthropy, which we created and maintain in-house. We are looking to undertake a project on extending it to become a 'common language' within the philanthropy sector, but it is not based on any authorities used by Kinetica, but a mixture of local and overseas thesauri/controlled vocabulary lists.
    • Perhaps I'm having a blonde day but what is a "file from the Kinetica Authority Record Service"?
  5. State/National libraries
    • Note: although we create authority records on Kinetica at present, they are not imported to our ILMS due to a system problem. The move to cataloguing on Voyager will involve a load of authority records from Kinetica.
    • More information in the name authorities so that a reasonable judgement can be made as to whether the name relates to the heading in our local database (e.g.670 field - source of info., sources consulted for info.) as well as an indication whether the heading has been evaluated - both of these features are inherent in LC headings. Also the fact that LC authorities are available free of charge makes it less likely that we would consider purchasing Kinetica records when LC headings usually contain more information.
    • Ability to purchase files of authority records limited to those having references or notes.
    • Bibliographic change files should include records which have changes to headings (otherwise when we make corrections on NBD that affect dozens of records, each one has to be downloaded individually!).
    • The ability to use either RTPS/DLL or Marc*Link to download MARC authority records from Kinetica would be a wonderful enhancement. eg add "RMR" function for authority records.
    • We have received excellent service from Kinetica staff each time we have purchased authority files. They have been extremely helpful and delightful to deal with.
    • Ability to purchase customised files, at least those with references and scope notes only, if that matches our future policy. Perhaps NBD authority work could attract a discount for the cost of these files.
    • It would be convenient if the Ncould provide a one stop shop for the acquisition of authority records, so the continuation of this Service would be useful.
  6. VI. Library serviceproviders
    • Selective downloading of records.
    • Could be better.
    • Many more Australian headings for corporate bodies and series. These are our chief need from Kinetica and we are finding fewer and fewer of them.
    • Ability to request headings by this sort of category (eg "All Australian corporate bodies added in the last year").
    • Very competitive pricing.

Appendix 9: Other sources of authority data

Library Type Academic Government Public School Special State/National Library Service Provider Total
Respondents by library type 27 9 17 1 8 6 6 74
Batch load from other sources 5 3     1 1   10
Batch Source - LC 2 2     1     5
Batch Source - OCLC 1             1
Batch Source - LTI 2             2
Batch Source - Blackwell's 1             1
Copy/Paste individual records 18 2 6   3 1 3 33
Copy/Paste Source - LC 11 2 6   3 1 3 26
Copy/Paste Source - OCLC 3         1   4
Copy/Paste Source - Classification Web 1             1
Copy/Paste Source - DRA 2             2
Copy/Paste Source - RLIN via Z39.50 8             8
Copy/Paste Source - Kinetica 5           1 6
Copy/Paste Source - Validator 5             5

Appendix 10: General comments

(Some comments have been combined, and names of libraries and library systems removed. Otherwise comments from respondents have not been edited.)

  1. Academiclibraries
    • I often send corrections and additional information to CPSO at LC, and it's usually accepted.
    • The lack of any Australian participation in NACO is a serious gap in global authority work.
    • I compile the quarterly extract of new and changed LCSH headings for the XX Association, so I'm well aware of the nature and volume of subject authority work in [subjectarea]. Likewise, my colleague here is chief editor of [publication] and is equally aware of such issues and of the Australian angle.
    • Authority record service is extremely important, as this improves the quality of our catalogues by allowing control of headings. As many of our bib. records have links to journal databases and other catalogues in Australia and overseas it is important to get consistency on headings. This improves quality of retrieval.
    • We use Kinetica as the authority for Australian headings only.
    • The library is currently investigating the possibility of importing authority records, via z39.50, from LC on the web.
    • We also occasionally download individual authority records from the NBD.
    • Current staffing resources make it almost impossible to keep up with authority control in the NBD; authority control is done in the local catalogue, and records are changed in the NBD as our library receives a monthly bibliographic changes file - not doing authority work on the NBD would negate our efforts in correcting headings in our local catalogue; training is another issue (it is very difficult to do authority work on name/title headings on the NBD).
    • Minimising duplication of work should be a priority. Uploading from local systems would allow this and also ensure greater timeliness. Kinetica should consider following LC for non-Australian authors.
    • This has not been a priority area for our Library. We think most users depend on keyword searches which are not really dependent on authority control. We follow LCSH practice, so some of our headings vary from Kinetica headings.
    • My staff are really pleased that the Authority Workshop is to be held with the KAUM.
    • Uncertainty has crept in with lack of practice with some cataloguers. A refresher is very welcome.
    • Currently the only way in which we increase the size of the authorities database is by importing records. In 2002 5420 records were imported from RLIN and about 300 from Kinetica via Z39.50
    • The idea of copy authority work (in a similar way to copy cataloguing of bib.records) is an attractive idea.
    • Local system limitations need to be addressed to make this as automated as possible.
    • We do not do this on a routine basis, but could if needed (happens only very occasionally).
    • Although authority control and authority work are considered critically important for consistency and quality of both the NBD and our local database,with staffing/funding constraints authority work cannot be regarded as a priority area of activity. There are few demonstrable links to levels of user satisfaction and catalogue functionality. Our levels of authority work are thus likely to remain minimal.
    • We are oriented to strong support for the NBD and would like to cooperate more.To do this we require facilities which avoid duplication of effort and which provide efficient loading mechanisms.
  2. Government libraries
    • We are currently testing Z39.50 real-time capture of bib and authority records into our system from other library catalogues (Library of Congress).
    • We intend to subscribe to OCLC World Cat next financial year for our authority work.
    • We have additional concerns about:
      1. the numberof incorrect tags and subfields;
      2. problems with the "skip search" option in the Client - changing tags and subfields to agree with the first heading in the authority list.
    • We make every effort to ascertain the correct form for any entry using the "Library of Congress Authorities" website and the authorized form of headings on Kinetica Client, but we do not do the authority work for new entries.
    • At present, only essential authority work is done. If it was a quicker process,our library would probably do more.
  3. Public libraries
    • We have issues relating to blind authorities - subject authority in use with subdivisions only. Could cause problems with importing authority records.
    • Because of the reasons above, authority work is very random onto our local system - new authorities lists are printed each day but dealt with only when time permits. We do respond to reports of difficulties in searches on our catalogue and add references to assist. We have no statistics on the volume ofwork performed.
    • LC authority records are available online and no cost involved, are well maintained and up-to-date.
    • Sorry, difficult to give you much more information than this. But I think it is important to at least advise you.
    • Shortly upgrading our library software, so importing of authority records will be looked at once we find out the system's capabilities.
    • Recently added feature with new library management system.
  4. School/Special libraries
    • Our records were loaded onto Kinetica (batch load) in 2001. As Kinetica records with XX holdings (and generated by XX) are identified as being sub-standard and a better record for the same item exists, Kinetica staff are contacted to seeif they can remove the record and 'clean up' the Kinetica database. As we get more organised in our cataloguing processes and download records from Kinetica, there will hopefully be little need for this to continue. I've inherited an author and subject authority file, but I think that's just from our own catalogue. The majority of our catalogue's records were at one stage downloaded from ABN. Some records were very ordinary but it doesn't seem that the previous librarians amended them. As our library catalogue has grown, the problem has greatly increased, hence the clean up before we commence on a new and hopefully better path. Sorry I couldn't help more.
    • This is a fantastic resource and once the ability to import authority records directly is functioning it will be even better.
    • Very negative responses, but I thought it would still be worth responding, from a small special library point of view.
    • We piggy-back onto the [State Library] system so use their authorities. For new authorities we will look at Kinetica and LC or follow form and create a new entry. [State Library] however follow up and accept/reject our headings.
  5. State/National libraries
    • In the interests of a high-standard database and efficient access to the NBD,the [State Library] is committed to ensuring authorities are correct. Theworkload associated with the maintenance of authorities on our local library system is taking greater staff resources than anticipated when the system wasimplemented and this has reduced our capacity to make a higher contribution toauthority maintenance on Kinetica.
    • In addition,the Kinetica pricing model does not provide the incentives for authority work as did ABN. We are currently investigating batch uploads of bibliographic records to Kinetica but have been advised that uploading of our authorities isnot at present possible. [State Library] does undertake authority work onKinetica, particularly for [State] names, however the complexities and slowness of the cataloguing client relegate this task to a low priority.
  6. Library service providers
    • Above totals include transfer of records from, and subsequent deletion of, incorrect forms of headings. This process is not very streamlined on Kinetica and would be more attractive if it were less unwieldy and time-consuming. In the past year the number of our staff has been drastically reduced, and with this and the amount of time and effort required to undertake authority work, it has tended to become a lower priority amongst our duties.
    • Most authority records are created as original records but very occasionally we will copy/paste or import name headings from LC.

Appendix 11: NBD authority activity 2002/2003

 

New

 

Changed

 

Deleted

 

Total

 

National Library

 

511

 

7835

 

155

 

8501

 

State Library of New South Wales

 

250

 

257

 

23

 

530

 

State Library of Tasmania

 

194

 

186

 
 

380

 

Kinetica Administration

 

26

 

28

 

235

 

289

 

State Library of South Australia

 

127

 

92

 

34

 

253

 

State Library of Victoria

 

78

 

79

 

11

 

168

 

Joint Theological College

 

41

 

46

 

20

 

107

 

University of Adelaide

 

23

 

17

 

38

 

78

 

University of Newcastle

 

25

 

25

 

23

 

73

 

University of NSW

 

16

 

13

 

27

 

56

 

Macquarie University

 

17

 

17

 

5

 

39

 

Flinders University

 

24

 

1

 

13

 

38

 

Australian Department of Treasury

 

30

 

5

 
 

35

 

Victoria University of Technology

 

10

 

11

 

8

 

29

 

Australian Museum Research Library

 

10

 

8

 

1

 

19

 

University of New England

 

6

 

7

 
 

13

 

Edith Cowan University

 

3

 

2

 

8

 

13

 

University of Sydney

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

12

 

SA Institutes of TAFE

 

4

 

6

 

2

 

12

 

Murdoch University

 

4

 

3

 

4

 

11

 

Deakin University

 

3

 

5

 

1

 

9

 

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Studies Library

 

6

 
   

6

 

Sutherland Libraries & InformationService

 

3

 

3

 
 

6

 

City of Botany Bay Library Service

 

1

 

2

 

1

 

4

 

Supreme Court of Victoria

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

3

 

Swinburne University Library

 

1

 

1

 
 

2

 

Supreme Court of NSW, Joint Law CourtsLibrary

 
 

1

 
 

1

 

Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA

 

1

 
   

1

 

State Library of Western Australia

 

1

 
   

1

 

Other [12]

187

 

290

 
 

479

 
 

1606

 

8945

 

615

 

11166

 

Appendix 12: Survey Instrument

SURVEY ON AUTHORITY WORK UNDERTAKEN BY AUSTRALIANLIBRARIES

Name of library *

Type of library StateAcademicSpecialGovernmentPublicSchool*

Othertype, please state

Name *

Telephone number

Email *

Does your library have a policy on authority control? Yes No*

If yes, please outline the key elements of your policy

Do you currently undertake authority work on your local library management system? Yes No *

Name

Subject

Title

Total

Name

Subject

Title

Total

Do you currently undertake authority work on the National Bibliographic Database(NBD)? Yes No *

Name

Subject

Title

Total

Name

Subject

Title

Total

Do you currently undertake authority work on the Australian CJK database?Yes No *

Name

Subject

Title

Total

Name

Subject

Title

Total

Do you currently replicate authority work on your local system and the NBD or Australian CJK database? Yes No *

If you undertake work on your local system but not the NBD or Australian CJK database,what are the factors limiting your authority work on the NBD or Australian CJKdatabase? (You may chose more than one reason) Lack of staff resources available. Lack of staff skills in this area. Priorities in the Library. Costs of NBD searching. Duplication of work. Local system issues. Local system practices e.g. ability to create "non-standard" or institution specific resources or notes relevant to users Other - please specify:

Please specify

If you are not currently undertaking authority work on the NBD, what changes would need to occur to enable your library to undertake authority work on the NBD?

Do you anticipate that over the next 2-3 years your level of authority work undertaken on your local library system will increase / decrease / remain the same *

Comments on the reasons for any future changes in your level of authority work on your local system.

Do you anticipate that over the next 2-3 years your level of authority work undertaken on the NBD or Australian CJK Database will increase / decrease / remain thesame *

Comments on the reasons for any future changes in your level of authority workon the NBD or Australian CJK Database.

Have you purchased authorities from Kinetica (the Kinetica Authority RecordService)? Yes No

Are you likely to purchase a file from the Kinetica Authority Record Service in the future Yes No

What features would make the Kinetica Authorities Record Service more attractive or relevant to your library?

Any comments on the Kinetica Authority Record Service.

Have you batch loaded authority records from any other source/service to your library management system (e.g. OCLC, LC)? Yes No

If you answered yes, from which source?

Do you copy/paste/import individual authority records from any other source/service(e.g. LC authorities on the web, RLG via Z39.50)? Yes No

If you answered yes, from which source?

Further comments:


Kinetica Advisory Committee paper

KAC/2003/2/6

THESES COVERAGE ON THE NATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE

Introduction

Afterthe last Kinetica Advisory Committee (KAC) meeting the results of the survey of theses coverage on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) was forwarded toKAC members. The survey results reported on the coverage of both Australian print and digital theses.

An article in the latest issue of Australian Academic and Research Library(AARL) by Paul Genoni and Roberta Cowan raises further issues in terms of access to Australian theses.

Background

Access to Australian theses has undergone a significant change in the last 30 years. In moving from printed union lists to online access through the NBD and Australian Digital Theses (ADT), many issues have remained the same, primarily obtaining quality data from those organisations that hold theses.

Fundamentally access to theses depends upon being able to identify or find Australian theses, and also being able to effectively request copies. Some of the key questions or issues that need to be considered are listed below.

  • Who holds theses? Australian university libraries clearly collect theses from their higher degree students. Research libraries also have theses including many undertaken by students who have completed their study with overseas institutions undertaking studies with an Australian context or on an Australian topic. National and state libraries have selectively acquired theses either completed by Australians or with subject areas that relate to Australia.
  • Are records created for theses? Most libraries with theses in their collection have created records in their library systems for theses acquired since implementation of an automated library system. A number of libraries (generally not university libraries) have theses which are catalogued only in traditional card catalogues. Records for these materials are not widely available to Australian libraries.
  • To whom are records made available? Generally the records have been shared with resource discovery services. Most theses are reported to the NBD, while digital theses and many print theses are reported to ADT. Australian theses are also covered to an extent in Dissertation Abstracts.

Survey

The 2002 survey of contribution of print and digital Australian theses to the NBD updates surveys carried out previously in 1996 and 1998. The 2002 survey contained a number of new questions to ascertain the level of coverage for both print and electronic theses on the NBD, to determine causes for partial or non-reporting, identify other metadata repositories libraries were using and identify trends that might affect reporting in the future. A full report is attached.

The key findings from the survey follow:

  • 30 of the 38 libraries recorded all their higher degree print theses on the NBD. The remaining eight libraries indicated that they recorded some of their print theses on the NBD, most commonly partial coverage related to retrospective cataloguing backlogs.
  • 10 of the 38 respondents reported that all of their electronic theses were on the NBD and three indicated that they recorded only some of their electronic theses on the NBD. Where the library was also participating in the ADT Program there was some indication that the practice was to provide a URL for the electronic version in the record for the print theses. 26 libraries did notrecord electronic theses on the NBD, primarily because their institutions did not yet collect or receive electronic theses.
  • Most libraries reported future trends would be to implement new software suchas Open Archive Initiative (OAI) for digital theses as a part of any Australian digital theses development.
  • A number of libraries indicated improvement in their reporting of theses since1998. These were predominantly libraries that had previously not supplied theses records to the NBD, and were now contributing some or all of their theses.

Genoni and Cowan article

The article by Genoni andCowan (Genoni, P., and Cowan, R., "Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses: The Future Role of the Australian Digital ThesesProgram", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 34:2, 2003) is attached. It raises many issues such as:

  • the need for an online discovery service for Australian print and digital theses;
  • the need for a service to include all theses undertaken by students in Australian universities;
  • the service should offer accurate searching and enable easy access to theses by fields such as author, title and subject; and
  • the need for consistent quality cataloguing from all universities who would contribute to such a service

Issues

For the NBD, the surveyand the Genoni and Cowan paper highlight the need for further discussion relating to coverage, record quality and access to Australian theses. The Kinetica Advisory Committee could provide valuable input to the National Library on directions in relation to these issues. It may also be appropriate to consider activities that KAC members could undertake to address these issues.

Some of the areas for discussion include the following.

  • Contribution of records. Eight university libraries have only partial eeporting of these on the NBD, mostly due to a retrospective cataloguing backlog. A number of special libraries that have theses are also not full contributors to the NBD. Strategies to identify and encourage contribution of records for this material may be worth considering.
  • Quality of data. The need for consistency in cataloguing of theses, whether metadata or MARC could be further investigated, while the inclusion of abstracts could certainly be encouraged. KAC members may wish to comment on this issue.
  • Ease of searching and visibility of theses data. While these areincluded in the NBD, the ability to search theses requires sophisticated (or perhaps arcane) use of codes. Kinetica is currently working on an Australian interface which would make theses more visible by enabling theses to be selected easily, either by a radio button or drop down menu. Advice from KAC members on the potential for such a service would be beneficial.
  • Contribution of data to ADT. Discussions have been held with key staff from ADT over the possible contribution of records for printed theses from the NBD. The Library has agreed to provide records, however the business model has not been finalised.

KAC members may wish to consider these issues and seek information and views from other libraries before the KAC meeting.

Recommendations

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee discusses the issue of theses coverage on theNBD.

Resource Sharing Division

Contact: Roxanne Missingham

(02) 6262 1143

28 July 2003




Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses: The Future Role of the Australian Digital Theses Program


PAUL GENONI and ROBERTA COWAN

ABSTRACT Australia makes a substantial investment in the production of higher degrees by thesis. Completed theses form an important body of original research data, and underpin the career of many of the nation's leading researchers. There is evidence, however, that there is inadequate bibliographic control of this material, and that as a consequence important research data may be difficult to locate. This article traces attempts to provide access to bibliographic records of Australian theses, highlights the problems with regard to both accessibility and quality of those records, and suggests that these problems might be addressed by an expanded role for the Australian Digital Theses program.

Higher degree (PhD and Masters) theses completed in Australian universities are an important component of the nation's research output. They distil the results of research conducted under supervision across the full range of disciplines, and although not 'published', they have undergone a rigorous form of peer-review courtesy of the requirement that they are examined by recognised subject experts external to the degree granting university. Many of the country's most esteemed academics and researchers have based their careers on the research undertaken for their higher degrees.

Australians as a whole also stand to benefit from the information and knowledge embedded in the corpus of completed theses. Not only do theses comprise a history of an important component of the nation's research activity - in many cases carried out under circumstances and conditions that can never be repeated - but they form an extensive body of research data crucial to attempts to forge a knowledge based economy.

It is therefore an issue of considerable importance that these documents are adequately recorded in easily accessible and searchable bibliographic sources. This task has fallen largely to the nation's university libraries, and although considerable effort has been expended, there is evidence that it has not been wholly successful.

Dr Paul Genoni, Lecturer, Department of Media and Information, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845. Email: p.genoni@curtin.edu.au

Dr Roberta Cowan, Adjunct Lecturer, Murdoch Library and School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University, South St, Murdoch, Perth, Western Australia, 6150. Email: cowan@possum.murdoch.edu.au

81


AARL, June 2003

Investment in Research Training

The Australian community, through the offices of the Commonwealth government, makes a substantial investment in the production of research leading to higher degree completions. Allocation by the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) for the support of the Research Training Scheme in 2003 is $527,399,000, made to 41 Australian higher degree awarding institutions. DEST will provide a further $87,126,000 by way of scholarships under the Australian Postgraduate Award Scheme, and $17,302,000 through the International Postgraduate Research Scholarships for international students to undertake higher degree research at Australian universities.1 In addition these students call upon the time and skills of their supervisors, who represent the most qualified and experienced researchers working in Australian universities.

The number of students undertaking and completing higher degree theses has been growing rapidly. In 1991 there were 19,254 enrolments in higher degree by research programs in Australian universities, and by 2000 this had risen to 37,374. Across the same period higher degree by research completions rose from 2491 to 5325. A total of 26,620 PhD and 15,454 Masters degree theses were completed during the decade from 1991 to 2000.2

Part of the substantial investment in higher degree research is recouped through the process of 'credentialling', whereby graduated PhD students in particular form the basis of the next generation of teachers and researchers in public and private institutions. Their degree is not only evidence of their skills but also a critical part of the process they undertake in order to acquire those skills.

The theses themselves, however, also have a considerable ongoing educational, social and economic value to the country. They form a rich source of original research data covering the entire spectrum of disciplines and subjects. Some of this data is shared with research communities when it is published in journal articles or books, but it is also the case that much of it remains unpublished or published only in an abbreviated and fragmented form. This is increasingly the case in those subject areas - particularly from the humanities - that have traditionally depended upon academic monographs in order to distribute research results. The ongoing decline of the academic monograph, coupled with the ever-growing number of theses being completed means that full-length publication has become the exception. For a growing number of students publication or distribution of the key research outcomes in any form other than the thesis itself is increasingly unlikely.

Universities and their libraries have responded to the need to record and make accessible completed higher degree research by collecting a printed copy of theses (PhD, Masters and in some cases Honours) submitted at each institution. In this way, there is at the very least a copy of the thesis in the


82


Genoni & Cowan: Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses

library of the institution awarding the degree, and a record of that holding in the local catalogue.3

The Problem

Despite the work done by libraries in collecting and recording theses, access to this material currently suffers from the absence of a single, easily accessible bibliographic source providing comprehensive coverage of completed theses.

The foundation publication in this regard was the Union List of Higher Degree Theses in Australian University Libraries. The Union List was produced and published by the University of Tasmania Library and first issued in 1959. The initial publication was supplemented by a number of revisions and annual compilations, with the final volume being issued in 1991, but including coverage to 1989 only. For this substantial period, however, the Union List was the most important bibliographic tool covering Australian theses.

had in part been made necessary by the lack of coverage given to Australian theses by international bibliographies - a situation that continues to this day. The major international source for bibliographic data relating to theses, Dissertations Abstracts International, includes entries from only a small number of Australian universities, although it should be noted that it includes numerous references to theses of Australian relevance produced at non-Australian universities.

was an important location tool but it provided limited subject information. Although it was organised in a classified sequence with a keyword subject index it did not include abstracts - a vital element in assessing the relevance of documents which necessarily deal with complex subjects. The issue of whether to include abstracts in the Union List was a decision which, according to bibliographer Dietricht Borchardt, was 'discussed at great length among librarians and university authorities and in spite of several requests for the inclusion of abstracts or explanatory notes the consensus view was not to burden the editors with the task of preparing such abstracts.4

Union List in 1991 was announced by the University of Tasmania Library in the following manner:

... history and technology have overtaken us in this enterprise and in the future, the responsibility for collecting and disseminating information on Australian higher degree theses will rest with the National Library of Australia, with data on theses recorded on ABN (the Australian Bibliographic Network). The National Library will publish supplements to replace this series. 5

Very shortly after the demise of the Union List the issue of bibliographic and physical access to theses received some attention in the lead up to the Towards Federation 2001 conference, held in March 1992. A Working Paper

83


AARL, June 2003

(no 14) was prepared, highlighting the 'problems in the collection, preservation, bibliographic control and access to a large proportion of the nation's theses'. The problems identified included the poor state of some records provided to the Union List which meant that they could not be loaded to ABN in their existing form; the inadequate subject access that existed without abstracts or some other form of enhanced subject description; and the need for a very high level of physical description which reached 'at least full AACR2 level 2 cataloguing'.6 As with the University of Tasmania Library, the Working Paper envisaged a situation whereby the National Library would undertake the preparation in printed form of an annual list of completed theses.

Despite the issues raised by the Working Paper there is no evidence in the records of Towards Federation 2001 that the matter of theses was discussed at the conference. It is likely that this was because it was widely believed that the National Library would be responsible for continuing to publish a revamped version of the Union List, or that bibliographic access to records via ABN would be sufficient. Unfortunately, the National Library never issued any supplements to the Union List or other form of printed guide to theses, and numerous records of items that were included in the Union List were never converted for inclusion on ABN. Just as troubling, not all Australian universities contributed cataloguing data to ABN and later Kinetica. Therefore the effort to provide a single comprehensive record of Australian theses died with the Union List.

For other reasons also, ABN and Kinetica have proven to be frustrating sources of information about theses. Limitations in the search capacity of the two systems, coupled with inconsistencies in cataloguing practices between institutions, means that quite sophisticated search skills are required in order to isolate theses from other types of documents. As the DEST Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee recently reported, 'Although most universities include records of theses in the Australian National Bibliography, they are not easily searched as a set and there is no means of locating all theses in a particular discipline'.8

As the Towards Federation 2001 Working Paper Indicated, the problem of separating theses within ABN/Kinetica - or indeed other forms of union catalogue - is, in part, the result of the inadequate and inconsistent forms of cataloguing which have been applied. Standards for subject indexing, including the Library of Congress Subject Headings, do not provide a standard heading or subheading by which theses can be identified, and institutions have therefore frequently devised their own solution to the problem of identifying these items. This may be by the use of local subject headings or by an addition to a record using a 'notes' field. A survey of current practice in university libraries shows that catalogue users are directed to search using various keywords including 'thesis' (for example, the University of Western

84


Genoni & Cowan: Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses

Australia), 'theses' (Deakin University) and 'dissertations' (Curtin University of Technology).

There is also evidence of uncertainty within university cataloguing departments as to how theses should be described. For obvious reasons, cataloguing these documents requires original records to be created, and this has led to error or inconsistency. Again, even a brief survey of university library records reveals frequent variations in practice within institutions.

In an effort to provide improved bibliographic access to theses a number of specialised bibliographies have been prepared over the years. Some were issued in serial form but many were simply 'one-off' publications that provided a snapshot of the titles available at a point in time. They were also limited in the breadth of their subject coverage and irregular in the manner in which they selected 'Australian' theses. For example, some attempted to provide coverage of all Australian theses on a subject (eg ASBS Thesis List, Canberra: Australian Systematic Botany Society, 1978, plus supplements); others provided lists of Australian and international theses on topics relevant to Australia (eg Malcolm Tull [ed], A Bibliography of University Theses on Australian Maritime History, St Johns: International Maritime History Association, 1996); and yet others included Australian sourced theses on essentially non-Australian subjects (eg Frank Shulman [ed], Doctoral Dissertations on South Asia 1966-1970: An Annotated Bibliography Covering North America, Europe and Australia, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1971). Although these publications have undoubtedly been useful to researchers, they have done little to compensate for the lack of a comprehensive bibliography of Australian theses.

Australian Digital Theses

More recently considerable international attention has been given to the desirability of having theses available electronically in full text. This work has been led from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute which has underpinned the development in the USA of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD). The NDLTD initiative has been widely influential, and Australia has responded by implementing the Australian Digital Theses (ADT) program. According to the ADT the program 'is designed to improve access to, and enhance transfer of, the research information contained in theses by providing a full text version available from the desktop via the web'.9

The initial development of the ADT was funded by a 1997 grant from the Australian Research Council to seven Australian universities operating under the auspices of Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). Membership was opened to other CAUL libraries in 2000, and as Sit August 2002 26 universities were members of the ADT. To date, however, only a

comparatively small number of theses (848 as at 7 March 2003) has been made available from member institutions.

Since its inception the ADT has become recognised for its innovative structure. The program is based on a distributed database, with member institutions undertaking to load deposited theses onto local servers in PDF format, and load the metadata which provides bibliographic access to the theses on a server at the University of New South Wales. The metadata is generated by research students when they elect to deposit their thesis by submitting a form made available from ADT members.

In the development of standard metadata fields the ADT has made some advances in the provision of bibliographic access to theses. As indicated above, the recording of theses has previously been characterised by error and inadequate and inconsistent levels of both physical and subject description. The ADT has served to standardise the elements of the physical description, with a series of fields derived from the Virginia Polytechnic. The reliance on the author to provide this detail, however, will inevitably lead to inconsistencies, particularly in the form of names applied to supervisors or academic departments. If students report the name of a department incorrectly, this seems in many cases to be transferred in this incorrect form to the cataloguing record. While this problem can be overcome by careful authority control, there is a second and far more intransigent problem in creating an accurate record of academic departments. That is, the frequent change of names of departments created by either the realignment of academic units within universities, or by their need to reflect new terminology and emerging areas of study.

Subject description also remains problematic, with no attempt made to impose a standardised form of indexing. Title and author-generated keywords are the principal points of subject access, although ADT records are enhanced by the addition of searchable author-generated abstracts. The ADT also has an advantage over Kinetica in having an interface that is user friendly and easily managed by searchers with even a moderate level of familiarity with electronic information retrieval.

The ADT will undoubtedly continue to grow and become an increasingly important resource, but it is highly unlikely that it will reach the point where it provides comprehensive coverage of recently completed theses. Universities still show a strong preference for the use of print as the preferred mode for storing archival copies, and the contribution of digital copies to the ADT is likely to remain optional for students of some (perhaps most) member institutions. The universities continue to have concerns about the same issues of long-term preservation that hinder many other digitisation projects, and some students are worried about the integrity of digitised text and the

86


Genoni & Cowan: Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses

diminished possibility of secondary publication of research results that are made available so freely.

The ADT database will therefore in all likelihood remain fragmentary, even for recently completed theses, and its primary benefit will be to make the included theses far more accessible. Indeed, one recent USA calculation (based on data from the Virginia Polytechnic) concluded that digital theses 'are 100 times more likely to be circulated than print theses and dissertations'.10

Despite the achievements of the ADT, the problem remains the lack of a single source of comprehensive and readily obtainable bibliographic coverage of Australian theses. It is an issue that is significant enough to cause concern for a number of university libraries. For example the University of Adelaide library webpage warns users that 'Australian theses are not well indexed after 1985 (sic)';11 the Monash University library states that 'There is no comprehensive list of all theses submitted in Australia",12 and Deakin University library declares that 'It is not always easy to locate details of theses nor to obtain a copy of a thesis once identified'.13

Current Planning

It seems apparent that any changes to the current situation with regard to the bibliographic control of theses are only likely to be achieved within the ADT framework. The current funding environment heavily favours digitisation projects and as the ADT proudly boasts in its current business plan it is the 'only game in town' when it comes to the digitisation of Australian theses.14

2002-2006, CAUL has identified priorities for the ongoing development of the program. These include ensuring coverage of newly completed theses is as comprehensive as possible. This will be undertaken by 'achieving total participation by CAUL members', and by 'advocat(ing) electronic submission of theses as the preferred mode of submission'.15 It is quite likely that the former will be achieved, but for reasons stated earlier, the latter is far less likely.

The ADT plan also aims to 'develop content through retrospective conversion of frequently requested or notable theses'.16 Clearly, however, this is an expensive task. It is one of the advantages of the ADT's distributed nature and author-generated submission, that running costs for the program are minimised. CAUL allocated a modest $75,000 for the operation of the program in 2002, with additional costs being met by the member institutions. Any significant attempt to digitise older theses would entail a substantially larger commitment from CAUL and/or the universities.

The cause of retrospective conversion has been taken up, however, in a November 2002 report by the DEST Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IIAC). The Committee has identified 'Digital theses' for priority

87


AARL, June 2003

attention as one of 'six areas of strategic importance relating to the creation and dissemination of Australian research information.17 It envisages a 24 month project with a series of aims intended to expand the content of the ADT, including 'identifying key theses (individually or in discipline groups) for priority digitisation', while acknowledging that 'experience, however, suggests that retrospective digitisation of all theses to be impractical'. 18

A survey of the ADT database conducted in March 2003 reveals that its content is - not surprisingly - dominated by recently completed theses:

Pre 1970

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-2003

1

5

17

231

59119

A conservative estimate indicates that there are in excess of 90,000 higher degree theses of Australian origin not on the ADT database. Notwithstanding that many of the more recently completed of these theses already exist in a digital form, the task of comprehensive conversion would nonetheless be well beyond any resources likely to be made available. The IIAC has indicated a "notional allocation" of $800,000 - $950,000 for their envisaged project, including "at least $500,000 to assist institutions to make content available".20 There is no indication as to how many theses might be retrospectively converted with this amount of money.

The other aims for the future development of the ADT that would be achieved with an injection of the suggested sum of money are outlined only very generally in the IIAC report. It is, however, a feature of the IIAC report - and something not suggested by the ADT Business Plan 2002-2006 - that it may be desirable to extend the Program in such a way that theses could be represented in forms other than full text. The IIAC raises the possibility of the first phase of the recommended project 'advising on the relative merits of maintaining a database of only full-text digitised theses, abstracts only with digitisation on demand or a mix of approaches.21

A Future Role for the ADT?

This suggestion by the IIAC seems to point the way towards at least a partial solution to the problem of providing better bibliographic access to Australian theses. Indeed, it would seem to be a natural extension of the ADT that it becomes a repository for all extant bibliographic data relating to completed theses. Currently, a researcher wishing to undertake a search for theses would need to search at least the Union List, Kinetica and the ADT database in order to ensure reasonably comprehensive coverage. Even this would not guarantee that all relevant theses had been located, and it would require a highly skilled, informed searcher - a librarian with some familiarity with all three sources - to

88


Genoni & Cowan: Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses

obtain anything approaching a complete result. The task is further complicated if a researcher wishes to locate not only theses of Australian origin but also of Australian relevance, in which case the search should be extended to include at least Dissertation Abstracts International.

It is suggested that this problem should be addressed by aggregating the bibliographic data relating to theses of Australian origin and Australian relevance on the ADT database. Given the impracticality of retrospectively converting the text of all theses, this would require the aims of the Program to be modified in order to accept bibliographic records without the full text attached. That is, some records would reside on the database with metadata only.

To make an enhanced ADT database as complete as possible in its bibliographic coverage of relevant theses would require the following:

  • isolation of all relevant records on Kinetica, and the transfer of these records to the ADT
  • identification of items listed in the Union List which have not been converted and migrated to Kinetica, and the creation of records for inclusion in the ADT database
  • identification of theses that are not represented in either the Union List or Kinetica, and the creation of records for inclusion in the ADT database
  • provision by universities which would not otherwise supply a copy of the text of a thesis to the database (either because of institutional non­ membership of the ADT or a student's refusal to grant permission) of a full bibliographic record including abstract. An alternative would be form the ADT to continually harvest metadata from university catalogues or Kinetica - although this would ideally require agreement on standards, including the addition of abstracts, for future cataloguing; and
  • identification and addition of records for theses of Australian relevance but of non-Australian origin. The records of Dissertation Abstracts International would provide a valuable starting point for this task.

There would be inconsistencies in the amount and quality of metadata attached to these different categories of records, although this problem would be mitigated in that many records from the Union List have already been added to Kinetica with upgraded subject headings attached. Nevertheless, a database modified in this way would inevitably include some records with access to title only; some with title plus library added subject headings; and still others with title, author-generated keywords and abstracts.

Given the difficulty of providing adequate subject access to theses using standard lists of subject headings, the most rewarding way to further enhance the usefulness of the database would be to focus on the addition of abstracts. Ideally, these should be in a format that makes abstracts available for

89


AARL, June 2003

searching, as with those currently on the database. If this proves to be too expensive, then abstracts should be added as scanned non-searchable images. It is a fortunate characteristic of theses that they frequently have lengthy, descriptive titles including many keywords that would otherwise be found in author-generated subject headings or abstracts. Therefore, even those theses entered with title as the only point of subject access are still likely to be retrieved. In these circumstances an abstract, albeit non-searchable, will nonetheless add information valuable to the searcher.

The problem of subject access that is not wholly controlled or standardised would, however, be substantially outweighed by the benefits of having bibliographic records of all theses available in one database with an interface suitable for end user searching. In this proposed form the ADT database would allow searching on only those records which had the full text attached, or on all records.

It is therefore suggested that funds provided for further development of the ADT database be used in this way, rather than for the conversion of the full text of theses. Full text conversion should be undertaken only when strong demand might be established by a large number of hits on a particular record. Subsequent developments would include the gradual upgrading of incomplete or inaccurate records.

It is also suggested that the National Library should address the issue of standards for the cataloguing of theses. It is apparent that although most libraries are attempting to follow the current international standards, these are being interpreted differently and are subject to local policy and practice. An Australian standard that is compatible with the developing requirements of the ADT would be a useful innovation.

Conclusion

This expanded role for the ADT would render the Union List obsolete, and replace Kinetica as the primary source of information about Australian theses. Australian and international researchers would, for the first time, have comprehensive access to the bibliographic record of Australian higher degree research, and of higher degree research related to Australia from non- Australian sources. This improved coverage would be coupled with enhanced levels of subject retrieval and subject information about individual theses.

Notes

  1. Department of Education, Science and Training Higher Education: Report for 2003 to 2005 Triennium Canberra 2002 http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/he_report/2003_ 2005/pdf/triennium2003_2005.pdf [24 February 2003]
  2. Department of Education, Science and Training Students 2001: Selected Higher Education Statistics Canberra 2002 http://www.dest.gov.aulhighered/statistics/ students/01/tables.htm [24 February 2003]

90


Genoni & Cowan: Bibliographic Control of Australian Higher Degree Theses

  1. It is probable that a number of theses are not deposited as required. Individual universities are responsible for ensuring that deposit occurs, but in some cases at least compliance is not supported sufficiently by regulation or procedure.
  2. D H Borchardt Australian Bibliography Melbourne Pergamon 1963 p34
  3. University of Tasmania Library Union List of Higher Degree Theses in Australian Libraries: Supplement 1989 Hobart University of Tasmania Library 1991 p vii
  4. Towards Federation 2001: Linking Australians and their Heritage: A National Conference on Access to Australia's Recorded Documentary Heritage Final Report: To Which is Attached Agenda Papers, Working Papers, Background Papers Canberra National Library of Australia p205
  5. A guide to the coverage of theses on Kinetica for the various universities current to 1998 can be found at National Library of Australia Australian Higher Degree Theses on the National Bibliographic Database http://www.nla.gov.au/abn/covrthes.html [24 February 2003] CAUL conducted a survey in 2002 to update this information, but the results are not available at the time of writing.
  6. Department of Education Science and Training Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee Research Information Infrastructure Framework for Australian HigherEducation Canberra 2002 p38
  7. Australian Digital Theses Aims & Overview http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/thesis/adt- ADT/info/aims.htmI [5 March 2003]
  8. J Moxley 'Universities Should Require Electronic Theses and Dissertations' Educause Quarterly no 3 2001 p61
  9. University of Adelaide Library Dissertations and Theses by Place of Origin http://www.library.adelaide.edu.aulgen/theses/otheraus.html [25 February 2003]
  10. Monash University Library How to Find a Thesis http://www.lib.monash.edu. au/v1/thes/thes06.htm [25 February 2003]
  11. Deakin University Library Theses and Dissertations http://www.deakin.edu.au/ library/thesdiss.html [25 February 2003]
  12. Council of Australian University Librarians Australian Digital Theses Business Plan 2002-2006 Revised Version September 2002 http:www.anu.edu.au/caul/adt/adt- business-plan.doc [4 March 2003]
  13. Ibid
  14. Ibid
  15. Department of Education Science and Training Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee Research Information Infrastructure Framework for Australian Higher Education p 18
  16. Ibid p39
  17. The total number of dated theses (845) is slightly lower than the total number (848) reported on the database as at 7 March 2003. Several theses were found with no entry in the date field
  18. Department of Education Science and Training Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee Research Information Infrastructure Framework for Australian Higher Education p3
  19. Ibid

Kinetica Advisory Committee paper

KAC/2003/2/7

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY PORTAL

Introduction

The Public Library Portal is an innovative project aimed at enhancing access to quality information resources in Australian libraries. The National Library of Australia (NLA) is collaborating with five public libraries throughout Australia to develop the Portal which will commence in September 2003 and run as a trial project for one year.

The project is intended to address the challenge of finding print and online resources for the Australian public. Through searching a range of services simultaneously the Portal aims to provide a 'one stop shop' for searching and delivery. Material which is not online can be requested through Interlibrary Loan (ILL) services. The Pilot will enable a test of the interfaces and content required by Australians, as well as developing a relationship with public libraries, who as a group form the largest supplier of library services to the general public.

The Portal will offer access to the National Bibliographic Database, PictureAustralia, APAFT (APAIS Full Text) and Register of Australian Archives and Manuscripts (RAAM) through a single search. It will also allow users to easily request copies or loans from the National Library and these will be provided free for the duration of the pilot.

The three deliverables from the Portal pilot include:

  • a business model which will be applicable to all Australian public libraries;
  • detailed analysis about the information needs of Australians;
  • key issues to consider on interface design; and
  • a working Portal.

Public Library pilot participants

The Pilot participants include the following Australian public libraries.

  • Brisbane City Council (Brisbane, Queensland)

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/community_facilities/libraries/index.shtml

  • Yarra Plenty Regional Library Service (Victoria)

http://www.yprl.vic.gov.au/

  • Northern Regional Library Service (Moree, NSW)

http://www.norl.org

  • Thuringowa Library Service (Far North Queensland, Queensland)

http://library.thuringowa.qld.gov.au/

  • Southern Tablelands Regional Library Service (Goulburn, New South Wales)

http://www.strl.nsw.gov.au/

Relationship with public library pilot sites

The NProject Team meets regularly, via teleconference, phone and email with the Pilot sites to discuss a range of development issues. Regular communication with the participants ensures that all sites are kept up-to-date with Portal developments and that the National Library receives appropriate feedback about the progress and direction of the Portal.

Branding the Portal

How the Portal is branded is crucial to the general acceptance and widespread use of the Portal. In deciding on a name, the Project Team felt the following concepts needed to be embraced and/or considered.

  • A virtual contemporary space
  • Australian content
  • Ease of access
  • Appeal to a wide variety of customers
  • Lack of pretension and paternalism
  • Not corporate
  • Not jingoistic
  • Lack of jargon
  • The ability to be creatively incorporated into the Portal interface design
  • Ability to be easily pronounced and remembered
  • Access to print and electronic resources

In addition to conducting a workshop to investigate suitable names, a competition to name the Portal was initiated with library students from Charles Sturt University. The names suggested by the students can be found in Attachment A.

From a short list of three names, AuslinX, InformationAustralia and InfoTraX, InformationAustralia was chosen as the most appropriate title for the Portal. It was thought that this name offered creative design potential and aligned in name type with the suite of electronic services already offered by the National Library including PictureAustralia, Music Australia and Australia Dancing.

Interlibrary Loans

The National Library agreed to support the Portal Project by providing free interlibrary loans for the duration of the trial. Whilst current usage of the Library's collections by Portal participants is low, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in usage during the trial period.

One of the challenges the Project faces is linking the Portal to Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD) via formatted email. The Pilot will be an invaluable test of the NLA"s capacity to service ILL requests for end users via KDD. The Pilot will allow the Nto work out how, in the future, they may refine NLA"s services so that they provide 'seamless' end user access to a variety of information, delivery services, for all their users.

Marketing, communication and education

The success of the Pilot is dependent upon collaboration and partnership between the National Library and the Pilot sites. The Pilot needs to build in joint ownership of the concept and partnership strategies from the early stages.

National Library staff have been working collaboratively with the managers of each Pilot site to ensure that all relevant issues pertaining to the Portal project are highlighted, suitably explained and adequately resolved.

Community and staff education will also need to be appropriately coordinated to ensure that staff at the Pilot sites are sufficiently familiar with the Portal concepts to competently and confidently deliver community awareness-education programs.

Timeline

The following schedule details the Project"s critical milestones. To date all critical milestones have been achieved.

Start:

Finish:

November 2002

September 2004

Consultation with pilot sites:

Draft business plan;

Service model specifications

Preferred technical solution

Prototype screens specifications

Working pilot developed

Project name endorsed

Designer work commences

Teleconference with pilot sites to discuss

authentication issues

Design signed off

Design sliced and web site developed

Feedback on design and

usability of the Portal

Alpha and beta testing completed

Marketing of the portal at the pilot sites

Educating staff at the pilot sites

Pilot launch

Nstaff visit

Nstaff visit

Formal evaluation including user,

business, stakeholder and technical issues.

November 2002 - an ongoing process

July 2003

June 2003

June 2003

March 2003

June 2003

June 2003

June 2003

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

August 2003

August 2003

September 2003

September 2003

September 2004

December 2003

July 2004

July - September 2004

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee notes the report.

Kinetica Customer Service Branch

Contact: Cheryl Brickell

(02) 6262 1690

28 July 2003


Attachment A

Public Library Portal

Name Suggestions

  • Discover Australia's Collections
  • People's Portal
  • Information Express
  • Information Australia
  • Gateways
  • Libraries Online
  • Library Links
  • Information Connections
  • One Stop Knowledge Shop
  • Find Information Online
  • Windows
  • Open Sesame
  • Australian Boulevard
  • Australian Information Avenue
  • Unveiling Australian Knowledge
  • Unleashing the Beast: The best of Australia at your fingertips
  • Keyboard to Heaven: Ozzie info online
  • Unearthing Oz
  • One Search Australia Service
  • Inquiry Australia
  • Australian Inquiry Service
  • The Australian Biblio-Tech Superhighway
  • Girt by Knowledge
  • The Knowledge Nation Gateway
  • Australian Library Network
  • Australian Information Network
  • Discovery Passport
  • Dive In
  • Infopool
  • Libraries Unlocked
  • Library Passport
  • Open Library
  • Passport to Discovery
  • Port of Call
  • Portcullis
  • The Public Domain
  • Public Infopool
  • Public Passport
  • Public Pool
  • Publiconnect
  • Publicus
  • Publifind
  • Publisearch
  • Publisource
  • Resource Pool

Kinetica Advisory Committee paper

KAC/2003/2/8

SHARING DATA WITH AUSTRALIAN SUBJECT GATEWAYS

Introduction

At the Kinetica Advisory Committee (KAC) workshop the need to investigate improving the coverage of online Australian resources was raised, together with the suggestion that relationships with Australian subject gateways could provide opportunities to obtain records for these resources.

This paper reports on developments including the discussions at the Australian Subject Gateways Forum meeting of May 2003.

Background

A wealth of Australian publications are now available online, and while the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) contains more than 340 000 electronic publications, the coverage of online Australian publications is not high. Currently Australian subject gateways include a considerable range of Australian online resources, many of which would fit within the scope of the NBD. A profile of the NBD is attached (Attachment A)

To investigate opportunities to obtain these records a paper was prepared for discussion at the most recent Australian Subject Gateways Forum meeting. A copy of the paper is attached (Attachment B).

Chris Taylor attended the meeting and spoke to the paper. Both the Australian Virtual Engineering Library (AVEL) and Education Australia (EdNA) have expressed interest in working through the issues relating to exchanging records with the NBD. Preliminary discussions have been held and it is proposed that the issues be explored first with AVEL.

Recommendations

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee note the developments.

Resource Sharing Division

Contact: Roxanne Missingham

(02) 6262 1143

28 July 2003



Attachment A

Australian National Bibliographic Database

The National Bibliographic Database (NBD) has been developed and maintained by the National Library to serve the needs of the Australian library community.

The NBD is Australia's largest single bibliographic resource with millions of entries for books, magazines and items in non-print or alternative print formats such as films, sound and video recordings (including captioned), maps, pictures, CDs, braille and talking books, music scores, computer files and electronic journals.

With over 31 million locations recording the collections of over 850 Australian libraries, the NBD can locate material held all over Australia. This means greater access to information for all Australian library users through the provision of local and interlibrary lending in Australia. Though there are some exceptions, most libraries in Australia participate in interlibrary lending at the regional, state or national level.

Libraries can use the NBD to search, create, retrieve and share bibliographic information for a wide range of materials held by Australian libraries. Every time libraries contribute their cataloguing or locations information to the NBD, they help strengthen the Australian library system, which is a significant benefit to all Australians.

The NBD is available through Kinetica on the basis of charges per search.

Size and coverage of the NBD

Current size

 

Bibliographic records

 

14 million records

 

Locations information

 

33.5 million records

 

Online resources[13]

 

340,391 records

 

Coverage of Australian Commonwealth Government publications is currently developing through a metadata pilot. The project is designed to improve access to government print and electronic documents through Kinetica and improve the coverage of digital government publishing on the NBD. Seven government departments have been invited to participate in a pilot that will review, research, test and evaluate issues relating to the use and collection of metadata for Commonwealth government publications. Participants are the Department of Health and Ageing, Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Department of the Treasury, Environment Australia, Parliamentary Library, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. A workshop with participating agencies was held on 20 February to refine the goals of the project, identify major issues and define strategies. Further work has occurred on data files and record standards.


Attachment B

Australian Subject Gateways Forum

Meeting 23 May 2003

Paper: Sharing records between Australian subject gateways and the National Bibliographic Database

Background

Australian subject gateways have developed very significant databases of records describing electronic resources to underpin their services. The Australian Subject Gateways Forum (ASGF) meetings have provided an opportunity to discuss the many issues relating to the creation of these records, including metadata standards, thesauri and maintenance of records. All the records are utilised by each service to provide access to the 'subject slice' of the Internet relevant to the subject area of each gateway. The records continue to be created and maintained as a core subject gateway activity.

In the National Library, records for electronic resources have also been stored on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). This database currently contains over 340000 records for electronic resources. While the majority of these records are for freely available online resources, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics publications and resources stored in Pandora, the Australian digital archive, some are for electronic resources which can only be accessed if a subscription is held, such as electronic journal collections. More information on the database can be found in the Attachment.

For both subject gateways and the National Library"s NBD, obtaining records for electronic resources and maintaining the links are important and resource intensive issues. One of the issues which has at times been raised at the Australian Subject Gateways Forum, is the potential for subject gateways and the National Library to consider ways in which records might be exchanged to enable growth of the databases and also to review whether there would be greater efficiencies from such an arrangement.

Some of the background documents prepared for earlier ASGF meetings refer to this issue - for example Andrew Wells" paper in 2000 (Options for National Metadata Services http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/sg/closed/papers/wells2000-08.html) and the report of the ASGF Metadata Issues Task Force in 2001 (http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/sg/closed/task_force.doc).

Some record sharing or exchange has occurred - for example AVEL has provided records to the Enhanced and Evaluated Virtual Library (EEVL) and PictureAustralia has obtained records from the Scottish Archive Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network (SCRAN).

Given that metadata standards and link management issues are now fairly well established, 2003 could be an opportune time to consider ways of exploring the issues that might be associated with Australian subject gateways either sharing records with each other or sharing records with the NBD. Some of the alternatives could be exchanging records on a partnership basis or sharing on a one way basis, i.e. a gateway or NBD providing records to other gateways.

There are a great range of issues that would need to be explored for records to be exchanged orshared. Amongst those issues are the advantages and disadvantages that collaborative record creation and maintenance could provide. Some of the issues, which could be explored, include the following.

  • Is record exchange or sharing efficient in creating and maintaining records for online resources?
  • The extent to which cooperating could increase the range of material available through individual gateways.
  • The complexities which might occur due to differences in metadata standards and descriptions.

Ongoing sustainability has been a core issue for subject gateways. While the subject areas of most gateways are quite different, some have related topics, such as AVEL and Agrigate. All subject gateways also have subject areas in common with the NBD, which covers all subjects.

Interchange or Exchange of records as a research topic

ASGF members and the National Library are in the business of creating and maintaining records. While there are many issues which would be involved in any work towards either record exchange or sharing it is a topic on which it may be possible to undertake some research work in the forthcoming year. Through exploring the issues involved in records exchange the ASGF could look at the ability for gateways to assist and complement each other. It may also provide a method of further investigating interoperability and metadata standards issues.

To establish the possibilities for interchange or exchange of records, some of the issues for investigation or consideration would include:

  • the business needs of the partners or collaborators;
  • defining a business model for the collaboration;
  • establishing the compatibility of the needs of the users of each service;
  • reviewing record standards and compatibility of record management strategies;
  • technology issues relating to the transfer mechanism for new, updated and deleted records; and
  • agreement on maintenance standards.

Any collaboration for record interchange would need to be carefully considered and, as suggested above, any investigation would need to consider the interests of both parties as well as business and technical issues. Previous discussion on collaboration in relation to records has stalled, partly because of other higher priorities, but also because of a lack of models.

Potential trial

To investigate the potential for exchanging records, a trial would enable both the issues to be investigated from a practical as well as theoretical viewpoint, and would also enable an avenue for increased co-operation between the gateways, and the National Library, to be explored.

This paper is provided to encourage discussion at the ASGF meeting on 25 May. There has been some discussion on the potential involvement of the NBD in such a project and the Kinetica Advisory Committee, of which Chris Taylor is a member, is interested in stimulating further discussion and investigation in this area.

Roxanne Missingham, National Library of Australian

Chris Taylor, University of Queensland


Kinetica Advisory Committee Paper

KAC/2003/2/9

PROPOSAL FOR AN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP FOR KINETICA DOCUMENT DELIVERY

The Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD) system is an interlibrary loan system used by over 560 libraries in Australia and overseas. KDD was introduced as the National Library"s interlibrary loan system in 1999. KDD is configured using Virtual Document Exchange (VDX) software, provided by Fretwell Downing Informatics (FDI).

KDD has been in an evolutionary phase since 1990. Since then Kinetica staff have focussed on the stability of the KDD service as well as incorporating basic functionality. The last two releases of VDX (VDX 2.2.7 launched in December 2002 and VDX 2.3 to be launched in December 2003) have delivered additional functionality such as ISO ILL compliance (ISO 10160/10161). This functionality has enabled Kinetica to deliver a more flexible service to meet the needs of different groups within the library community.

It is timely that Kinetica investigates broadening the scope of this service as well as exploring new functionality in order to improve the service for customers. To extend our co-operation and collaborative efforts with customers, it is imperative that customers, including ILL practitioners, should be involved in investigating the options and provisions of providing a more effective and efficient service.

Kinetica would like to recommend that the Kinetica Advisory Committee considers the establishment of an Expert Advisory Group to investigate and report on options for the future development of the Kinetica Document Delivery service.

The objectives of this Group will be:

  • to review the current service through communication with customers;
  • to develop a business model for the future of KDD and investigate possibilities of alliances and agreements and improved customer service, communication, marketing and education;
  • to investigate options for the exploitation of existing and new functionality;
  • to investigate improving the KDD service for all customers, whilst targeting specific groups within the library community; and
  • to investigate the macro-environment of interlibrary loans and develop strategies to position the KDD service at the forefront of international interlibrary loan developments.

Members of the Group may comprise representatives from all library sectors and KDD staff. It is proposed that the Group meet regularly via teleconference over the next 12 months to develop priorities, a business model and report to KAC in August 2004.

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee endorse the formation of an Expert Advisory Group for the Kinetica Document Delivery service.

Kinetica Customer Service Branch

Contact: Kylie Moloney

(02) 6262 1239

28 July 2003


Kinetica Advisory Committee paper
KAC/2003/2/10

KINETICA STATUS REPORT

March 2003 - June 2003

Databases, Product Development and Quality

  Result July 2002 to June2003

Target

 

Kinetica Searches

 

6,127,592

 

6,000,000

 

NBD and CJK holdings

 

2,613,273

 

2,700,000

 

KDD requests

 

238,512

 

240,000

 

% KDD requests using Payments Service

 

83.9%

 

80%

 

Search and Cataloguing Services delivered within contracted service levels (IBMGSA)

 

100%

 

98%

 

Percentage and number of batch loads added within 5 working days of receipt

 

100%

 

98%

 

Commonwealth Agencies Metadata Pilot

Sample metadata records have been received from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and Environment Australia. A statistical and qualitative comparison has also commenced on metadata from the Department of the Treasury, which currently catalogues print publications, deposited in their library, on the NBD, and generates metadata for electronic publications through their Information Technology and Publications area. Further discussions were held with Department of Health and Aged Care Services and two domains have been identified for metadata harvest.

Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD)

Kinetica received the next version of VDX (2.3) in June. Staff have configured and begun preliminary testing of the software. Version 2.3 will deliver increased functionality to Kinetica Document Delivery customers including the ability to sort rotas by state.

The Canada Institute of Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI) was added as a search target and location to KDD in late May. The pilot with CISTI has been very successful with over 650 requests placed by Kinetica customers to date.

Interoperability between ISO compliant sites and KDD began in May 2003. Several libraries are now using their own ILL systems, such as VDX, to send and receive requests. Since May, over 6637 requests have been made using the ISO protocol. Kinetica staff are currently testing the KDD gateway with other ILL vendors including Infotrieve, ILL and Dynix.

Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) Service

In June 2003 the CJK database contained more than 1,408,800 bibliographic records and 448,470 location records. This represents an increase of 18,575 bibliographic records and a decrease of 2,300 location records between January 2003 and June 2003. During this period almost 23,000 bibliographic records were deleted from the CJK database.

Since the CJK Service was launched in 1996, members have been very keen to have automated document delivery. Following development work by Kinetica staff, this advance was implemented in May 2003 when the CJK database was mounted as a target on Kinetica Document Delivery. To ensure that the database was up to date and to improve navigability, 14,400 location records belonging to non-CJK Service members were deleted and non-CJK Service location codes were removed from the index. Now automated CJK interlibrary lending and document delivery is available to Kinetica Document Delivery customers through the KDD system. Between 28 May and 4 August 83 requests have been made on KDD as the result of a bibliographic search against the CJK database.

In June 2003 the Innopac integrated library management software underlying the CJK system was upgraded. This software upgrade was part of the preparation for the migration of the CJK system to a new server. The main benefit this upgrade provided to users was improved editing functions in the Millennium Cataloguing module.

In order to ensure the continuity and reliability of the services provided to CJK libraries, in June 2003 the National Library successfully migrated the Innopac software that underpins the CJK system to a new server. The National Library has upgraded to current technology that will have the capacity to support the CJK software until the CJK and Kinetica databases can be accommodated on a single platform.

In preparation for the eventual conversion of the CJK database from EACC to Unicode encoding, the CJK Team has embarked on a project to systematically improve the mapping between EACC and Unicode. This project has the added benefit of fixing current character display problems caused by ambiguous encoding.

Electronic Collection Sets

There are currently 15 sets offered through this service, the most recent addition being Our Digital Island, which provides access to Tasmanian web sites that have been preserved for posterity by the State Library of Tasmania. As part of the supply of quarterly update files, the first quarterly deletion files were delivered to customers in May. The most popular Electronic collection set continues to be the AusStats set, with nine ongoing orders.

In preparation for the supply of Microform collection set files, the administration database for this service is being redeveloped to track the processing of orders for both collection set services.

Microform Collection Sets

Kinetica is currently developing a service to enhance access to a range of European microform collection sets held in Australian libraries. Libraries will be able to purchase selected sets with their holdings added to the MARC catalogue records. Initially over 50 Microform collection sets will be available through this service.

Kinetica Products

Kinetica continued to produce a range of regular and one-off product files for customer libraries, to undertake maintenance tasks and output special products.

The extraction of bibliographic records from Kinetica to be used in the Australian Research Libraries Collection Analysis Project (ARLCAP) was completed in April. The Project aims to do a detailed comparison and analysis of the holdings of major Australian libraries relating to South East Asia, South Asia, southern and eastern Africa, and the Indian Ocean Islands. Using 117 different geographic headings, a total of 578,942 records were extracted from the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) for the seven Australian libraries involved in the project. In May the first CD ROM for a defence industry partner was completed for Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

Recent Australian Publications (RAP) - a major redevelopment of this product occurred and the monthly files are now accessible as html files through the web. The classified list has an automatically generated table of contents to assist information retrieval. The service will be launched at the Kinetica Annual Users Meeting (KAUM). Feedback from customers will be sought on the table of contents coverage and the length of time the files should be available (12 or 6 months). As a part of this project workflows have been reviewed and the reprocessing of files has been significantly reduced.

Functional Requirements for the Bibliographic record (FRBR)

The FRBR standard was proposed in 1998 by International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) to enhance the ability to find intellectual works described in their different instantiations by individual MARC records. The complete specification is online - http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf. OCLC and RLG, have since commenced significant projects to research the applicability of FRBR to their catalogues. A project has commenced to assess the extent of records that would be encompassed by any application of FRBR against the NBD and to review the costs and benefits of development work in this area. Preliminary analysis shows music to be the area of highest applicability. A report will be provided to KAC on the outcomes of this study for its next regular meeting.

EndNote

In response to customer requests Kinetica is developing a simple guide for end users and librarians who wish to support end user Endnote access to the NBD and investigating issues relating to use of EndNote with Kinetica. Similar work will be undertaken for Procite.

Enhancements to KineticWeb

In May the Deutsche Bibliotek Database, the union catalogue of the records of the National Library of Germany, was made available through Kinetica. The Database contains 6.5 million records for German monographs, periodicals, microforms, dissertations, visual materials, maps, printed and recorded music, and electronic items published since 1945.

Also in May, a trial was conducted to display the full library name in the Extended View holdings display. Feedback from Kinetica customers was overwhelmingly positive, resulting in this functionality being retained permanently. This enhancement improves usability of KineticaWeb record display for those users unfamiliar with the National Union Catalogue (NUC) symbols.

Downloading services

In March - June, 550,957 records were downloaded by customer libraries using the MARC*Link and Remote TPSDLL services. This represents a daily average of more than 4,500 records.

Australian Library Gateways (ALG) and Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Directory

Work on the redevelopment of ALG continued. The currency of hypertext links was checked and broken links fixed. Work began on revising the content of html pages. The ILRS Directory was modified to include the Australian Service Level codes.

Help Desk

The Kinetica Help Desk dealt with 1881 requests from March 2003 to June 2003 compared with 2298 for the same period last year. 98% of requests were answered within the service level. 63% of requests came by telephone, and 37% by email, however the overall number of requests has decreased by 18%. The Help Desk continues to collate Kinetica customer queries using an Access database. This has enabled trends in customer queries to be statistically highlighted, including frequently asked questions (FAQs).

The following shows the most FAQs from March 2003 - June 2003.

Unlocking of catalogue records:

 

200

 

Kinetica Document Delivery request problems:

 

145

 

Marc*Link:

 

86

 

The high number of requests to unlock catalogue records resulted directly from the refurbishment of the NLA"s computer room. There were several interruptions to the Kinetica service due to disruptions in the power supply. However, since the completion of the refurbishment, service has returned to normal.

Training

Kinetica Training Agents provided 34 training sessions to Kinetica customers from January 2003 to June 2003 with 149 people attended. An analysis of the attendees has been undertaken, focussing on the types of institutions they are employed in. The following graph illustrates.

Business relationships

Measure

Result

March 2003 to June 2003

Target

Develop relationships with RLG and OCLC

 

The agreement with OCLC for access to WorldCat at a discountedrate for special, public and school libraries was extended for a further periodof three years.

Discussions are continuing with OCLC on reciprocalaccess to the NBD for OCLC customers; development of library directories usingthe X.500 standard to enable interoperability for interlending; and explorationof access to WorldCat for all Australian libraries through Kinetica.

Nis continuing discussions with CAUL in providingaccess to WorldCat for academic libraries via a consortiumarrangement.

Karen Smith-Yoshimura from RLG visited the Libraryand met with staff to discuss issues including the Cultural Materials AllianceGroup, and the English Short Title Catalogue as a possible database forKinetica.

 
 

Develop relationships with consortia

 

Kinetica site licences have been renegotiatedby the NSW and Victorian public libraries for the 03/04 financial year.

 
 

Expert Advisory Group on Enhancements

Meetings have been held with IBM GSA to discuss technical issues (including whether development is possible locally) for all recommendations of the Advisory Group relating to the Kinetica cataloguing client, the interface to the Kinetica web search database and KDD. A teleconference was held with State convenors in May to discuss the actions planned from the final report of the EAG, which was endorsed by KAC in March.

Relationships with public libraries

12 NSW MPand 10 NSW CPlibraries were identified as non-contributors to Kinetica - all have been contacted and discussions on their participation in the NBD are progressing.

Site licences for NSW and Victorian public libraries have been renegotiated and signed for the 03/04 financial year.

Kinetica staff attended the NSW MPDocument Delivery meeting in May and spoke to over 50 library staff about KDD and the benefits to public libraries of using Kinetica.

PictureAustralia

Three new participants joined PictureAustralia during the reporting period, with four more to join in the next few months. The participation of James Cook University, University of Melbourne and State Library of Queensland are exciting additions to the Service, helping to broaden the range of images available. The Service now provides access to more than 650,000 images, with 27 participants.

Collaboration has also been evident in the implementation of OAI (Open Archives Initiative) protocols with several institutions, increasing the efficiency of metadata harvesting and allowing it to be automated. The State Libraries of New South Wales and Victoria have already implemented these protocols, with the State Library of Queensland and the Australian War Memorial soon to follow.

The PictureAustralia website was upgraded during April with the implementation of a TeraText front end, increasing the speed of searching and enabling the inclusion of several new features to the Service.

Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL) Consortium

A survey of electronic resources held by CASL Consortium Members was completed in April, with the results of the survey to be used to identify electronic products where a Consortium subscription would provide a cost saving to Members. The survey will also be used to develop the forward workplan for 2004. The CASL Consortium business plan for 2004-2006 is under development.

Negotiations were finalised and subscriptions renewed for APAFT, AGISPlusText and Meditext, Business Who"s Who and Jobson"s Online, Euromonitor, MacquarieNet, CDATA 2001, Australia New Zealand Reference Centre, Health and Wellness Resource Centre, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, AUSTLIT, and Times Digital Archive.

The trial of the following products for April to June 2003 were concluded: SAGE Online, General Science Full Text, Applied Science and Technology Full Text, and General Science Collection. Trials have been set up for the following products for the July to September 2003 quarter: World of Learning, Columbia Granger"s World of Poetry, Short Story Index, and Vocational and Career Collection.

The 2003 Forward Workplan has been reviewed to better meet the current requirements of members. Due to considerable interest in newspaper electronic resources the following products will now be trialled in the October to December 2003 quarter: NewsBank Newspapers - Australia, Custom Newspapers (Gale), and Australian Newsstand (Proquest).

Market Share

Measure

Result

March 2003 to June 2003

Target

Participation by key library sectors (measured annually)

 

100% of State and university libraries; 81% of public libraries; 84% of keygovernment, health and law libraries

 

100% of State and university libraries; 80% of public libraries; 80% of keygovernment, health and law libraries

 

Customer retention

 

100%

 

100%

 

Libraries using Kinetica Document Delivery

 

544

 

n/a

 

New registrations

During 2002-2003, 32 new organisations joined Kinetica and 2 new individual customers. The two main types of organisations to join were educational institutions and public libraries in addition to a number of small corporate libraries.

Cancellations

Library closure is by far the biggest reason for cancellations, in all there were 21 cancellations. For the smaller libraries who ceased their subscriptions to Kinetica, most indicated that they would use the service through ILANET.

Marketing and customer relations

Planning for the 2003 KAUM has been the primary marketing focus over the previous months. A postcard size flier was produced to promote the KAUM and was sent out to Kinetica customers through the quarterly billing process. Fliers were also forwarded to the State User Group Convenors, Kinetica Training Agents and the KAUM Planning Committee for wider distribution.

Four articles on Kinetica developments have appeared in each of the following Australian Library News, Online Currents and Incite.

Site visits were also undertaken to the University of Western Sydney, Commonwealth Department of Health, State Library of New South Wales, ACT Public Library Service, University of Wollongong, Australian National University, Australian Defence Force Academy and Wollongong Public Libraries.

Redesign of Kinetica and CJK Web Pages

Kinetica and CJK launched their new-look websites in May 2003. New front pages have been implemented using the new Kinetica logo and colours. Improvements include better information on state user groups including dates of forthcoming meetings, better identification of training materials and the updating of links.

Governance and Management

Measure Result
to 31 June 2003
2001-2002 Target

Users satisfied with governance and management:

(survey conducted June 2002)

 

83%

81%

 

90%

80%

 

User Group Meetings

Kinetica staff attended via teleconference, the WA State User Group Meeting and the Victorian State User Group Meeting. This was an excellent opportunity to inform users of current issues and activities with Kinetica services and to respond to questions. It is expected that Kinetica staff will participate in meetings in this way with other state user groups.

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee note the report.

Kinetica Customer Service Branch

Contact: Ms Cheryl Brickell

(02) 6262 1690

9 August 2003


Kinetica Advisory Committee paper
KAC/2003/2/11

ELECTRONIC AND MICROFORM COLLECTIONS: PROGRESS REPORT

Introduction

This paper provides a progress report on the Kinetica service that enables libraries to purchase MARC records for electronic full text collections and the development of the complementary service for microform collection sets.

Electronic Collections

Background

There are currently 15 collection sets offered through this service. Libraries are able to purchase base and quarterly update files of MARC records, following the global addition of the customer libraries" holdings to each set. This has resulted in a significant addition of holdings to electronic records on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD).

The Electronic Collection Sets online order form is connected to a database that has been refined to streamline delivery of dataset records to our customers. There are presently 17 libraries receiving quarterly update files for one or more electronic collection sets. As part of this service, the first quarterly deletion files were delivered to customers in May.

Electronic collections survey update

Kinetica Database Service staff are in the process of collating the results of the update survey done in July so that priorities can be set for the development of further electronic datasets.

Acquisition of bibliographic data

The following table summarises the current status of dataset acquisitions for electronic collections.

DATASET

 

Status

 

Progress

 

AGIS

(Attorney-General"s

Information Service)

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

APA (Australian Public Affairs) FullText

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

AusStats

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Blackwell Synergy

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

eBooks

 

Due November2003

 
 

Academic Search Premier (EBSCO)

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Masterfile Elite (EBSCO)

 
 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Australia New Zealand Reference Centre(EBSCO)

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

World Magazine Bank (EBSCO)

 
 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Emerald Fulltext

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Gale Group

 

Completed

 

Base setavailable.

 

Our Digital Island (State Library ofTasmania)

Completed

 

Base setavailable.

 

Ovid

 

Due December2003

 
 

PANDORA

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

ProQuest 5000 International

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

ScienceDirect

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Wiley InterScience

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

MediText

 

Completed

 

Base set andquarterly updates available.

 

Microform Collections

Current Status

There are 51 microform collections represented on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). Early English Newspapers, Spanish Drama of the Golden Age, Russian History and Chadwyck Healey records for the Nineteenth Century (Years 3 and 4) have been added during the year.

Promotion of Data Sets

In preparation for the supply of microform collection set files, microform records are being added and amended as required; a web site and online order form has been developed and the existing electronic collections administration database is being redeveloped to track the processing of orders for both electronic and microform collection set services.

Future plans

Unloaded sets already purchased will be loaded later this year. These include American Fiction 1774-1910, Health Physical Education and Recreation, German Books before 1601, Italian Books before 1601 and Early English Books (Units 60-64).

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee notes the report.

Kinetica Database Services Branch

Contact: Ian Dunn

(02) 62621467

5 August 2003



Kinetica Advisory Committee paper
KAC/2003/2/12

KINETICA SUBJECT HEADINGS REVIEW PANEL

REPORT TO KINETICA ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AUGUST 2003

The Subject Headings Review Panel (SHRP) has continued to focus on implementation of terms for names of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their languages on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). This report updates members of the Kinetica Advisory Committee (KAC) on the progress of the Panel since the last Committee meeting in March 2003.

The Subject Headings Review Panel consists of five members:

Joan Moncreiff

 

DeakinUniversity

 

Deirdre Kiorgaard

 

National Library of Australia

 

Jenny Kerry

 

AIATSIS

 

Judith Purser

 

University of Melbourne

 

Bemal Rajapatirana

 

NBD Manager(Chair)

 

Activities

Kinetica staff corresponded with the Library of Congress on numerous matters. Many of these communications progressed the work of the SHRP on Aboriginal language headings, but some were more broadly associated with subject heading policy in general. They included the following.

  • Continuing to inform the Subject Authority Control Office (SACO) of the Panel"s work on Aboriginal languages headings and Kinetica"s work on Pacific language headings. The letters also sought to establish agreed procedures to manage and streamline the submission process.
  • Submission of Aboriginal language subject heading proposals.
  • Submission of Pacific language subject headings proposals.
  • Establishment of the subject headings "Aboriginal Australians" and "Aboriginal Tasmanians" in Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) replacing the old and outdated headings "Aborigines, Australian" and "Aborigines, Tasmanian".
  • A review of subdivisions used under the heading "Aboriginal Australians" to be considered.
  • Work is being done on the heading for the NSW Legislative Assembly where Library of Congress does not distinguish between the earlier uni-cameral body and the later upper house of the bi-cameral Parliament.

Changes to the period subdivisions that are used for Australia, Australian states, territories and capital cities have now been implemented. The current period subdivision "1990-" was closed off at 2001, e.g. " -- 1990-2001" and a new open subdivision "2001-" was established.

The Panel representatives have had their e-mail addresses placed on the SHRP Web page (at http://www.nla.gov.au/librariesaustralia/subjhead.html) in order to make them more accessible to the library community.

Future

The Panel will conduct a teleconference again in the latter half of 2003 to consider proposals for the revision of subdivisions of the heading "Aboriginal Australians" on the NBD.

Recommendation

That the Committee note the report.

Kinetica Database Services Branch

Contact: Ian Dunn

(02) 6262 1467

5 August 2003




Kinetica Advisory Committee paper

KAC/2003/2/13

NATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE - QUALITY ISSUES

Introduction

This paper reports on current initiatives aimed at improving the quality of the National Bibliographic Database (NBD).

Database maintenance

A wide variety of maintenance tasks have been performed on the NBD to improve the quality of existing records and indexes. These tasks are listed below.

  • Changes were made to the subject headings and subdivisions for Hong Kong to bring them into line with recent Library of Congress (LC) changes.
  • Subject headings erroneously coded as 'other' were corrected.
  • Clean up of some errors found after the University of Western Sydney retrospective conversion.
  • Change in linking of subunit records in National Library of Australia"s McCrea collection records.
  • Clean up of bad indicator values in 041 fields.
  • Clean up of records loading with no 245 field.
  • Clean up of problematic filing indicators on title fields.
  • In 2000 we performed a maintenance task to upgrade records for theses by adding a 'nature of contents' code to each theses record that did not carry one. This task was run again and may need to be an annual maintenance activity.
  • A number of records for spoken word sound recordings were migrated from ABN with Leader/6 = j (musical sound recording) This was changed to Leader/6 = i
  • LC records in Vietnamese language have in the past been put through the incorrect character conversion which affected the "hook o" character. This character was identified and corrected.
  • There were records on the database with 'microfilm' in the GMD subfield of the 245 field. These were corrected to 'microform'.
  • Some records were identified as containing multiple 245 fields. These were sampled and corrected.
  • National Library of Australia Gundagai collection photograph records had titles and holdings statements amended.
  • The monthly Orphan heading removal program is being exercised regularly. During the last 4 months over 34 000 orphan headings were removed from the NBD or about twice as many as over the last 4 months of 2002. Orphan headings have no references, authorities, or bibliographic records attached and are a by-product of other database maintenance activity such as duplicate removal and record updating.
  • Australian newspapers were manually reviewed for duplicates. 2 057 records were reviewed and 61 duplicate records deleted.
  • Early English Newspaperrecords were reviewed for duplicates. 2 197 records were reviewed and 631 duplicates deleted.
  • Over 5 666 duplicate name headings were merged. This included duplicate headings that had been created due to incorrect MARC coding.
  • A further 2 854 duplicate reports were resolved during the period. This brings the total number of duplicates processed since the introduction of electronic submission forms to 6 803.

Currency and Coverage

Batch*Link. The Automated Batch*Link Gateway is being used by 50 Kinetica libraries to upload records to the NBD. Since March 2003 the following four organisations commenced using the service:

  • CAVAL (VCAV and VCARM)
  • Western Australia Department of Conservation and Land Management (WCLM)
  • Wentworth Area Health Service (NWHS)
  • Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA)

A full list of Batch*Link service users is available on the Kinetica web site at: http://www.nla.gov.au/librariesaustralia/batchlinklib.html

Batch Loading. No enhancements have been made to the service over the period other than routine maintenance. Turn around times for the batch loading of both customer and national agency files remain excellent during the period. Files are generally loaded to the database within 24 hours of receipt.

Batch Update Service. Specifications have been written for wide ranging amendments to the Batch Loading and Kinetica Match/Merge routines, which will allow participating libraries to overlay database records in the NBD. Currently NBD records are protected and only selected fields are permitted to update database records and overlay is not permitted unless the contributed record is clearly superior (ie has a higher encoding level) than the database record. At the moment customers must use the Kinetica Cataloguing Client to make amendments to many fields (eg title, publishers statement, collation, fixed field codes). The projected new service is designed to allow such changes to be done by batch uploading and record overlay.

Global Holdings Updates. The Global Holdings Update service was again kept busy. 265 406 NBD holdings were updated through 74 separate tasks since July 2002. A significant number of holdings were deleted as the result of libraries bringing their NBD reporting up to date. 1 000 old union catalogue holdings (ZNUC, ZNUCD, and ZGCM) were rationalised during the period.

Refinement of the Kinetica matching algorithm

Refinement of the Kinetica match/merge program is an ongoing process. Since implementation, there have been a number of improvements made to the program. Kinetica is undertaking a number of high priority improvements to the matching algorithm. These improvements are listed below.

  • Refined title matching by matching on title subfields in same order as coded on the bibliographic record.
  • Refine title matching by restricting matching to field 245.
  • Set manuscripts as preferred records in matching to allow record overlay for RAAM (Register of Australian Archives and Manuscripts) participants.
  • Refine error reporting from holding update Batch*Link loads.
  • Set transaction date to current for new bibliographic items.
  • Allow ISBN/ISSN matching on "z" subfields.
  • Implement LSN (Local System Number) group matching. This allows holding update LSN matched records to add a new holding to a bibliographic record as long as it already has a holding belonging to another member of the group.

We will continue to investigate these and other options for refinement of the matching process.

Recommendation

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee notes the report.

Kinetica Database Services Branch

Contact: Ian Dunn

(02) 6262 1467

30 July 2003





Kinetica Advisory Committee paper

KAC/2003/2/14

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT METADATA PILOT PROJECT REPORT

Introduction

The National Bibliographic Database (NBD) currently contains over 14 million bibliographic records, describing resources held in or made available through Australian libraries. Although the NBD has for some time contained records for electronic resources, these have mainly described the equivalents of print resources. During the past two years, Kinetica has actively pursued the acquisition of metadata for electronic resources, including resources that exist solely in electronic format. In July the NBD contained over 340 000 records for electronic resources including government reports, electronic journals and online publications collected for Pandora, Australia's internet archive. Continuing acquisition of metadata for electronic resources is essential to ensure that Kinetica remains the premier resource for locating Australian library resources,

While 60% of all Commonwealth government publications are now published solely in electronic format, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find them through standard library tools or web search engines. Even where metadata for these resources is generated, often it is not included in library catalogues or resources such as fed.gov.au, which are harvested and indexed by web search engines.

In January a pilot project was commenced to attempt to improve access to government print and electronic documents through Kinetica, and to improve the NBD coverage of Commonwealth government electronic publications.

Objectives

The objectives of the Project are to:

  • improve discovery and access to online Commonwealth government "publications" through Kinetica"s services, by acquiring metadata from a selection of Commonwealth government agencies for inclusion in the NBD;
  • maintain the NBD as a primary resource for access to Commonwealth government publications;
  • facilitate identification, harvesting and preservation of electronic Commonwealth publications through services such as Pandora;
  • enhance exposure of online Commonwealth publications to the scholarly sector (RDS); and
  • promulgate metadata guidelines.

Methodology

A project plan is included as Attachment A. The following is a summary of the main stages of the Project.

1. Work with a small selection of Commonwealth government agencies that provide the opportunity to test different workflow models.

2. The Pilot will operate for a period of 2-3 years, with the staged inclusion of identified agencies.

  • Year 1 participants: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Australia (AFFA), Environment Australia (EA), Health and Ageing, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOSH), Parliamentary Library, Treasury;
  • Year 2: Maritime Safety Authority, CSIRO, National Archives.

3. Liaise with heads of agencies to give the Pilot Project a profile within each agency.

4. Conduct a workshop (1/2 day) with identified participants to:

  • identify what participating agencies would like to achieve from the Pilot;
  • identify general issues relating to government agency metadata such as creation, storage, description, location, accessibility, costs, resources (staff), standards, scoping, updating and data maintenance;
  • identify issues and options for the addition and maintenance of this metadata on the NBD;
  • raise awareness of Pandora requirements such as blanket permissions and RDS requirements; and
  • conduct further planning of the Pilot Project.

5. Individual meetings with participants to work on specific technical or policy issues such as description, location, accessibility, costs, standards, resources in or out of scope for the NBD, staff resources, workflows, data creation and storage.

6. Participating organizations to extract data from their systems and supply to Kinetica. Where necessary Kinetica to specify and create conversion software and test load the data. Testing of Open Archives Initiative (OAI) harvesting tools to be part of the technical testing.

7. Following successful testing, production loading of data to the NBD to commence.

8. Workflows to be established and the process for ongoing updating of the NBD with agency data.

Deliverables

1. A discussion paper/report that reviews issues relating to the collection and inclusion of metadata for Commonwealth government agencies on the NBD and also provides a scoping statement for the NBD.

2. Mechanisms and workflows (tools) for the input and maintenance of metadata for Commonwealth government publications - including an extension of existing mechanisms such as consideration of utilising Picture Australia data collection system.

3. A report to FLIN (Federal Libraries Information Network)/NLA/KAC outlining the Pilot Project, evaluating the issues, reporting on the case studies developed during the Pilot Project and workflow implications for agencies/libraries.

4. Seminar/workshop/presentation for FLIN libraries to showcase findings and discuss issues arising from Year 1.

Progress Report

A workshop to refine the goals of the project, identify major issues and define strategies was held at the National Library on 20 February 2003. The workshop was attended by representatives from each participating agency and Kinetica.

A discussion paper that reviews issues relating to the collection and inclusion of metadata for Commonwealth government agencies for the NBD and also provides a scoping statement for the NBD (Attachment B). The Project has to date identified the following issues:

  • Definition of a "published" resource.
  • Scope of resources identified for metadata creation.
  • Level of description of the resource (e.g. collection level, single item, analytics).
  • Metadata content standards (e.g. Australian Government Locator Service metadata schema (AGLS), Dublin Core, MARC21, Agency Specific schema).
  • Quality of metadata description.
  • Metadata harvesting issues (e.g. use of different systems platforms in each agency).

The Metadata Pilot tasks still to be completed in the current phase include the following:

  • Complete the collection of test data from agencies.
  • Complete the specification of Extensible Markup Language (XML) to Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS).
  • Test the conversion of MODS to MARC.
  • Test load MARC data to Kinetica"s test database.

One agency in the Pilot has elected to input its records online via the Kinetica Cataloguing Client. Two agencies have sent test files in XML and forms of AGLS. One agency has data on its web site indexed through a Harvest Control List, which we are working on harvesting. Two more agencies are still developing their test data

The National Library has agreed on the format of specifications for transformation of the XML files and specification of AGLS to MODS format has begun. MODS is the Nstandard for metadata and a MODS to MARC conversion is also being tested.

The National Library"s Harvester Project will provide a generalised framework for automating the harvesting, conversion, loading and review of bibliographic data from external contributors for inclusion in the NBD and other repositories.

The Harvester Project is designed to establish a system for managing and automating the harvesting of bibliographic and authority records from a variety of contributors and their conversion and loading into the NBD. The initial contributors will be organisations who currently do not supply records to the NBD. Contributors may supply records in a variety of XML formats but will be encouraged to use either Dublin Core or MODS formats. In addition the system must also support web-based interfaces for entering single bibliographic records and name authorities records in real-time. The system must support harvesting via the OAI protocol.

The Harvester Project will provide a generic web interface to enter and update individual bibliographic and name authority records. This interface should be capable of customization for the requirements of contributors to specific resource discovery services, eg Music Australia, RAAM.

Kinetica will provide Harvester with:

  • detailed specifications about how the Batch*Link load program should be modified by IBM/GSA to support batch update;
  • detailed conversion specifications for each contributor"s XML format to MODS format (DC to MODS also done); and
  • the necessary information about bibliographic contributions to be used in the initial implementation.

Recommendations

That the Kinetica Advisory Committee notesthe report.

Kinetica Database Services

Contact: Ian Dunn

(02) 62621467

5 August 2003


Attachment A

Commonwealth Government Metadata Pilot

Summary Project Schedule

Identification of Participants

 

1 December 2002- 30 January 2003

 

ParticipantWorkshop

 

20 February2003

 

Technical/policymeetings

 

25 February -11 April 2003

 

Datasampling

 

21 March - 17May 2003

 

Dataconversions

 

31 March - 28June 2003

 

Data testloads

 

23 April - 30July 2003

 

Design andtesting of automated harvesting and uploading of data

 

1 June - 30September 2003

 

Manualproduction data loads

 

26 July 2003

 

Discussion paperon data acquisition and loading issues, and scope of the NBD

 

30 July 2003

 

Production loadswith automated harvesting and updating

 

1 October 2003

 

Processing ofproduction updates

 

1 October 2003

 

Year 1 pilotevaluation - participant contribution

 

1 October - 14November 2003

 

Final discussionpaper/project report

 

30 November2003

 

Seminar/presentation year 1

 

Week commencing 8December 2003

 

KACreports

  • Interim
  • Year 1 Final

30 July 2003

15 February2004

 



Attachment B

Commonwealth Government Metadata Pilot Draft Scoping Paper

Discussion paper on issues relating to the collection and inclusion of Commonwealth Government agency metadata in the National Bibliographic Database

Introduction

The Commonwealth Government Metadata pilot project commenced in January 2003 with the objective of improving the coverage of Commonwealth Government electronic publications in the National Bibliographic Database (NBD). This paper describes the issues relating to metadata acquisition and loading that have been identified by the project, and proposes some additions to the statement of the scope of the NBD.

What is 'Published'?

Agency intent

The NBD is predominantly comprised of published materials in that most of the metadata residing in it describes items that are generally for public distribution or access. When focusing on electronic resources it is widely accepted that online documents are considered "published" if the intent is to make them widely available to the public, be it at a cost or freely available. In this respect there is no inherent conflict in attempting to broaden the scope of the NBD to accommodate a greater variety of online objects. However, it is not clear whether all material that is intended for general distribution is appropriate for the NBD, for example personal home pages, promotional sites and advertising could be out-of scope for the NBD.

Agency self selection

From this point of view the Government Agencies contributing to the pilot will essentially be self-selecting in their contributions. Whichever online objects the Agencies choose to take the trouble to attach metadata will be included. To advise the Agencies which objects might be the most valuable and appropriate to contribute the following guidelines might be followed.

Guidelines for in scope contributions

According to Keeping government publications online : a guide for Commonwealth Agencies (2002) a publication is information made available to the public, free of charge or for a fee. Practically this is interpreted as the following categories of online publications:

  • Journals
  • Newsletters
  • Serials
  • Research papers
  • Discussion papers
  • Technical reports
  • Annual reports
  • Fact sheets
  • Manuals (not internal procedures)
  • Public accountability documents
  • Conference proceedings
  • Databases of information for public access
  • Substantial ministerial and departmental speeches
  • Documents formerly published in print
  • Documents eligible for [14]ISBN or ISSN
  • New edition/version of any of the above
  • Web sites or parts thereof which provide substantial unique information about an initiative, project, event or subject

Similarly the Commonwealth Implementation Manual: Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) Metadata, version 1.1 (July 2001) also provides a minimum set of resources that should receive metadata in order to comply with online information services obligations (OSIOs) as part of the Government Online Strategy. These are:

  1. Home pages (defined as the major entry point to an organisation or those distinct business units where there is likely to be a public perception that they stand alone);
  2. Topics/services in high demand by the community that the organisation serves (this can be based on usage statistics but may also include topical or publicised resources with potential public interest);
  3. Information required by agency clientele to understand their entitlements to government assistance or obligations;
  4. Pages that provide an actual online service to the public (such as payment forms, application forms etc);
  5. Pages required to meet a prescribed community/legal/service obligation by the organisation;
  6. Entry points to specific online services and indexes (eg an entry point to a legal database);
  7. Major formal publications (eg annual reports, corporate strategic plans, public policy and accountability documents, etc);
  8. Media releases (this means every media release on a site. However, if an agency has a large number of media releases it is sufficient to describe the most recent ones, say the previous three months, and every new media release as it is added to the website.);
  9. Major entry points or indexes and menus to a range of closely related topics, programs or policies;
  10. Information about agency powers affecting the public, and manuals and other documents used in decision-making affecting the public; and
  11. Substantial descriptive or marketing information about agencies, their services, activities and collections.

Recommended list

Category ofmaterial

 

Source

 

Comments

 

Journals

 
   

Newsletters

 
   

Serials

 
   

Research papers

 
   

Discussionpapers

 
   

Technicalreports

 
   

Annual reports

 
   

Fact sheets

 
   

Manuals (notinternal procedures)

 
   

Publicaccountability documents

 
   

Conferenceproceedings

 
   

Databases ofinformation for public access

 
   

Substantialministerial and departmental speeches

   

Document formerlypublished in print

 
   

Document eligiblefor [15]ISBN or ISSN

 
   

New edition/versionof any of the above

 
   

Web sites or partsthereof which provide substantial unique information about an initiative,project, event or subject

 
   

Personal home pages(e.g. Senator Alston"s Personal Profile)

   

Level of description

Whole of item

The NBD to-date has consisted of whole of item descriptions. For example catalogue records are contributed for a book, a picture, a journal title or a movie.

In the online environment the level at which resources or information is described varies with local practice. Generally described at the object level it is possible to insert descriptions on each page of an object depending on the type of software tool used to construct the metadata. Online metadata may describe a class of objects or a part of an object. For example a website may have its own description while various parts of the same site dealing with specific topics may have their own description as well.

In order to capture or harvest the descriptions of these objects and present them in terms of a 'catalog' or 'directory' listing within the NBD, it will be necessary to generally frame the metadata once at the object level analogous to the entity 'book' in the traditional library setting.

Contributors would self define their publications at the object level, eg defining the whole website or parts or the website as 'publications', and so defining the extent of the various objects described.

Collection level

While the concept of collection level or multi-item description is not new to libraries, it has not been employed extensively outside the area of manuscript and ephemera collections, where the description of individual items would be both complex and inefficient in relation to resource discovery. We would discourage the use of Collection level description as it is desirable to give direct access to the described resource via embedded URLs in the metadata descriptions

Analytics

Analytic or sub-item cataloguing (eg chapter or article level descriptions) is not broadly encouraged in the library sphere and its usefulness depends on the availability and use within a system of sophisticated linkages between dependent parts.

It is not possible with the AGLS scheme to link related objects in any but a very simple way. We would also generally discourage the use of analytic descriptions for these reasons.

It is also desirable from the point of view of keeping the description of the resource up to date to have the resource described discretely at the object level. This would allow the metadata descriptions to be updated independently whenever the object is updated, rather than having to update part of a description or a class of descriptions.

Objects described by metadata other than at the object level will generally be out of scope for inclusion in this pilot.

Metadata Content standards

Metadata form

Of course it is desirable that the content of the metadata descriptions be standardised to allow both ease of conversion to other formats and the matching of data where that is necessary. For this project the main transpositions will be between MARC21 environment of the NBD and the AGLS environment of web metadata.

AGLS

Contributors should undertake to adhere to the AGLS standard supported by the National Archives of Australia. Described in Commonwealth Implementation Manual: Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) Metadata, version 1.1 (July 2001)

Dublin Core

It is of course recognised that agencies may already have adopted Dublin Core, or a variation thereof, as a local metadata standard. Not wishing to prevent such agencies from contributing it would be possible to negotiate with those agencies on defining a specific transformation for their data for loading into the NBD.

Agency specific formats

Agencies may be using a home grown standard in relation to their metadata and records from such sources would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis to see if transformation of their data would be considered economical.

MARC21

XML

Metadata descriptive standards

The environment into which the harvested metadata records are to be imported is one to which stringent rules relating to content have been applied for many years in the library environment.

AACR2

The principal standard being the Anglo-American Cataloguing rules 2nd edition used with (AACR2), the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and the MARC21 coding sequence. It is recognised that government agencies may have developed local rules, thesauri and formats regarding a content that is specific to their needs.

LCSH and LCNA

In the library environment the most widely used thesaurus is Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) along with its sister publication Library of Congress Name Authorities (LCNA). Though these tools are not widely used in the IT sector, the utility of using controlled vocabulary in metadata records and of giving an indication in the records which thesaurus is the source of the term should be emphasized.

Importance of Agency wide consistency

It is important that agencies producing metadata should produce data according to agency wide standards. Data harvested from agency sites will be processed as discrete files and should at least be consistent in form and content across the whole agency. Quality control and consistency are important to enable direct resource discovery by Australian users, information sharing between agencies and indeed information management needs within agencies. The ideal would be the adoption of a single metadata standard for the whole of government and that is still an ideal we should seek to move towards, as it would allow Australians to search for Web information on the NBD without needing to know which department or agency produced it.

Quality of meta description

Context: Record updating

The NBD currently contains over 14 million records for bibliographic materials. When adding metadata derived records it is essential that the level of description of each object be sufficient to uniquely identify that record, so that it may be retrieved for the purposes of maintenance and updating. In order to facilitate this, agencies are requested to adhere to the Commonwealth obligation status of the 19 AGLS metadata elements listed below:

AGLS element

 

Commonwealth agency obligations

 

Creator

 

Mandatory

 

Date

 

Mandatory

 

Description

 

Mandatory

 

Title

 

Mandatory

 

Type

 

Mandatory

 

Function

 

Mandatory forcollection level resources

Mandatory forservice description

Mandatory (if no Subject element)

 

Subject

 

Mandatory (if no Function element)

 

Availability

 

Mandatory (for descriptions of offline resources)

(ie no Identifier element)

 

Identifier

 

Mandatory (for descriptions of online resources)

(ie no Availability element)

 

Publisher

 

Conditional

Mandatory except for service descriptions

 

Audience

 

Conditional

Mandatory when the target audience of the resource is not 'All'

 

Coverage

 

Conditional

Mandatory when the spatial coverage of the resource content is not the whole of Australia

 

Language

 

Conditional

Mandatory when there source is in a language other than English

 

Contributor

 

Optional

 

Format

 

Optional

 

Mandate

 

Optional

 

Relation

 

Optional

 

Rights

 

Optional

 

Source

 

Optional

 

From Commonwealth Implementation Manual: Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) Metadata, version 1.1 (July 2001), p.20, Table 1.

Common look and feel

We encourage agencies to follow a common look and feel on the content of their data fields. Mostly this is facilitated by a common sense approach. For example you should never input content entirely in UPPER CASE in any field.

Suggestions below relate to particular fields:

Title

Titles should be clear unambiguous and meaningful in relation to the subject of the item. Subtitles should be delimited by the use of a colon, for example 'The Parliament : a history'

Creator

The creator will usually be the agency responsible for publishing the item. In general do not use personal names like 'John' or 'Mary'.

Subject

These should be from an authorized controlled vocabulary to describe the intellectual content of the item and should be input exactly as they appear in the controlled vocabulary being used. The thesaurus in use should be identified in the metadata.

Full details relating to these and other fields are contained in Commonwealth Implementation Manual: Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) Metadata, version 1.1 (July 2001), p. 30 onwards.

Persistent identifiers

Version control

Monographs vs Serials

Harvesting Metadata

Automated/HCL

Some agencies may adopt the method of creating Harvest Control Lists (HCL) which point to the location of the items and metadata. The National Library of Australia could then periodically query those sites and retrieve batches of metadata files to process into an acceptable format and load into the NBD.

Batch loading/FTP

Agencies may choose to collect their metadata output at a central repository and be able to monitor what they have and have not reported to the NBD. Such agencies may choose to report by sending files of records by FTP to Kinetica to be batch loaded to the NBD

Online

Some agency libraries have taken on the task of inputting agency publications both print and online to the NBD using the Kinetica Cataloguing Client. This allows those libraries both to control the quality of the records sent and to be able to keep a record of their agency"s output.

The scope of the NBD can also be defined in terms of the resources that are represented: published resources that are part of Australian library collections, or resources to which Australian libraries wish to provide access. Resources included in the NBD are those that have substantial content, lasting value and where there is a commitment to ensure ongoing access.





[1] Seventy-three responses were received in 2002, and seventy-four in 2003.

[2] One school library responded to the survey. This library carried out extensive authority work, including subject headings for fiction. However, this site, being the sole respondent, cannot be considered indicative of school libraries.

[3] Statistics taken from survey responses.

[4] This figure is unreliable. It would appear to include number of headings automatically generated by the addition of new bibliographic records, or the number of new titles added to local systems.

[5] Likewise unreliable, although the figure is inflated by large data loads in some academic sites, and the counting of new and amended records together in a number of other sites.

[6] Statistics derived from the NBD indicate that a total of 1721 authority records were added to the NBD in 2002, or 1605 from July 2002 to June 2003.

[7] These figures are derived from NBD statistics for 2002/2003

[8] 'Other' consists of contributors who cannot be identified, mainly because records have been imported from other sources (eg LC, RLG), and the correct NUC of the importing library has not been included in the record.

[9] ABN Network Committee Agenda Papers, February 1989. (ABN/NC/1989/1/15)

[10] ABN Network Committee Agenda Papers, March 1993. (ABN/NC/1993/1/6)

[11] Pre-Kinetica Implementation statistics (June 1989 - Jan 1998) are taken from the Service Reports in the Network Committee Agenda Papers.

Post- Kinetica Implementation statistics (Jan. 2000 - June 2002) are taken from NBD statistics kept locally.

The decline in authority record growth from 1994 is possibly due to the increasing availability of local systems, which have been increasingly used over the last decade for authority work. The rise in authority activity in 1998-9 is due to database cleanup in preparation for migration from ABN. The significant decrease in 2000 is due to the unavailability of an authority input process in the early days of the Kinetica Service implementation, together with lack of training provided at the time.

[12] 'Other' consists of contributors who cannot be identified, mainly because records have been imported from other sources (eg LC, RLG), and the correct NUC of the importing library has not been included in the record.

[13] Based on report of 15 May 2003 of electronic resources on the NBD. Final figure has been derived after proper de-duplication of the 3 different criteria used: 245 contains the text string "[electronic resource]" Leader/06=m856 present, excluded reading the 530 field as there was insufficient uniformity in the text to accurately identify electronic resources

[14] The ISBN Guide for Self-Allocators assigns ISBNs for online items that are "static and unchangeable". Online items that are updated by the publisher such as home pages, web sites or interactive data storage sites are ineligible for ISBNs though they advise that ISSNs may be obtained from the ISSN Agency. There is no description of the types of online resources that would be eligible for an ISSN on the Agency"s website though reference is made to online serials being eligible and discussion with agency staff indicate that items with a print equivalent are eligible but policy on broader categories of web resources is under consideration.

[15] The ISBN Guide for Self-Allocators assigns ISBNs for online items that are "static and unchangeable". Online items that are updated by the publisher such as home pages, web sites or interactive data storage sites are ineligible for ISBNs though they advise that ISSNs may be obtained from the ISSN Agency. There is no description of the types of online resources that would be eligible for an ISSN on the Agency"s website though reference is made to online serials being eligible and discussion with agency staff indicate that items with a print equivalent are eligible but policy on broader categories of web resources is under consideration.