Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization in OCLC WorldCat Records with National, Core, and Minimal Level Record Standards

Journal of Library Metadata, 9:36 64, 2009 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1938-6389 print / 1937-5034 online DOI: 10.1080/19386380903095073 Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization in OCLC WorldCat Records with National, Core, and Minimal Level Record Standards AMY P. EKLUND JCLRC Technical Services, Georgia Perimeter College, Clarkston, Georgia, USA SHAWNE D. MIKSA and WILLIAM E. MOEN Texas Center for Digital Knowledge and Department of Library and Information Sciences, College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA GREGORY SNYDER Harris County Public Library, Houston, Texas, USA SERHIY POLYAKOV Texas Center for Digital Knowledge, Department of Library and Information Sciences, College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA Commonly used fields and subfields in 56 million Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) WorldCat bibliographic records are identified based on the analysis of format-specific record sets and the calculation of utilization thresholds, with the purpose of comparing these elements with existing recommendations by Library of Congress (LC) agencies for national, core, and minimal level records. The background and purposes of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) BIBCO, CONSER, and National and Minimal Level Record Requirements are reviewed. Methodology for conducting the analyses, as well as factors affecting and influencing the analysis methodology, is explained. Results of the comparison of commonly used fields and subfields with the elements prescribed in PCC BIBCO, CONSER, and National and Minimal Level Record Requirements are presented. Results provide standards designers and the cataloging community at large with information to facilitate development of cataloging recommendations and guidelines and inform practice. Address correspondence to Amy P. Eklund, JCLRC Technical Services, Georgia Perimeter College, 555 N. Indian Creek Dr., Clarkston, GA 30021, USA. E-mail: amy.eklund@gpc.com 36

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 37 KEYWORDS MARC21, MARC utilization, content designation structures, national level records, core level records, minimal level records, MARC Content Designation Utilization Project, cataloging standards, cataloging practices, Program for Cooperative Cataloging, BIBCO, CONSER INTRODUCTION This article presents a comparison of field and subfield utilization in 56 million MARC records from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) World- Cat database with three sets of cataloging recommendations or guidelines: National and Minimal Level Bibliographic Record Requirements, Program for Cooperative Cataloging s (PCC) BIBCO Core Record Standards, and CONSER Record Requirements for Full, Minimal, and Core Level Records for Serials. It is proposed that by comparing these prescribed sets of content designation to the frequency counts of actual content designation use by catalogers, parallelisms or incongruities of standards and practice will be revealed. RESEARCH GOALS This article exists within the context of the MARC Content Designation Utilization (MCDU) project. The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded a National Leadership Grant to support this project during the 2004 2007 time frame. One of the research goals of the project, to provide empirical evidence to document MARC21 content designation (i.e., field subfield combinations) use by catalogers, was achieved by frequency counts of all fields and subfields used in the OCLC WorldCat database. OCLC provided the project the complete set of MARC records from World- Cat in May 2007 comprising approximately 56 million records. This served as the dataset analyzed in the MCDU project. Another research objective was to identify commonly used elements in bibliographic records based on the analysis of format-specific record sets and to compare these elements with existing recommendations by LC agencies for national, core, and minimal level records (Moen, 2004). In support of the research objectives, this analysis seeks to address the following research questions: What are the sets of commonly used elements per format, and how do these compare with the elements prescribed in current national, core, and minimal level recommendations or guidelines for cataloging? Conversely, are there elements that are frequently used by catalogers but are not prescribed in current national, core, and minimal level recommendations or guidelines for cataloging? The results of this analysis can provide standards designers and the cataloging community at large with information to

38 A. P. Eklund et al. facilitate the development of MARC21 as well as cataloging recommendations and guidelines. LITERATURE REVIEW To date, only one published empirical study (Lundy, 2006) was located that reports the comparison of content designation use in MARC records with the prescribed elements in the PCC BIBCO Core Record Standards, and no studies were located on the comparison of utilization with National and Minimal Level Bibliographic Record Requirements or CONSER Record Requirements for Full, Minimal, and Core Level Records for Serials. Lundy (2006) conducted a study of Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books (DCRB) core records from the RLIN and WorldCat databases and examined the records for adherence to the PCC BIBCO Core Standard for Rare Books. Lundy s study presents a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of a specific range of records cataloged according to the DCRB manual and using the PCC BIBCO standard, in terms of utilization of content designation and data content in the record. The research effort described in this article differs from Lundy s study primarily in its attention to content designation utilization or assignment rather than intricacies of data content in the records or adherence to any particular standard by libraries. In fact, the data values in specific fields in the records supplied to the MCDU project were removed by OCLC to protect the commercial and intellectual property of OCLC and its constituent libraries. A record s content at a current point in time could hypothetically be retrieved with a search using the record number in the WorldCat database, but this research project s goals did not include analysis of record content. This research effort is also much larger and more general in scope with respect to the number and type of records being analyzed than Lundy s study. This research effort provides further documentation and resources such as datasets that can be used by researchers who, like Lundy, wish to explore utilization in a narrow range of records for a specific purpose or to assess adherence to standards. BACKGROUND OF PCC BIBCO AND CONSER REQUIREMENTS Due to the complexity of MARC21, simplified versions or subsets of this standard have been created by various metadata developers to make it more usable for a wide variety of cataloging environments. One such core set of record standards, developed by the PCC, aims to provide a set of MARC fields and subfields that should be included in bibliographic records. These standards (or sets of guidelines) are laid out for use by participants to describe bibliographic items in a shared cataloging environment. The standards

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 39 were developed as a cost-effective alternative to full level cataloging that would be acceptable to a wide range of libraries. The PCC has endorsed the core record standard as one facet of its strategy to facilitate a national cooperative cataloging program that can help provide faster, better, cheaper cataloging (BIBCO, 2009a, para. 1) CONSER record requirements were developed separately from PCC BIBCO record requirements by a task force of serials specialists. The committee that developed CONSER modified versions of minimal and full level records and established a third core level record (CONSER, 2009, sec. 1.1, para. 3). CONSER requirements share some of the same goals as PCC BIBCO record standards: CONSER members are committed to creating and maintaining highquality, authoritative records for serials; providing identification, bibliographic description and access, and subject analysis; without limitation to subject, language, script, format, or source. CONSER recognizes the need for individual members to retain flexibility in determining the level of fullness needed in describing collections and titles understanding that, ideally, the fuller the information, the more useful it is for others. (CONSER, 2009, sec. 1.1, para. 4) In addition to full, minimal, and core level record standards for general serial records, the PCC CONSER program has a specific set of full, core, and minimal record requirements for serials in eight specific formats: microforms, newspapers, remote access computer files, direct access computer files, music, sound recordings, visual materials, and cartographic materials. CONSER, like PCC, places emphasis on the use of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Revised, 2nd edition (AACR2r) as the cataloging standard, and it also emphasizes the use of Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI). The primary purpose of both the PCC BIBCO and CONSER record standards has been to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the cataloging process. Whether or not this is of benefit to the user is not addressed specifically, but it is nonetheless an important question to ask. It is difficult to provide a count of the number of required elements per each of these standards, since field blocks (e.g., 1XX, 4XX..., etc.) are specified in addition to specific fields or subfields, and in some cases (e.g., the 500 field), several different functions of a single field are specified. But in a given PCC core level standard (CONSER or BIBCO), the approximate count of mandatory elements (fields or subfields) is generally between 5 and 8, and an approximate count of mandatory (if applicable) elements (fields, subfields, or field blocks) ranges from 20 to 30.

40 A. P. Eklund et al. BACKGROUND OF NATIONAL AND MINIMAL LEVEL REQUIREMENTS The National and Minimal Level Record Requirements have roots in the Retrospective Conversion (RECON) Working Task Force study in the 1970s. The task force, led by Henriette Avram, conducted a feasibility study for the sharing of bibliographic records, and part of this process involved the determination of levels or subsets of the established MARC II format (RECON Working Task Force, 1970, p. 122). The task force concluded that two levels of records were necessary for purposes of national record use: (1) the full MARC II format for distribution purposes and (2) a less complex subset to be used by libraries reporting holdings to the National Union Catalog (p. 122). The task force report initially defined three levels, but determined that national level records required a certain level of completeness, and, therefore, the third level, distinguished by the fact that only part of the bibliographic data in the original catalog record would be transcribed and content designators would be restricted to those necessary to identify certain data elements, was dropped (RECON Working Task Force, 1969, p. 164). Background information provided on the National and Minimal Level Requirements Web site follows: National level records are required to contain sufficient cataloging information to allow them to be used by various agencies: National and world-wide. National level record requirements were developed for most types of material between 1979 and 1981. Requirements for computer files and mixed materials were not added until the 1988 edition of the format. Minimal level records are required to contain only essential cataloging information, although additional data may be provided. The national level and minimal level record requirements presented here are not intended to prevent a cataloging agency from using any valid MARC 21 bibliographic data element. They are provided to facilitate the standardization of the content of MARC 21 bibliographic records. (Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 2009, para. 1) Currently no designations for types of materials exist, and the full MARC format is the basis for the National Level record. The Minimal Level Record Requirements seem to be a close match to the Level 3 record specified in the 1969 RECON report, although this is not confirmed in current documentation as the source for the required data elements. As well, the purpose of the Minimal Level record seems to have the same stated intention and advantage of the RECON project Level 3 record to promote compatibility among libraries that desire to exchange limited bibliographic records on the same terms (RECON Working Task Force, 1969, p. 165). It can also be stated

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 41 that Minimal Level Record Requirements cover the areas of the ISBD(G), but with spartan assignment of mandatory fields, especially in the note area. National Level Record Requirements specify requirements for the following numbers of fields: 7 mandatory, 80 mandatory if applicable (including 2 format-specific versions of 007), and 129 optional (including 13 formatspecific versions of 007). At the subfield level, 155 subfields are mandatory (including 3 subfield blocks in field 880), 979 are mandatory if applicable (including 2 subfield blocks in 886), and 551 are optional. It is important to note that many subfields are mandatory when their corresponding fields are either mandatory if applicable or optional. By contrast, Minimal Level Record Requirements specify 7 mandatory fields, 30 mandatory if applicable fields, and 179 optional fields (including 15 format-specific versions of the 007). At the subfield level, Minimal Level Requirements specify 29 mandatory subfields (including 3 subfield blocks in field 880), 133 mandatory if applicable subfields, and 1523 optional subfields (including 2 subfield blocks in field 886; Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 2009). METHODOLOGY This section details the methodology and procedures involved in the particular analyses carried out in the MCDU Project. Other project documents provide more detailed methodologies for preliminary procedures that support these analyses (e.g., database construction, record parsing, validation, database loading, and project set definition and extraction). The 56 million records were divided into LC-created and OCLC member library created sets. Each set was further divided into 10 subsets by format (based on AACR, OCLC, and MARC standards) to create a total of 20 subsets. Frequency counts of all MARC fields subfields combinations in each subset revealed the number of occurrences of each field or field subfield. A set of commonly utilized elements per format was developed by calculating a threshold based on the number of occurrences of each content designation structure (CDS). The CDS falling within a threshold have higher than average contribution toward the total number of occurrences caused by all CDS together. Comparison of the number of occurrences of each CDS with average occurrence can be performed and a conclusion made whether a particular CDS falls within a threshold. This method of defining the threshold was tested on sets of MARC records with a different number of fields and number of records, including those on artificial sets that simulated extreme cases. The method proved robust and produced interpretable results. Field subfield combinations not supplied by catalogers but rather automatically supplied by the system (i.e., 001, 003, 005, 019, 029, 040, 066, 938, and 994) were removed before setting the threshold (Moen et al., 2006).

42 A. P. Eklund et al. Next, the analysis of BIBCO and CONSER was conducted. For each of the sets, the PCC BIBCO standard that would most likely be used when cataloging items in that set was identified and the structure of the standards was examined. Each standard is presented in an integrated chart form. The various elements (fields and subfields) are shown along with their requirements (mandatory [M], mandatory if applicable [MA]) and a list of footnotes that provide explanations of the requirements (BIBCO, 2009b). Each PCC core record standard table (publicly available on the PCC Web site and CONSER Web site) was inserted into a spreadsheet. In other columns of each spreadsheet, it was indicated whether or not recommended fields (or fields within a field block) were among the frequently occurring CDS identified in the MCDU project threshold calculation (if the PCC standard included a noncataloger supplied field that was removed from the threshold, this was indicated). The ratio of the number of occurrences of each field subfield divided by the number of records was indicated as a percentage. If a field block rather than an individual field was listed in the standard, the aforementioned utilization ratio (expressed as a percentage) was given for fields subfields that had a utilization ratio or percentage greater than 1% in order to illustrate usage. If a subfield was specified in the standard, the utilization ratio or percentage for the specific subfield was given, and the threshold calculated for field subfield combinations was used. Lastly, analysis of the National and Minimal Level Record Requirements was conducted using the data publicly available online (http://www. loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/nlr/). The 1999 edition of MARC21 and modifications, through update 6, was used, but mapping of the frequency count data was undertaken only at the field and subfield levels. Specifically, the MCDU project analysis did not include indicators, Leader and Directory positions, 007 and 008 fixed-field character positions, or character positions in any of the subfields that function as fixed fields that are needed for National and Minimal Level records in the United States. Three levels of requirement are specified in the National and Minimal Level Requirements: Mandatory (M), Mandatory if Applicable (A), and Optional (O; Network Development and MARC Standards Office, 2009, para. 3 6). The optional requirement is presented as a period. on the LC Web site, since at the Minimal level many elements are optional and listing an O would reduce visual clarity. It should be noted that three elements (027 $z, 036 $b, and 306 $6) were missing a period on the Web site; this was understood to be an error because the Web site states that all elements are optional at the Minimal level unless they are listed as M or A. Thus, periods were inserted for purposes of this analysis for the three elements. In addition, 13 elements have an additional requirement qualification that specifies a requirement for a specific format of material (MARC format): O for Serials 3 elements; M for Serials 3 elements; A for visual materials

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 43 1 element; M for maps 2 elements; A for mixed materials 2 elements; O for mixed materials 1 element; A for computer files 1 element. Although the format-specific record sets used in this analysis do not directly correspond to the MARC formats, there are so few elements that have a qualification that it does not affect the overall results of the analysis. These qualifications were implemented in the analysis as follows: Serials Continuing Resources Sets; Visual Materials Projected Media, Graphic Materials, and Three-Dimensional Artifacts and Realia Sets; Mixed Materials Graphic Materials (including mixed materials, with or without archival control); Computer Files Electronic Resources Sets; Maps Cartographic Materials Sets. The data collected for this analysis were viewed and manipulated in an Excel workbook. The spreadsheets use integrated filters that allow queryby-example; one spreadsheet presents data for all record sets, one presents only data for LC created record sets, and the other presents only data for OCLC member library record sets. In addition, these spreadsheets have integrated formulas above each column of data; these formulas count the number of nonblank cells in each column. The research questions presented in the analysis document were followed by instructions for constructing the query in the Excel spreadsheets. A column labeled data element in this workbook contains data element names that were pulled from the mapping of MARC data elements to FRBR table found within the Delsey (2006) report titled Functional Analysis of the MARC21 Bibliographic Format. Sinceanother portion of the overall MCDU project involved mapping data to FRBR (Miksa et al., 2006), the data element names were reused for this analysis. Those element names not found in Delsey s database were added manually from the online National and Minimal Level Requirements. These element names should be considered nonauthoritative and are only present for convenience because the element names presented in the results come from three different sources; official MARC documentation should be consulted for official data element names. OCLC fields and subfields that do not appear in MARC documentation were taken from the OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. After preparing and mapping the data as described in the previous processes for all standards, secondary analyses were conducted. Summary tables were created to reflect the mapping of commonly occurring elements in the project datasets to the requirements in both the PCC BIBCO or CONSER standards and the National and Minimal Level Record Requirements. First, the common fields and subfields (occurred within the threshold described previously) across all 20 format-specific record sets (separated by format and by source of record, namely LC or OCLC-member libraries) were determined. This set of fields and subfields was designated as the base record and did not include system-supplied elements that were removed prior to the threshold calculations. Then elements unique to each format that were commonly occurring (occurred within the threshold), not including the fields subfields

44 A. P. Eklund et al. in the base record, were determined, and these were presented. Elements that occurred across 9/10 formats, 8/10 formats, 7/10 formats, and 6/10 formats for both LC and nonlc record sets were also presented. FACTORS AFFECTING METHODOLOGY This analysis concedes that there are factors and issues that inform the methodology and that must be considered in the examination of the analysis results. The ability to support all assumptions and reconcile all caveats is within the capability of the tools created by this project, but factors such as time and resources prohibit researchers from carrying out these extended sorts of analyses. However, it is hoped that future researchers will investigate some of the issues presented in this section using the datasets and tools created by the MCDU project. First, although not all catalogers use these established standards, it is useful to compare actual content designation utilization to these standards because it can provide a focus for discussions of standards development. Even those records that are not identified as PCC or CONSER records are included in the utilization counts (i.e., all records are compared in this analysis to the PCC and CONSER standards). This analysis is not intended to judge the quality of PCC BIBCO or CONSER records, nor does it prescribe adherence to established standards by any particular members of a community. However, this analysis does give valid information for the library cataloging community at-large by comparing an established standard with empirical research results. The number of records in the datasets that were cataloged according to specific standards was determined by utilizing the codes in the 042 field. A PCC BIBCO record is identified by the following characteristics: The MARC21 Format for Bibliographic Data defines an encoding level (Leader/17) value of 4 for core records. PCC BIBCO core records can be recognized by the presence of an encoding level of 4 to indicate core and the presence of pcc in field 042 to indicate that the record was created by a BIBCO library. Although non-bibco libraries can use the core level standard and the corresponding encoding level of 4, only records created by BIBCO libraries will include an 042 value of pcc. The Library of Congress uses the value pcc to indicate that records in a CIP state (encoding level 8 ) issued by the Library have been done at core level. When one of these records is updated based on the published item, the encoding level is changed to 4. (BIBCO, 2009a, sec. 4) PCC BIBCO records can also be encoded at other encoding levels, but in this case the 042 value of pcc has precedence over the encoding level for

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 45 TABLE 1 Number and Percentage of Records by 042 Code Number of % of nonlc Number of % of LC 042 code nonlc records records LC records records pcc (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) lcd (CONSER full authority application) msc (CONSER minimal authority application) 387,878 <1 538,644 6.2 265,503 <1 74,165 <1 151,709 <1 44,769 <1 identifying the record. A full or core level CONSER record can be identified by an 042 value of lcd (CONSER full authority application) and an encoding level (Leader/17) value of 4 (core) or # (full). A minimal level CONSER record can be identified by a 042 value of msc (CONSER minimal authority application) and encoding level 7. As the semantics of the 042 codes indicate, the CONSER records are largely validated by the fact that name and series headings have been verified in the authority file. Code lcd indicates that all headings are authorized, and code msc indicates that one or more headings may not be authoritative (CONSER, 2009). A summary of the number and percentage of records in the MCDU project dataset that are identified by field 042 codes pcc, lcd, or msc are presented in Table 1. There are only a small percentage of records in the nonlc and LC sets that have 042 codes, and only the LC set has any significant percentage of PCC records. However, it is likely that larger percentages of records with these codes appear in one or more of the format-specific nonlc or LC sets. There is no stated method of identifying records cataloged according to National and Minimal Level Record Requirements, but the encoding levels # (Full) and 7 (Minimal) are indicators that the records meet these requirements. Table 2 shows the number and percentage of records having these codes. A second concession of this analysis is that records in the datasets have disparate levels of fullness in terms of encoding level (full, minimal, etc.). Table 2 presents the distribution of records in the datasets that are encoded at Full (#), Core (4), and Minimal (7) encoding levels in Leader/17, as well as those encoded at similar OCLC designated levels (I, K, L, M). No universally utilized specifications exist for these levels of fullness in terms of the fields that must be contained in each level (the descriptive cataloging standard used and local practices may dictate these levels of fullness). The assumption is that comparisons of actual utilization (regardless of encoding level) with national, core, and minimal level standards nevertheless provide useful information about standards development. Another caveat of the analysis is that PCC BIBCO standards mandate use of certain fields, but they also allow for use of fields not in the standards and

46 A. P. Eklund et al. TABLE 2 Distribution of Records by Encoding Level Encoding level Number of % of nonlc Number of % of LC (Leader/17) nonlc records records LC records records # (Full) 2,727,177 5.7 4,934,795 56.6 4 (Core) 203,938 <1 479,602 6.6 7 (Minimal) 632,880 1.3 709,350 8.1 I (Full, OCLC 23,158,618 48.7 1,638,019 18.7 participants) K (Less-than-full, 9,735,151 20.5 62,459 <1 OCLC participants L (Full, added from 927,996 1.9 49,173 <1 batch process) M (Less-than full, added from batch process 8,521,090 17.9 99,838 1.1 Source: William E. Moen et al., Format Content Designation Analysis: Data Report, General Profiles, (Denton, TX: University of North Texas, 2005a): 34 36, http://www.mcdu.unt.edu/wp-content/ FANDRGenProfileswemFinal20Dec2005.pdf. allow for judgment based on applicability to the item in hand (i.e., it labels many elements MA, for mandatory if applicable). It is a set of guidelines that depend heavily on the use of other standards (MARC, Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, etc.) and cataloger judgment. The BIBCO standard s introduction gives these guidelines for application and makes these statements about quality control: Each core record standard includes a list of fields required if the record is to be labeled a core record. There is no guarantee that the mere presence of all of the required fields will produce a high-quality record. For core records to be high quality records, they will need to be created by properly trained catalogers exercising good judgment. Whenever a cataloger judges that a field that is not required by the core record standard is nonetheless clearly necessary to create a useful record, include that field in the bibliographic record. Of course, one of the goals in the development of the core record standards was to enable libraries to produce more records faster and cheaper. Thus, it would be wise to use the following rule of thumb: when in doubt about the usefulness of adding a non-core field in a core record, leave it out. When using existing program records for copy-cataloging, one should use the opposite rule of thumb: when in doubt about the usefulness of a non-core field present in a core record, leave it in. (BIBCO, 2009a, sec. 3) PCC standards are closely tied to the three levels of description (excerpt below) specified in the AACR2r. When the fields subfields included in the PCC BIBCO standards and the three levels are examined side-by-side, it

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 47 appears that the PCC BIBCO standards are providing bibliographic detail at approximately the second or third level of description, where all categories specified in the first and most or all categories in the second level are taken into account, while providing additional elements at the third level that are specific to the material being described. 1.0D. Levels of detail in the description The elements of description provided in the rules in this and in following chapters constitute a maximum set of information. This rule sets out three recommended levels of description each containing those elements that must be given as a minimum by libraries and other cataloguing agencies choosing that level of description. Base the choice of a level of description on the purpose of the catalogue or catalogues for which the entry is constructed. Include this minimum set of elements for all items catalogued at the chosen level when the elements are applicable to the item being described and when, in the case of optional additions, the library has chosen to include an optional element. If the rules in part I specify other pieces of information in place of any of the elements set out below, include those other pieces of information. Consult individual rules in this chapter and in those following for the content of elements to be included. See also 0.29. 1.0D1. First level of description For the first level of description, include at least the elements set out in this schematic illustration: Title proper/first statement of responsibility, if different from main entry heading in form or number or if there is no main entry heading. Edition statement. Material (or type of publication) specific details. First publisher, etc., date of publication, etc. Extent of item. Note(s). Standard number 1.0D2. Second level of description For the second level of description, include at least the elements set out in this schematic illustration: Title proper [general material designation] = Parallel title: other title information/first statement of responsibility; each subsequent statement of responsibility. Edition statement/first statement of responsibility relating to the edition. Material (or type of publication) specific details. First place of publication, etc.: first publisher, etc., date of publication, etc. Extent of item: other physical details; dimensions. (Title proper of series/statement of responsibility relating to series, ISSN of series; numbering within the series. Title of subseries, ISSN of subseries; numbering within subseries). Note(s). Standard number

48 A. P. Eklund et al. 1.0D3. Third level of description For the third level of description, include all elements set out in the following rules that are applicable to the item being described. (AACR2r, 2002, rev. 2005) For example, the following fields are included in one or more of the PCC BIBCO core record standards that provide bibliographic description detail at the third level of description: 024, 028, 034, 037$a, 041, 240, 245 (all subfields beyond $a and$h), 260 (all subfields beyond $a, $b, and $c), 300 (all subfields beyond $a, $b, and $c), 352, and 856 (AACR2r, 2002, rev. 2005). The format-specific sets do not directly map to PCC BIBCO material types, but the correspondence is close enough to allow useful comparison for further discussion. Table 3 shows the correspondence of the MCDU project record sets with the PCC BIBCO core record standards. Please note that each format-specific set is further divided into two sets of records: those created by LC and those created by OCLC member libraries (nonlc). Sets 1, 3, 5, 9, and 10 are the most problematic in terms of correspondence. Each of these sets was initially mapped to more than one PCC BIBCO standard since there was more than one applicable standard that applied to the materials in the set. A good example of the problems encountered in mapping the sets is Set 3, Electronic Resources, which includes a significant percentage of serials records (about 25% of nonlc and LC records in this set are coded s in Leader/07). In addition, Set 3 contains all types of electronic resources (those with Leader/06 codes including m for computer files and also those coded for type of material but designated as electronic resource in the 008 field), whereas the PCC standard for Monographic Electronic Resources is to be used only with computer files. PCC standards do not specify TABLE 3 Correspondence of Project Sets and PCC BIBCO Standards Project format-specific set (LC or nonlc) Set 1: Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets Set 2: Cartographic Materials Set 3: Electronic Resources Set 4: Continuing Resources Set 5: Manuscripts (including manuscript collections) Set 6: Music (notated and manuscript music) Set 7: Sound Recordings (musical and nonmusical) Set 8: Projected Media (including digital and nondigital) Set 9: Graphic Materials (includes mixed materials, with or without archival control) Set 10: Three-Dimensional Artifacts and Realia Record Standard PCC BIBCO Core Books, Rare Books Cartographic Materials Monographic Electronic Resources, CONSER CONSER Books, Collections, Rare Books Printed/Manuscript Music Sound Recordings Moving Image Materials Graphic Materials, Collections Graphic Materials, Collections

Comparison of MARC Content Designation Utilization 49 which Leader/06 (Type of Record) position corresponds to which standard for other types of material, so it is difficult to predict how Type of Record codes are actually distributed in PCC BIBCO core records. Records in the sets are cataloged according to varying descriptive cataloging standards, including AACR2r, ISBD, and other format-specific standards such as DCRB. The PCC BIBCO and CONSER standards and the National and Minimal Level Record Requirements are based on cataloging standards according to AACR2r (with the exception of the Rare Books Core standard, which is based on DCRB, an adaptation of AACR2r). Therefore this study concedes that the heterogeneous nature of the sets presents problems with the comparison against AACR2r-based standards. Table 4 presents the distribution of descriptive cataloging form in the sets by number and percentage of records. As can be seen in Table 4, the majority of records in the sets are cataloged according to AACR2r, but significant numbers of records are cataloged according to ISBD or non-isbd, as well. Please note that DCRB and other format-specific or repository-specific cataloging standards (such as APPM, DACS, etc.) do not have individual codes in Leader 18. These manuals may be specified by a code in 040 $e, but the Leader/18 position is likely coded for AACR2r, since these manuals are adaptations of AACR2r. Finally, it should be noted that there are discrepancies in the entities specified in each of the standards. The BIBCO standard specifies field blocks (e.g., 5XX), fields, and subfields, CONSER specifies requirements only at the field and field block levels, and National and Minimal Level Requirements are specified at the field and subfield level (as well as 007/008 character positions, which are not included in this analysis). In cases where discrepancies existed, decisions were made in mapping at disparate entity levels and these were indicated in the data tables with notes. ANALYSIS RESULTS To reiterate, the research questions addressed by the analysis are the following: What are the sets of commonly used elements per format, and how do these compare with the elements prescribed in current national, core, and TABLE 4 Distribution of Records by Descriptive Cataloging Form Descriptive cataloging form Number of % of nonlc Number of % of LC code (Leader/18) nonlc records records LC records records # (Non-ISBD) 9,128,104 19.2 2,360,067 27.1 a (AACR2r) 30,628,870 64.5 5,304,099 60.8 i (ISBD) 7,635,739 16.1 1,049,473 12.0 u (Unknown) 71,004 <1 26 <1

50 A. P. Eklund et al. TABLE 5 Fields and Subfields in NonLC Sound Recordings Set not Within Threshold But Prescribed in PCC BIBCO Standard for Sound Recordings Field tag/ Ratio: Number of total occurrences subfield code and PCC of each field (subfield)/number element name requirements [a] of records (expressed as%) 010 (Library of Congress MA 5.8 Control Number LCCN) 041 $h (Language code) MA 3.1 042 (Authentication Code) M 3.6 250 (Edition Statement) MA 2.0 501 (With Note) MA 1.9 502 (Dissertation Note) MA <1 533 (Reproduction Note) MA <1 546 (Language Note) MA 3.2 655 (Index Term Genre/ 5.1 Form) 8XX (Series added entries) MA < 2.6 [a] Footnotes that appear in the standards to qualify the requirements have been removed. minimal level recommendations or guidelines for cataloging? Conversely, are there elements that are frequently used by catalogers but are not prescribed in current national, core, and minimal level recommendations or guidelines for cataloging? Following the processes in the methodology, the PCC BIBCO, CONSER, and National and Minimal Level requirements were mapped to the frequency counts of fields and subfields. For purposes of illustration, the results for the nonlc Sound Recordings (musical and nonmusical) Record Set will be referenced in the rest of this section. This set of 1,702,342 records was selected by using the Leader/06 codes i and j, and does not include the 1,975 records coded s for electronic resource in the 008/23 that have Leader/06 codes i or j (Moen et al., 2005b). The designation of commonly occurring refers to fields and subfields that occur at or above the calculated threshold for the record set, which in the case of the nonlc Sound Recordings TABLE 6 Fields in NonLC Sound Recordings Set Within Threshold But Not Prescribed in PCC BIBCO Standard for Sound Recordings Field tag Ratio: Number of total occurrences of each field/number of records (expressed as%) 024 13.4 033 11.1 043 21.3 048 11.1 306 14.5

TABLE 7 Commonly Occurring Fields and Subfields Across all Formats in Library of Congress Record Sets, with Requirements Field Nat. Level Min. Level Nat./Min. BIBCO Core Record tag Subfield code Element name requirements requirements requirement qualification Standards (combined) [a] 008 Fixed Length Data Elements M M M 010 LC control no. A A MA (for all formats except collections) 010 a LC control no. A A 245 Title Statement M M M 245 a Title M M A for mixed materials M 260 Pub., Dist., etc. A A M for serials M or MA (varies by format) 260 a Place of pub., distribution, etc. A. M for serials M or MA (varies by format) 260 c Date of pub., distribution, etc. A A M for maps M or MA (varies by format) 300 Physical Description M M A for computer files M or MA (varies by format) 300 a Extent M M M or MA (varies by format) 300 b Other physical details A. M or MA (varies by format) 300 c Dimensions M. A for mixed materials M or MA (varies by format) 500 General Note O. M or MA (varies by format) 500 a General note M. 650 Subject added entry-topical A. MA 650 a Topical term or geographic... M. 650 z Geographic subdivision A. [a] Items marked with an asterisk are based on subfield level requirement, field block requirement, or character position requirements. 51

TABLE 8 Commonly Occurring Fields and Subfields Across All Formats, in OCLC Member Library Record Sets, with Requirements Field Subfield Nat. Level Min. Level Nat./Min. BIBCO Core Record tag code Element name requirements requirements requirement qualification Standards (combined) [a] 008 Fixed length data elements M M M 043 a Geographic area code M. 090 a Classification number (no requirement) (no requirement) M for books and [Locally-assigned LC-type] printed/manuscript music, MA for cartographic materials 090 b Local cutter number [Locally-assigned LC-type] (no requirement) (no requirement) 245 Title Statement M M M 245 a Title M M A for mixed materials M 245 b Remainder of title A. MA 245 c Statement of responsibility, etc. A A MA 245 h Medium O. MA 246 a Title proper/short title M M MA 260 Pub., Dist., etc. A A M for serials MA for printed/manuscript music, cartographic materials and collections; all others M 260 a Place of pub., distribution, etc. A. M for serials M or MA (varies by format) 260 c Date of pub., distribution, etc. A A M for maps M or MA (varies by format) 300 Physical Description M M A for computer files MA for printed/manuscript music, cartographic materials and collections; all others M 300 a Extent M M M or MA (varies by format) 300 b Other physical details A. M or MA (varies by format) 300 c Dimensions M. A for mixed materials M or MA (varies by format) 500 General Note O. M or MA (varies by format) 500 a General note M. 650 Subject added entry-topical A. MA 650 a Topical term or geographic... M. MA 650 v Form subdivision A. 650 x General subdivision A. 650 z Geographic subdivision A. 700 a Personal name M. MA 710 a Corporate name or jurisdiction M. MA [a] Items marked with an asterisk are based on subfield level requirement, field block requirement, or character position requirements. 52

TABLE 9 Commonly Occurring 00X-03X Fields and Subfields, Excluding Elements Across All Formats, in nonlc Sound Recording Record Set (07 SR nonlc), with Requirements BIBCO Core Record Field Subfield Nat. Level Min. Level Standard for tag code Element name requirements requirements Sound Recordings [a] 007 Physical Description Fixed Field O. Code at least 00 01, 03 08, 12 13 010 a LC control no. A A MA A A 020 International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 020 a ISBN A A MA 020 c Terms of availability (no requirement) (no requirement) 024 Other Standard Identifier A A 024 a Other Standard no. or code M M 028 Publisher number A A 028 a Publisher no. M M MA 028 b Source M M MA 033 Date/Time and Place of an Event O. 033 a Formatted date/time A. 033 b Geog. class. area code A. 033 c Geog. class. subarea code A. [a] Items marked with single asterisk are based on field level requirement. Items marked with double asterisk are based on field block requirement. Note: National and Minimal Level requirement qualifications, like those in column 6 of Table 8, were omitted since none of these qualifications directly or significantly affects the elements included in the commonly used elements in the sound recordings set. 53

TABLE 10 Commonly Occurring 04X-09X Fields and Subfields, Excluding Elements Across All Formats, in nonlc Sound Recording Record Set (07 SR nonlc), with Requirements. [a] Items Marked with Single Asterisk are Based on Field Level Requirement. Items Marked with Double Asterisk are Based on Field Block Requirement BIBCO Core Record Field Subfield Nat. Level Min. Level Standard for Sound tag code Element name requirements requirements Recordings [a] 041 Language code A. 041 d Sung or spoken text A. MA 041 e Librettos A. 041 g Accomp. mat. A. 041 h Original text and/intermediate A. MA trans. 042 a Authentication code M M M 043 Geographic code A. 045 a Time period code A. 045 b Formatted 9999 B.C... A. 047 a Form of musical comp. Code M. 048 Number of musical instruments or voices code O. 048 a Performer or ensemble A. 048 b Soloist A. 050 a Classification no. M. 050 b Item no. A. 082 a Classification no. A. 090 Locally-assigned LC-type call (no requirement) (no requirement) no. 092 Locally-assigned Dewey-type call no. (no requirement) (no requirement) 092 a Classification number (no requirement) (no requirement) 092 b Item number (no requirement) (no requirement) [a] Items marked with single asterisk are based on field level requirement. Items marked with double asterisk are based on field block requirement. Note: National and Minimal Level requirement qualifications, like those in column 6 of Table 8, were omitted from the above table since none of these qualifications directly or significantly affects the elements included in the commonly used elements in the sound recordings set. 54

TABLE 11 Commonly Occurring 1XX-2XX Fields and Subfields, Excluding Elements Across All Formats, in nonlc Sound Recording Record Set (07 SR nonlc), With Requirements BIBCO Core Record Field Nat. Level Min. Level Standard for Sound tag Subfield code Element name requirements requirements Recordings [a] 100 Main Entry Personal Name A A MA 100 4 Relator code O A 100 a Personal name M M 100 d Dates associated with a name A A 110 Main Entry Corporate Name A A MA 110 4 Relator code O A 110 a Corporate name... M M 240 Uniform Title A A MA 240 a Uniform title M M 240 k Form subheading A A 240 m Medium of performance... A A 240 n No. of part/section of a work 245 n No. of part/section of a work A A A A MA 246 Varying Form of Title A A MA 260 b Name of pub., distributor, A A MA etc. 262 b Publisher or trade name (no requirement) (no requirement) 262 c Serial identification (no requirement) (no requirement) 262 d Date of production, release, etc. (no requirement) (no requirement) [a] Items marked with single asterisk are based on field level requirement. Items marked with double asterisk are based on field block requirement. Note: National and Minimal Level requirement qualifications, like those in column 6 of Table 8, were omitted from the above table since none of these qualifications directly or significantly affects the elements included in the commonly used elements in the sound recordings set. 55

TABLE 12 Commonly Occurring 3XX-4XX Fields and Subfields, Excluding Elements Across All Formats, in nonlc Sound Recording Record Set (07 SR nonlc), With Requirements. BIBCO Core Record Field Subfield Element Nat. Level Min. Level Standard for Sound tag code name requirements requirements Recordings [a] 300 e Accompanying material A. MA 305 a Extent or Number of slides, (no requirement) (no requirement) albums, cylinders, reels, etc. [obsolete] 305 b Other physical details or Size [obsolete] (no requirement) (no requirement) 305 c Size or Speed [obsolete] (no requirement) (no requirement) 306 Playing Time O. 306 a Playing time M. 440 Series Statement/Added entry Title A A MA 440 a Title M M 440 v Volume/sequential designation A A 490 a Series statement M M MA [a] Items marked with single asterisk are based on field level requirement. Items marked with double asterisk are based on field block requirement. Note: National and Minimal Level requirement qualifications, like those in column 6 of Table 8, were omitted from the above table since none of these qualifications directly or significantly affects the elements included in the commonly used elements in the sound recordings set. 56

TABLE 13 Commonly Occurring 5XX Fields and Subfields, Excluding Elements Across All Formats, in nonlc Sound Recording Record Set (07 SR nonlc), With Requirements BIBCO Core Record Field Subfield Nat. Level Min. Level Standard for Sound tag code Element name requirements requirements Recordings [a] 505 Formatted content Note O. MA 505 a Formatted contents note A. 505 g Miscellaneous information A. 505 r Statement of responsibility A. 505 t Title A. 511 Participant or Performer Note A A MA 511 a Participant or performer note M A 518 Date/Time and Place of an O. MA Event note 518 a Date/time and place of an event note M. 520 Summary, etc. O. MA 520 a Summary, etc. note M. 538 a System details note M. MA [a] Items marked with single asterisk are based on field level requirement. Items marked with double asterisk are based on field block requirement. Note: National and Minimal Level requirement qualifications, like those in column 6 of Table 8, were omitted from the above table since none of these qualifications directly or significantly affects the elements included in the commonly used elements in the sound recordings set. 57

58 A. P. Eklund et al. TABLE 14 Commonly Occurring 6XX Fields and Subfields, Excluding Elements Across All Formats, in nonlc Sound Recording Record Set (07 SR nonlc), with Requirements Nat. Min. BIBCO Core Record Field Subfield Element Level Level Standard for Sound tag code name requirements requirements Recordings [a] 600 a Personal name M. MA 600 d Dates associated... A. 630 p Name of A. MA part/section of a work 650 y Chronological A. subdivision 651 a Geographic name M. MA 651 x General A. subdivision 655 2 Source of term A. 655 a Genre/form data or focus term M. MA [a] Items marked with single asterisk are based on field level requirement. Items marked with double asterisk are based on field block requirement. Note: National and Minimal Level requirement qualifications, like those in column 6 of Table 8, were omitted from the above table since none of these qualifications directly or significantly affects the elements included in the commonly used elements in the sound recordings set. Record Set are the 29 cataloger-supplied fields that account for at least 92.5% of all cataloger-supplied field utilization in the set and the 95 catalogersupplied subfields that account for at least 95.7% of all cataloger-supplied subfield utilization in the set (Moen et al., 2005c). As part of this mapping, fields and subfields that were prescribed in the PCC BIBCO Core Record Standards but did not commonly occur in the sets were found. Table 5 presents the fields and subfields in the nonlc Sound Recordings Set not within the threshold that were prescribed in the PCC BIBCO Standard for Sound Recordings. The elements in Table 5 are prescribed in the PCC BIBCO standards and are not used frequently; these elements may signal a mismatch in standards and practice. Likewise, several frequently used elements are not prescribed; the commonly used elements that are not prescribed in the PCC BIBCO Standard for Sound Recordings are presented in Table 6. The mappings of the other sets produced similar results to those in Table 6, where many elements prescribed in the standard were used frequently but a few were not used enough to be designated as commonly occurring elements. It can be stated that the sets of elements prescribed by PCC BIBCO, CONSER, and National and Minimal Level Record Requirements have an area of intersection with the elements commonly utilized by catalogers, but each set of prescribed or commonly utilized elements also retains unique elements.