ohiolink collection analysis project oclc members council 21 october 2008 preliminary analysis ed...
TRANSCRIPT
OhioLINK Collection Analysis ProjectOhioLINK Collection Analysis Project
OCLC Members Council
21 October 2008
Preliminary Analysis
Ed O’Neill, OCLC Research
With support and contributions from:
Julia A. Gammon, University of AkronAnne T. Gilliland, Ohio State University (Formerly OhioLINK)
1987 Library Study Committee Report1987 Library Study Committee Report
Key Recommendations:
Create a book depository
system
Create a statewide
electronic catalog
Appoint a steering
committee
OhioLINK Planning PaperOhioLINK Planning Paper
Coordination in purchasing of shared collections
Expanded access to electronic information
Improved access to information infrastructure
Promotion of scholarly communications
Improved economies in purchase of electronic resources
Who is OhioLINK?Who is OhioLINK?
The State Library of Ohio
5 ARL Institutions
11 Universities
44 Colleges
15 Community Colleges
28 Branch campuses
5 Depositories
3 Museums and other independent cultural institutions
20 Off-campus hospitals and medical centers
What is OhioLINK?What is OhioLINK?
Shared catalog with patron initiated borrowing
600,000+ Users
47.6 million books and other library materials
Millions of electronic articles
12,000 electronic journals
140 electronic research databases
40,000 e-books
Thousands of images, videos and sounds
17,500 theses and dissertations from Ohio students
Research ProjectResearch Project
Joint study by OhioLINK,
OhioLINK members, OhioLINK
Collection Building Task Force
(CBTF) and OCLC Research
Much of the planned analysis
is new and untested; not all of
the analysis will be successful
This project is distinct from
OCLC’s collection analysis
service
Distinctive AspectsDistinctive Aspects
Size and scope of collections
Use of local holdings information
Number and variety of institutions
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records)
Application of Audience Level
Project GoalsProject Goals
To reduce unnecessary duplication
To increase local collection development activities
To expand the amount spent on cooperative acquisitions
To strengthen the collective collection
For the book collection:
Books: What we hope to learnBooks: What we hope to learn
Is the OhioLINK collection getting more diverse?
Is duplication increasing or decreasing? How much is justified?
What does the OhioLINK collective collection look like?
What books didn’t we acquire?
Does the 80/20 rule apply?
Are the acquisitions budgets effectively allocated?
What is the average age of the books by subject?
What we hope to learn (Cont.)What we hope to learn (Cont.)
Does the size of core collections vary by subject?
What is the half-life of books in a particular subject areas?
Does circulation correlate with the strengths/specialties/programs?
Are the sciences really not using books?
Does circulation correlate with number of copies? With WorldCat holdings?
Do usage pattern vary by institution?
Are the ARLs different or just larger?
What books should be in the depositories?
OhioLINK Circulation DataOhioLINK Circulation Data
Item No.:
OCLC No.:
Title:
LCCN:
Location Code:
Status Code:
Circulation:
Renewals:
Accession date:
Date of Last Use:
ISBN:
Source:
i25878591
45207959
The infinite / A.W. Moore
00051722
bc
-
5
1
8/3/2001
8/23/2004
0415252857 (pbk.)
Akron
Accumulative Circulation DataAccumulative Circulation Data
Makes comparison difficult; An item with high circulation may be currently be little used, i.e. Word97
To obtain current circulation rates, Pre/post images will used:
The first data set of circulation data was collected in the Spring of 2007
The second data was collected this Spring (2008)
From the second set of data, the circulation for the past year can be determined
Data Collection ScheduleData Collection Schedule
First Snapshot: April - May, 2007
Second Snapshot: April – May 2008
Validation of circulation policies: July – October 2008
WorldCat LinkingWorldCat Linking
For records with an obsolete OCLC No.; the obsolete OCLC No. is replaced with current OCLC No.
For records without an OCLC No. which had either a unique LCCN or ISBN; that number is used to identify the corresponding OCLC No.
Records lacking any standard number could not be validated and were excluded from the study
The OCLC Number is used to link the circulation records to the corresponding bibliographic record in WorldCat
ValidationValidation
Validating link
The title from the OhioLINK circulation record was compared to the title from the WorldCat record
If the title from the circ record was similar to the title in the WorldCat record, the record was validated
Records with dissimilar titles were not be validated and were excluded from the study
Determining material type
Only books and manuscripts were included
Material type was based on fixed fields codes in the WorldCat records (bib lvl = m and type = a or t)
Validated OhioLINK Circulation DataValidated OhioLINK Circulation Data
Records Received … 33,146,008
Records Validated … 30,718,454 (92.7%)
Validated Books …… 27,002,190 (81.5%)
FRBR: Group One EntitiesFRBR: Group One Entities
Is exemplified by
Is embodied in
WorkA distinct intellectual or artistic creation
Is realized through
ExpressionThe intellectual or artistic realization of a work
ManifestationThe physical embodiment of an expression
ItemA single exemplar of a manifestation
Is embodied in
Humphry Clinker ExampleHumphry Clinker Example
53 OhioLINK libraries hold the work
1 English language expression
48 Different manifestations
Lots of Different ManifestationsLots of Different Manifestations
Most Common in OhioLINKMost Common in OhioLINK
OCLC No.: 35895552 Copies27 Libraries
Not held by the Universityof CincinnatiUniversity of Cincinnati does hold 9 other manifestations
Audience LevelAudience Level
Audience level identifies the audience for which the book
or other library resource is suitable
Audience level is inferred from the type of libraries (ARL,
Academic, Public, School) that have acquired the resource
using the library holdings data from WorldCat
The audience level ranges from 0.0 (Juvenile) to 1.0
(Scholarly)
Audience Level ExamplesAudience Level Examples
0 1
Octopusses and squid
Audience level: 0.06
Phylogeny and systematics of
the treehopper subfamily
Audience level: 0.96
Fundamentals of entomology
Audience level: 0.51
A collection can be characterized
by average audience level of its
resources.
Library Organizational StructureLibrary Organizational Structure
The large universities are complex organizations:
Multiple administrative units
Many different physical locations
Branch campuses
Depositories
Independent cultural institutions
Off-campus hospitals and medical centers
Library Organizational StructureLibrary Organizational Structure
Campuses, independent cultural institutions, and
depositories are treated as top (first) level units
Independent administrative units (if present) within
the campus
Separate libraries (if present) within an administrative
unit
Distinct collections with unique location codes
Multi Level StructureMulti Level Structure
Third level units: Distinct library units.
Location codes : The codes used within OhioLINK to identify to location of the individual items. Over 4,200 different location codes were found; one institution alone used 556 different codes)
Top level units: Individual campus, depositories, and external organizations (Museums, Centers, Hospitals)
bccco, bccct, bccir,
bccm, bcgd, bcgdo,
bcmu, …
University of Akron
Second level units: Separate administrative units [university libraries, law, medicine, etc.) or distinct library units.
University of Akron
University Libraries
University of Akron
University Libraries
Bierce Library
Three Level Structure for AkronThree Level Structure for Akron
Location Codes MappingLocation Codes Mapping
Caution!Caution!
The project is still “in
progress” and the data
analysis is incomplete
Results are preliminary;
revisions and corrections
will occur
General Information General Information
LanguagesLanguages
Additional columns include statistics for German, French,
Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Hebrew,
Polish, Greek, and Arabic
SubjectsSubjects
The subject analysis included 24 primary subjects; a more detailed subject analysis with approximately 500 subject areas will included in the final analysis
AgeAge
Statistics on 20 different age groups are provided
Collective Collection: What Do We Have?Collective Collection: What Do We Have?
How many items do we have?
What languages do we have?
How old are they?
How many are unique?
In what subjects?
How many copies do we need?
Most HeldMost Held
Libraries: 68
Copies: 109
Circulations: 99
Most CopiesMost Copies
Libraries: 12
Copies: 9,542
Circulations: 9
The National union catalog, pre-1956 imprints
Most CirculatedMost Circulated
Libraries: 6
Copies: 92
Circulations: 6,023
Holdings vs. Active CollectionHoldings vs. Active Collection
Subject DistributionSubject Distribution
Circulation by SubjectCirculation by Subject
Language DistributionLanguage Distribution
24,386,814
Circulation of Non-English MaterialsCirculation of Non-English Materials
Average per Item
Circulation
Circ. Rate by Institution TypeCirc. Rate by Institution Type
ARL Univ. Colleges CC/Branches
Cir
cula
tio
n
1.7 2.3 3.6 2.3
Usage DistributionUsage Distribution
% of Books
% o
f C
ircul
atio
n
12.86%
(788,483)
Annual Collection GrowthAnnual Collection Growth
Publication Date
No
. of M
ani
fest
atio
ns
Ad
ded
Max 114,375 (2000)
Duplication RateDuplication Rate
Publication Date
Ave
rag
e N
o. o
f C
op
ies
4.5
Duplication by SubjectDuplication by Subject
Conclusions?Conclusions?
Only first phase of data analysis complete
Additional and more reliable statistics will be available after the next phase
Preliminary results:
Duplication rates are steady
The 80/20 rule may be closer to 80/10
Limited use of non-English materials
Books are still being used in the Sciences
Circulations rates vary greatly by subject, institution
To be continued ….
Questions?Questions?
Ed O’Neill
OCLC Research
614-764-6074
This presentation is available on the OCLC Web Site at:
http://www.oclc.org/memberscouncil/meetings/2009/october/researchsg-oneill.ppt