Re-authorizing the Library's Database

For libraries lacking the staff or resources to maintain headings following batch authority control, exporting and re-authorizing the entire database every few years may be the only way to keep controlled headings in synch with LC.

When a database that has previously been authorized is re-submitted for authority control, there is no need to export item record data or the library's existing authority records. All the authority control vendor requires is the bibliographic records. After the re-authorization the library should be prepared to delete all its existing nationally distributed and local authority records. LC, LC Children's, LC Genre/Form, and NLM MeSH authority records are completely replaced as part of the re-authorization. Similarly, ILS software generates new provisional authority records for headings for which no nationally distributed authority record is available.

Following re-authorization, the library's catalog records are re-loaded into the local system database by "overlaying" on the ILS's record ID control number. New authority records and bibliographic records are loaded and new indexes are built.

Some libraries may not want to delete their old authority records either because they have added cross-references or notes or removed cross-references that they consider not useful for their catalog, or because they are advised by their ILS vendor to "overlay" the new authority records. At least one local system vendor encourages the retention of existing authority records by imposing a high fee to delete the library's old LC and/or local authority records. Retaining old authority records rather than starting fresh with authority records directly referenced in those bibliographic records, will result in several kinds of conflicts as described below. The list is not intended to be exhaustive. Such conflicts may be minor or major, frequent or infrequent-but they are inevitable and the library pays a price for keeping outdated and local authority records.

1. Duplicate LC authority records--Each week LTI reports to LC duplicate authority records. These are cases where the 1XX heading is generally the same in both records, however the LCCNs of the two authority records are different. If the library's file contains the first of two duplicates and the file from LTI contains the second, two authority records will exist in the library's file. Though the authorized headings are frequently identical, there may be minor differences between the two, e.g. $d1900- compared to $db. 1900. There may also be variations in cross references.
2. Deleted LC authority records--The library may retain in its old authority file records deleted by LC. These may be in direct conflict with the current LC file.
3. Unlinked LC authority records--Unless the library has scrupulously deleted authority records from the file whenever the last occurrence of that heading was deleted from the bibliographic record file, the current authority file probably contains authority records for which no heading exists in the bibliographic file. The advantage of starting with a totally new authority file is the knowledge that all authority records apply to the bibliographic file.
4. LC vs. locally created authority records--If the library created a local authority record and LC later distributed an authority record for that heading, the forms of headings in the 1XX may not agree. More serious problems arise when the heading in the library's local record matches a 4XX in the LC record.
5. LC changes pattern heading structure--For example, several years ago LC replaced hundreds of headings of the type $aTrade unions$x[Industry]. The replacement headings were mostly of the type $aArtists $xLabor unions, but sometimes varied: $aTrade unions$x College employees became $aUniversities and colleges$x Employees$xLabor unions. In these situations, the new authority records often contain the old form as a cross-reference, resulting in a conflict.

One of the benefits of a newly authorized database of bibliographic records is the corresponding files of comprehensive and up-to-date LC authority records. Why compromise that by mixing old authority records with new ones?