EDITORIAI BOARD

Ed.itor, and. Chairperson of the Editoriat Board ............. ..'..ELIZABETH L' Terr'

Assistant Editors:

J. Mrcnnel Bnurn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for Resources Sect ion

PHYLLTS A. RtcHMoND

EDwARD SwaNsorrtI

fo. cututosing and Classification Section

Donorut J. GLAsBY ....."..'.for Serials Section

FRANCIs F. Spnntrzrn for Reproduction of Library Materials Section

Editorial Aduiser:

Bar.sene Gerrs (for Regional Groups)

Library Resources €l Technical Serrices, the quarterly official publication.of the Re-

sources'and Technical Services Division of the American Library Association, is pub-

members, $15.00 per year; single copies $4.00'

Second-class postage paid at Chicago, Illinois, and at additional mailing offices (ISSN

0024-2527).

Library Resourees €.1 Technical Seraices is indexed in Library Literature, Library Ll Informa-

tion Sciince Abstracts, Current Index to Joum.als in Education, Science Citntion Index, and Hos-

pital Literature Ind,m. Contents are liited in CALL (Cunent Auareness-Library Literature)'

Its reviews are included in Book Reuieu Digest, Booh Reuiew Ind,ex, and Reuiew oJ Rcuieus.

Instructions for authors appear on p.87 of the Winter 1980 issue of Library,Resources

€l Technical Seruices. Copies of books for review should be addressed to Central Produc-

tion Unit, American Li6rary Association,50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611'

The contents of this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are copyrighted by the

Association. All materialin this journal copyrighted by the American- Library Associa-

tion may be photocopied for tht no.r.o--..iial purpose of scientific or educational

advancement.

@American Library Association 1980

Publication in Library Resources €l Technical Sentices does not imply official endorse-

ment by the Resourcei and Technical Services Division nor by ALA, and the assumP-

tion of editorial responsibility is not to be construed necessarily as endorsement of the

opinions expressed by individual contributors'

/ r95

The Life qnd Deoth(?)of Corporote Aufhorship

C. Sumner Spolding

A MrNr-HrsroRy oF ruE' CoNcEpt or CoRpoRATE AuruoRsstpIn his histor ical survey of corporate authorship, Carpenter ci tes

-lewett as the first to r,esa1d. .o.poiut. enrries .*priliiry i"',h. ..,.r..p-tual framework of authorship, ui is ilrust.ated in irr. rJrr"*i"g exrracr:XXI. Academies, institutes, associations, . . . or other bodies of men, underwhatever name, and for whatever purpose, issuing p,.,bli.ations, *hetrre, ofseparate works, or of continuous seiies,'under a ge"neral title, are to be consi-dered and treated as authors of ail works issued "by

tt.-, urri in th"i, .,r-"alone.3

!, Sumngr

fqit-aing' assisranr director (cataroging), Library of congress, prior to his re-trrement in 1975, served as a resource persor,-ioit. nrsri cutulog'coJ.hevision com_mrttee.

196 I Library Resources t! Technital Sentices' Sumrner 1980

rule 22a, as revised, we read:

anonymous works.rr

Life and Death(?) of Corporate Authorship | 197

be defined as the collective resporuibil_of a documcnt. Where such responsi-thorship, an author catalog wilil con_e authors as well as undei personaling statement:

For,the purpose of entry,in an author-catalogue, a corporate body is regardedil,,:|..,i111"_i 11""y work for rhe content ot-*trtcn it tl"L.. ."-pi.tJ ..rpo.,ri_Dlllty' (where any such work does not relate directly to the activities, functions

rrate body [as in the case with constitu_of members, etc.] but is an unsigned

:r subject, the main entry may be riade

,1?f;:',i'.:1,',1i,,*"'o j w itrr an added

At the Internarional conference on cataloguing principles (ICCp) inl9!L

form.ally designated nationar delegatiJns Jr "*p.itr

irom fiity-three countries and twelve international organizations discussed, d!-bated, and voted on a "Draft sratemenr of "principles; i;;; aurhor

in, section nine of which concerns

e discussion with this summary of)arent that there was general agree_gory ot corporate authors."ra The

principle, while Honor6 reported ttadopted in France eleven years earlthis agreement as a historic occasion and thanked the countries now

: authorship on behalf of those thati t . l 5

)n to th€ principle of corporateDenmark, I inland, Hungaiy, thent of the fifty-three countiies.

arter which a working sroup *^'ffil:"HT $::#tt" TL'lT:l;that would take into atcouni the various views expressed by ih. d.t.-gates. The finally approved rext is given below in such u iun that allchanges from the draft can be Gen, with delet ion. . . r i rored inparentheses and new text in italics.

ti, *oa" und,n the rnrne ofa corporate

,T' X'.*:t#'f ' ::J,:T,t',r: x:e.ll (i0 wtun rhework (or o"or,tf iltf:[?"r"re necessarily the

expression of the-collective thought or activity of the corporatebody,* (or) eaen if signed by a perlon in the capacity of an officer or

198 | Library Resources tl Technical Sertices' Summcr 1980

seruanl of the corPorate bodY, or . -9. l2 (i0 utui the wording of the title or title-page' 11ken,

in conlunc-

iion with the naturJ of the work, clearly implies that the cor-

p o r a t e b o d y i s c o l l e c t i v e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n t e n t o f t h ework.**

9.2 In other cases, when a corporate body (has issued or.sponsored a work

or publicarion or) has perfbrmed a function . . . subsidiary to the func-

ii.ti "T

itt. ""thor'

ati added entry (may) shoul'd' be made under the

name of the corporate body. (as a collaborator)

9.3 In doubtful case's, the main entry may be made either under the name

of the corpotua. 'U"ay

or ,-,ndei the'title (,) or the ngme { the personal

author, witir an added entry in either case under the alternative not

chosen for the main entrY.*e .g .o f f i c ia l repor ts , ru lesandregu la t ions ,man i fes toes ,Programmes( ,even i fsigied by u pe'.ron in the cap-aciry of, an officer or servant of the corporate

b6dy.) and reimds of the tesults of rclkctiue.uo.rh'*xlThis excludes iirff.ai"nr arid periodicals.consisting of articles by.individuals

but sponsored or published by a corporate t:ody').e'g' seriak.'lY titles consi$ of

o grrlni, t?rm . . . f,reteded or filtoued'h2 tle name of a rcrporate body' and uhith in'

clufu some account ol the adiuilies of lhe bod)'t6

successful was it? I have earlier mentioned that six countries expressed

opposition to the corporate author

.roiogy capture their vote? There v

9.I Gxclusive of the footnote to

Czechoslovakia, Finland, and Hun

the case of all four votes. Sweden

Iands voted for 9.2 and 9.3. Denmark gave qualified support for the

footnore to 9.12 and for 9.3. It does n-"ot appear that the change in

.up t io ' and the assoc ia ted reword ing o f ihe subsec t ions ach ieved

much success in its suPPosed aims.The rules in the fiisi edition of the Anglo-American Catalogi"g fy.k:

(AAaR l)r7 were based on the ICCP "stalement of Prin-ciples." With

respect to corporale authorship there was one minor and several ma-

irr"J*i"ii"";.'ih; former con'sisted of a rejection of the last-clause of

itl r""i"",e to 9.12. The latrer consisted of the collective form sub-

ii."ai"gt for certain legal. judicial. and liturgical materials- These sub-

ii."Ji"[t were baggag"e fiom earlier ruleJthat law and theological

librariais insisted "ti"3t U. retained in the AACR. The definition of;t;;h;;" in the glossary specifically includes corporate bodies, as does

the first rule for entry.lsit rn. years following the publication of AACR l, the rules were

adopted 6y -urry coun"tries other than the three author countries'

it.'y *...' rransl;red into Spanish, Portuguese, French (primarily.for

i..ri.f, Canada), and Persian. Parts of the rules were translated into

Iapanese. Arabic, Korean, and Greek. Most significant for our- present

i,;"p;;;'wus the'decision in 1972 by Denmarl, Finland' Sweden' and

Lift and Death(?) of Carpmate Authorship / 199

ConpoRere BoDy As AurHoR-A CorurnaorcrroN rN Trnus?

)0 | Library Resources €l Technical Seruices' Summer 1980

authority; its ideas, meritorious or otherwise, redound to him'

Thesis 3. Collaborative personal authorship constitutes -corporateauthorship when the resul tant work is issued under a

word author?)

RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY

AS THE CONTNOT-ITNG CRITERION

AA 1908 .,rhe person or body immediately responsible for its fthebook's] existence"

ALA l94l [The same as the above]

Libran Resources U Technical Seruices' Summer

Lrft and Death(?) of Corporate Authorship I 201

ALA 1949 "the person or body chiefly responsible for the intellec-tual content of the book"

CCR "any work for the conrents of which a corporate body isexpressly or implicitly responsible"

ICCP "collectively responsible for the contenr of the work"AACR I "chiefly responsible for the creation of the intellectual or

artistic content of a work"

Vasilevskaya: "the acceptance of the responsibility of the corporatebody as the deciding criterion may in practice meanthe abandonment of all criteria."2a

Haskins: "the principle of responsibility . . . actually is no more easi-ly interpreted than the concept of authorship."zs

It seems to be quite clear that some criterion other than that of re-sponsibil i ty is badly needed.

Eva Verona has developed a definition of authorship that success-fully avoids use of the criterion of responsibil i ty. In her CorporateHeadings: Their Use in Library Catalogu,es and National Bibliographies, sheproposes the following:

A work should be considered to be of corporate authorship if it may be con-cluded by its character or nature that it is necessarily the result of the creativeand/or organizational activity of a corporare body as a whole, and not the re-sult of an independent creative activity of the individual(s) who drafted it.26

This definition focuses on the right criterion, rhe collective acrivity in-volved in the formulation of the text of the work.

I would like to suggest a slight rewording in the above rexr for adefinition of author.

Author. l. A person who writes or otherwise creates a work, butnot including one who prepares a work for issuanceunder the name of another person or under the nameof a corporate body.

2. A corporate body that produces a work that, by its char-acter or nature, may be concluded to be necessarily theresult of a collective intellectual or creative activity onthe part of some or all of the membership or employeesof the body and that is without attribution to any speci-fically named person(s) as author(s). [A further additionwill be suggested later on.l

Let me give my reasons for some of the changes in Verona's word-ing. First, in defining corporate author in combination with the defini-

202 | Library Resources A Technical Serabes' Summer 1980

to cover cases such as recordings of musical improvisations by anamed group. I have dropped "as a whole" as being far too -restrictiveas well is being impossibly difficult to ascertain. I have preferred thecriterion of abience of attribution to named persons to the criterionthat the work may, in fact, be the result of the independent creativeactivity of the draiter(s) of the work, because absence of attribution isobjectively determinable.

LIMITATIONS ON THEACCEPTABILITY OF CONPONATE AUTHORSTTTP

Lift and Death(?) of Corporate Authmship I 203

corporate effort, the information contained in their publications. Hereis the difficulty-there is no simple term by which to distinguish thiskind of publisher from the others. For the sake of clarity I will referto the latter as "produceripublishers." Certain clearly identifiable cate-gories of publications are either normally or frequently the productsof producer/publishers, e.g., encyclopedias, dictionaries, who's who's,city directories, business, financial and legal services, and civil servicepractrce examlnatlons.

Producer/publishers of such works are as much corporate authors asany corporate author can be. But I suspect that there would be astrong consensus among reference librarians that in most of thesecases the one single best entry (main entry) would be title. This pre-ference, again, would be based on a long and strong tradition of howthese works are cited and how they are sought after by readers.

For maps published by the producing body there would probablynot be a consensus for title main entrv. because of the enormous num-bers of maps produced by official civiiian and military agencies of gov-ernments. Main entry under the name of the agency is a well-agreedpractice.

AACR I was the first Anglo-American or American code to make adistinction between typical commercial publishers and producer/pub-lishers, but its provisions in this regard were limited and not conceivedas part of the larger problem of l imitations on the acceptabil ity ofcorporate author as main entry.

A third category consists of certain legal and liturgical works. Thedecision to drop collective form subheadings such as "Laws, statutes,etc." and "Liturgy and ritual" in AACR 2 will be warmly received bythose who felt them to be foreign elements in a name/title catalog sys-tem. Without these subheadings, Iaws and liturgies appear to be en-tered under their authors or authorizing bodies. In AACR 2, however,no underlying principle controls the types-of publications that are toreceive main entry under a corporate heading. The rules simply statethat Iaws and liturgies are to be entered under the headings for thejur isd ic t ions or denominat ional ent i t ies to which they apply. Ineffect, the results are the same as those expected from the applicationof the principle of corporate authorship-with certain special excep-tions discussed below.

Some laws may embody the same text, without major substantivechanges, as (l) a model law produced, for example, by the AmericanBar Association, or (2) the text of a law of another jurisdiction, withappropriate adjustments. Under the concept of corporate authorship,the law derived from the earlier text cannot be considered as the workof the government that has passed the law. A similar case exists whenone religious community adopts, with or without revisions, a liturgicalwork of another community. An example might be the Booh of Com-mon Prayer adopted by the Protestant Episcopal church in the UnitedStates of America in 1789, which is a revision of the Book of CommonPrayer that was first established as the Iiturgy of the Church of Eng-land by act of Parliament in 1549. The former cannot be consideredto be a new work.

204 I Library Resources A Technical Seruices. Summn 1980

In spite of what I have said above, I do not believe that the theoryof corporate authorship should exclude such cases from main entryunder the body responsible for making them law or official liturgy. Ibelieve that the act of investing a text with the status of law in a par-ticular jurisdiction or of investing a text with the status of official litur-gy of a particular religious community is a significant creative act initself that should override the authorship of the adopted text.

Accordingly, I would propose broadening my definition of authorwith respect to a corporate body, as follows:

2. A corporate body that (l) produces a work that, by its characteror nature, may be concluded to be necessarily the result of a col-lective intellectual or creative activity on the part of some or allof the membership or employees of the body and that is withoutattribution to any specifically named person(s); or (2), in the caseof territorial or religious bodies, invests an existing text, not of itsown creation, with the status of law or of official liturgical use inits own jurisdiction.

Laws, constitutions, and court rules, created by one jurisdiction forapplication in another are further instances in which entry under thecorporate body that produced the text is not acceptable. I believe theyshould be treated as exceptions to the principle and entered under thebody affected.

I advocate this exceptional treatment because law Iibrarians and lawlibrary patrons use main entries for these materials to locate the laws,etc., that apply to a given jurisdiction. The jurisdiction or body desig-nated constitutionally or by the legal system to promulgate the sought-for documents is irreleuu.rl to alm"ost itt tegat sba.ches]In short, usersof the catalog entries are not looking for corporate authors but fortexts of the controlling law, etc., of the jurisdiction or judicial body. Inthe majority of cases the corporate author and the jurisdiction or bodycontrolled are the same. To channel off the unusual cases in which thecorporate author is different from the jurisdiction or body controlledseems to be a disservice to library users, at least in any single-entrylisting.

The last and most significant category of publications for which theapplication of the corporate author principle has had its most severechallenges is serials. Before discussing the special reasons for these chal-lenges, I wish to call attention to the provisions of the ICCP with re-spect to serials. As regards corporate authorship, these "principles"were certainly unprincipled since, in one case, serials not of corporateauthorship are to be entered under the body and, in another case,certain serials of corporate authorship are to be entered under title.Section 9.l l seems close to the definit ion of corporate authorship thatwe have been discussing. Note that 9.2 deals, for example, with thefunction of the body as editor. Now, then, what is the function dealtwith in 9.12? What is "collectively responsible for the content of thework" if it is not what is specified in 9.11 and not what is specified in9.2? Implying that "the corporate body is responsible for the contentof the work." the footnote to 9.12 cites "serials whose titles consist of a

Lift and Death(?) of Corporate Authorship / 2O5

ln section ll, "Works entered under title," the draft "statement ofPrinciples" did not mention serials, but after conference discussion, theworking group to develop the final text of this section brought back anew subsection, ll.l4, which detailed as a class of publications to beaccorded main entry under title:

ll.l4 works (including serials and periodicals) known primarily or conven-tionally by title rather than by the name of the author.2?

It is difficult to see how a cataloger dealing with a new serial can knowif it is known "primarily or conventionally by title." However, I mustsuppose that the intent was to encourage entry under title for corpo-rate serials with distinctiae titles. The Library Association's CataloguingRules Subcommittee must have interpreted the aforementioned provi-sions similarly in developing their rule 6 in the British text of AACR 1.28

Now let us consider some of the reasons that, taken together, makea strong case for entry of serials of corporate authorship under title.Two se ts o f r easons can be deve loped : one re la t i ng t o reade rapproach to serials in libraries, the other relating to the processingand control of serials in libraries.

Of the reasons relating to reader approach I would cite:l. Unlike monographs, most of which have some kind of an aurhor,

many serials have no author at all.2. The continuing appearance of issue after issue rends ro imprint

the title on the mind more than the normally single appearanceof a monograph.

3. Citations in both the monographic and serial literature ro sourcematerial in serial publications are normally by title or title abbre-viation.

4. Most general and special serial indexes, bibliographies, and un-ion lists cite by title of title abbreviation.

Of the reasons relating to serials processing and control in librariesI would cite:

L When a corporate author undergoes a change of name, very fre-quently many or all of its serial publications continue withoutchange of title.

2. In the labor-intensive operation of the daily recording of incom-ing serial issues, recording by title is simpler and requires muchless training of staff.

3. The same is true of the operations of finding and refiling un-bound issues.

A new impetus for title main entry came on the scene in late 1972with the functional beginnings of the lnternarional Serials Data Sys-tem (ISDS) which, through a network of national centers, endeavors to

206 I Library Resotnces A Technical Seruices. Summer 1980

identify the serials of the world by "key title" and to assign to each anInternational Standard Serial Number (ISSN). The differences be-tween the ISDS and the AACR I system with respect to criteria formaking new records shows up most when a corporate author changesits name. If the serial continues to use the same title, in most cases nonew key title or ISSN will be required, but a new catalog entry willalways be necessary.

AACR 2

ln the process of developing AACR 2 the major struggle in the areaof assignment of main entry was focused on serials. Spalding2e and

Joseph Howard3o got into the fray early. The former called for treat-ment of monographs and serials alike in cataloging, with recognitionof corporate authorship when involved, for updating rather thanchanging titles when only the name of the corporate author changes,and for recording and storing unbound issues by tit le. The lattercalled for entry of all serials under title, or, failing that, under titleunless the title is generic. At the Midwinter Meeting of ALA in 1975 awell-attended special meeting on the topic of the cataloging rule forserials featured a number of papers, including those by Carpenter("No Special Rules for Entry of Serials"),3r Paul Fasana (who sup-ported the distinctive/generic tit le criterion for determining mainentry),32 and Howard, whose views are noted above. These were notthe only papers that appeared on this subject in the years 1974-76.An enormous file of correspondence on this matter was also accumu-lated and analysed bv the CCRC.

The briefs in, the decision process began. James analysed the op-tions as "(l) do not change the rule [rule 6, AACR l] at all, (2) do nothave a separate rule for serials, (3) enter all [] serials under author,generally corporate, (4) enter all serials under title, even if generic,and (5) enter serials with a distinctive title under title and all othersunder corporate body.33

At the 1975 Annual Conference the CCRC voted "to request theeditors to frame a rule for the entry of serials under title."3a In Janu-ary 1976 the committee rescinded that vote in consideration of itsacceptance, earlier in the same meeting, of a drastic restriction on theapplication of corporate main entries as proposed by the Library ofCongress.35

The ground was prepared, the Joint Steering Committee decidedthat corporate authorship was dead, and AACR 2 rule 2l. l82 becamethe grave marker.

Posr Monrru

In retrospect, I believe that the fundamental issue was not the na-ture of corporate authorship but whether or not serials should betreated sui generis. The AACR 2 answer to the latter question was No.But to avoid sui generis treatment required a major change in corpo-rate entry policy. In my early innocence I too, had answered No tothis question. But that was before I learned what the price would be! Inow (too late, alas) recant. It would have been better to treat serials

Life and Death.(?) of Corporate Authorship / 207

cataloging as sui generis than to treat monographic cataloging in modoseriale. Consider the following monographs, now condemned to titleentry;

An assessment of mineral resources in Alaska (United States. Geo-logical Survey)

Design of formats and packs of catalog cards (Ohio College LibraryCenter)

Evaluation of the effects of alternatives to incarceration of juvenileoffenders (Harvard University. Center for Criminal Justicd)

Introductory cases in the analysis of public controversy (HarvardUniversity. Social Studies Project)

A Review of the actual and expected consequences of family size(National Institutes of Health)

A Selective and annotated bibliography of economic lirerature onthe Arabic speaking countries of the Middle East (American Uni-versity of Beirut. Economic Research Institute)

Solutions to 3500 labor problems (Commerce Clearing House)Some references on metric information (United States. National

Bureau of Standards)

If it is valid to state that serials are different from monographs, it isequally valid to state that monographs are different from serials!

AACR 2 's ru le 21.182 is :l. A major departure from international agreement represented by

the ICCP "Statement of Pr inc ip les," sect ion 9.11, which pre-scribes entry under the heading for a corporate body for worksthat are expressions of collective acrivity of the body (permittedin 21.1 82 only in the case of conferences, expedi t ions, andevents).

2. A major revu-sal of Anglo-American cataloging practice since the1908 joint code with respect to works issued by corporate bodies.

3 An about-face in the steady march towards international agree-ment on the principle of corporare aurhorship.

CORPORA" OU'"ORSHIP

1852-1976

R.I .P.

(In lieu of flowers, friends of the deceased may wish to send acontribution to the Charles Coffin Jewetr Memorial Fund.)

l .

REFERENcES

Michael Anthony Carpenter, "Corporate Authorship" (Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. ofCalifornia, 1979), 336 leaves. This work is scheduled for publication by the Green-wood Press in 1980 under the title Corporate Authorship; Its Role in Library Cataloging.Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler(Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), 620p.Charles Coffin Jewett, On the Con^strurtion of Catalogues of Libraries and. of a GeneralCatalogue, and. Their Publication by Means of Separate, Stereotyped Titles (Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian lnstitution, 1852), p.a2.

2.

J .

1 5 .t 6 .1 7 .

1 8 .1 9 .

208 I Library Resources A Technical Services. Sumrner 1980

4. Charles Ammi Cutter, Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed., rewritten (Washington,D.C.: Govt . Pr int . Off . , 1904), p.a l .

5. Ib id. , p.40.6. Catalog Rulzs: Author and Title Entries, complled by committees of the American Lib-

rary Association and the (British) Library Association, American ed. (Chicago:American Library Assn. Publishing Board, 1908), p.[xiii]).

7. American Library Association, A.L.A. Catalog Rubs: Author and Title Entries, prelim.American 2d ed. (Chicago: American Library Assn., l94l), p.xiv.

8. American Library Association, A.L.A. Canloging Rules for Author and Title Entries, 2ded., ed. Clara Beetle (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1949), p.3.

9. Seymour Lubetzky, Cataloging Rules and Principles (Washington: Library of Con-gress, 1953), p.48.

10. Seymour Lubetzky, Cod,e of Cataloging Rules: Author and. Title Entry (n.p.: AmericanLibrary Assn. . 1960), p.x i i .

ll. Seymour Lubetzky, Code of Catalogtng Rules: Author and Title Entry; Additions, Reui-siorc and Changes (n.p.: American Library Assn., l96l), p.31.

12. Working Group on the Coordination of Cataloguing Principles, "Report on Anony-ma and Works of Corporate Authorship," Libn 6; 274 (1956)

13 . I b i d . , p . 291 .14. lnternational Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Report (Lond,on: lnternational

Federation of Library Associations, 1963), p 49.Ibid., p.42-46.Ibid., p.49.Anglo-American Cataloging Rzles, North Ameriian text, gen. ed., C. Sumner Spalding(Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967), 400p.Ib id . , p .343 and p . l l ."Cataloguing News," International Cataloguing l:2 (April{une 1972), 2:4 (Oct./Dec.1973), and 3:3 ( fu ly/Sept. 1974).

20. Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, "Decisions Taken at Meetings,"Dec. 365 (n.p. : n.p. , 1976), p.2.

21. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (1978), p.285.22. Seymour Lubetzky, Principles of Catalogzng: Final Report; Phase I; Deseriptiue Catalog-

ing (Los Angeles, Calif.: Institute of Library Research, Univ of California, 1969),leaf 27-29.

23. Eva Verona, Corporate Hea.dings: Their Use in Library Catahgues and National Bibliog-raphies (London: IFLA Committee on Cataloguing, 1975), p.12.

24. V. A. Vasilevskaya, "Limits to the Use of Entries under Corporate Authors. TheCataloguing of Laws and Treaties," in International Conference on CataloguingPrinciples, Report (London: 1963), p.170.

25. Susan M. Haskins, "Problems of Subdivisions in the Entries for Corporate Bodies,"in Institute on Cataloging Code Revision, Stanford University, 1958, Worhing Papers(Stanford, 1958), VI I I , p.16.

26. Eva Verona, Corporate Headings (1975) p.13.27. International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Report (1963), p72.28. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, British text, gen. ed , C. Sumner Spalding (Lon-

don: The Library Assn. , 1967), p. l7-21.29. C. Sumner Spalding, "ISBD(S) and Title Main Entry for Serials," Intemational Cata-

loguing 3:4-5 (fuly/Sept. 1974). Also in Ltbrary of Congress Information Bulletin33:4229-32 (Nov. 22, 1974).

30. Joseph H. Howard, "Main Entry for Serials," Library of Congress Information Bulletin33:A232-36 (Nov. 22, 1974).

31. Michaef Carpenter, "No Special Rules for Entry of Serials," Library Resources €l Tech-nical Seruices 19:327-32 (Fall 1975).

32. Paul Fasana, "AACR, ISBD(S) and ISSN; a Commenr," Library Resources €.1 TechnicalSarices 19:333-37 (Fall 1975).

33. John R. James, "Serials in 1976," Library Resources U Technical Seruices 2l:221 (Srm-mer 1977).

34. American Library Association, Catalog Code Revision Committee, Minutes of theMeet ings, M69 [ i .e. ] M72 (n.p. : n.p. , 1975), p.37.

35 . I b i d . , M106 (1976 ) , p . 31 .

I 209

Adopring on ExistingCord Cotolog to AACR 2:A Feqsibil ity Srudy

Peggy S. Kline ond Mqrion R. Toylor

it is uncertain how much of this information is relevant to the situa-

Out of 1,615 tit les cataloged in March 1979, 330 tit les selecred atrandom were examined. These titles contained a total of 610 accesspoints that would be affected by the new rules. Thirty-three headingsappeared-more^than once so the study covered 577 distinct headingi.The number of cards in the card catalog with these access points w:asalso examined. A total of 14,399 cards was found, which iniluded ev-

peg_ry l. Kline is assistant university librarian, Catalog Departmenr, Robert W. Wood-

ruff rlbrary, Emory University, while Marion R. Tayl,or is-an associate professor, Divi-sion of Librarianship, at the same university.

210 I Library Resowces A Technical Senices' Surnrner 1980

sample, however, included only titles cataloged in the W^oodruff Lib-

rary. Another limitation to the study is the exclusion of non-Roman

alphabet cataloging data from the sample. The amount of such mate-

riil added to the -library

is less than one tenth of one percent per

annum.

May 1977 (table l).

TABLE I

DISTRIBUTION OT TITLIS BY LC CLASSIFICATION

LCClass

Percent ofTitles Cataloged

in 1976177Percent in

Samplg

A&ZBC-GH-LM_NPo-v

Tables 2 and 3 show the sample data by language and country of

publication. These data are included to characterize the-typ9 of mate-

iial the Woodruff Library regularly catalogs, as an indication of the

extenr to which the findings 6f the study might have applicability to

another library.

55

2 l229

27t 2

46

2 l20l 32 lt4

TABLE 2

STUDY SnuplE BY LANGUAGE oF TExr

LanquageNumber of

TitlesPercent of

Titles

EnglishFrenchGermanSpanishOther languages*

85

422

28022l468

*Includes: Dutch, Italian, Latin, Rumanian

Adapting an Existing Card Catalog I 2ll

TABLE 3

Srunv SeupLr By CouNTRy oF PuBLrcATroN

Country ofPublication

Number ofTitles

Percent ofTitles

United StatesGreat BritainFranceGermanyNetherlandsSwitzerlandOther countries*

2055Ut 3l l8n

36

62l 54J

22

r2- .* lnc ludes: .Argent ina, Aus(ral ia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Greece. Hong Kong,Hungary. India. ltaly. Japan. Mexico, Pierro Rico, Rumania, Sourh Africa, Sparn

9r as a permanent one, the 50 percent reduction in changes to head-ings by use of LC tolerable headings makes it almost maidatory thatthese practices be accepted.

In terms of cards, it was found that 42 percent of the 14,399 cardsexamined would need modificarion with application of AACR 2. Only27 percent would need to be considered Tor revision if LC decisions

l. Interfile old and new headings when the effect on alphabetiza-tion would be minimal. The headings that could be rreated bythis method include corporate names with additions that need tobe enclosed in parentheses or, in the case of "conference" head-ings,_slightly rearranged and differently punctuated, e.g., chang-ing f rom Kokusai Bunka Kaikan, Tokyo to Kokusi i BunklKaikan (Tokyo) and from Conference on Environmental ImpactAnalysis, 2d, Monticello, Ill., 1977 to Conference on Enviion-

212 I Library Resources U Technical Servites. Sum,mer 1980

2 .

mental Impact Analysis (2nd : 1977 : Monticello, t l l .). In thesample, 22 access points and 342 cards could be handled by thismethod.Delete portions of the headings at the catalog without removingcards. Personal name headings susceptible to this kind of treat-ment include those containing forenames, maiden names, titles,etc., that are omitted by AACR 2. This method could be used for8 access points and 373 cards as illustrated by the following ex-

Delano.Use more elaborate procedures for handling changes involvingsuch steps as removal of the cards, making deletions in or addi-tions to headings, or refiling cards. These procedures would app-ly to all other headings subject to change. It seems that each ofthese headings has to be considered individually. [n some cases itwou ld be poss ib le t o de le te and re f i l e , e .g . , Pa r i s . Fo l i es -Bergdre-delete Paris. Some headings would require deletionplus additions, e.g., South Carolina. University-change to Uni-versity of South Carolina. Other headings would need to be re-placed, e.g., pseudonym-Streuvels, Stijn*replacing real name-Lateur, Frank. The size of the file would be a determining factorin deciding when to make changes and when to leave the oldheadings as they are and create split files by making see ako re-ferences linking former headings and AACR 2 forms'

3 .

Fifty-seven access points, that is, l0 percent of the access points ex-amined, need to be considered individually. The number of cards in-volved is 3,218, or 22 percent of the cards examined. The cards inthis category would have to be removed for revision and refiling orconsidered for split files.

On the basis of the study, it is possible to recommend criteria formaking the transition to the new rules within the framework of theexisting card catalog. Consideration of user convenience has influ-enced the decision not to use split files for personal names exceptwhen called for by AACR 2, Rule 22.2.C3-4. It is thought that theuser would accept the difficulties of split files for corporate names butwould resist looking in more than one place for a personal name. Thecriteria for corporate name changes are based on the dislocation ofthe card catalog that would result from the repositioning of cards, onthe time and effort required in making changes in headings, and onconvenlence to users.

Split files would be considered in two instances: (l) if the changerequires that more than two hundred cards be moved from one cata-Iog tray to another, and (2) if the change requires retyping of morethan fifty cards. Recommendations on criteria for handling corporatename changes are summarized in figure 1.

Adapting an Existing Card Catalog I 2lI

Kind of iredDeletion only, cards remaining in same tray

Numberof Cards

No limit

l-200 cards200 + cards

l-50 cards50 + cards

Action

Make change

Make changeSplit file

Make changefile

Deletion onlv. cardsshifted to another tray

Revision of heading

criteria for Handring "n"xltlit"

toroo.u,. Name Headings

. Further study is needed to test the validity of the criteria in relation

::,:T-:1rllT i: a yhole. ptans are being made ro conduct this study

ustng random samplrng methods.

RErEntNcrs

l. Anglo-Amerirun caralo_g.uing Rules,2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and paul w. winkler. (Lntcago: Amencan Ltbrary Assn., I97g).2. Studies consulted inch'ds Johanna Hershey, .,The Impacr of the AACR 2 on Cata_

lgHllg ", the Johns Hopkins University,i in Atternitiae C";i;g N;;;irr.ler, No.l,( I 979).

3' Lucia -f . Rather, "AACR 2 options to Be Followed by the Library of congress, chap-ters l-2' t2' 2r-26'" Library-i1 c.ongn's Information..B'uttrti"ii,izh-a 1zr'i'"iy lszar.4' Robert M. Hiau. *AAC-R 2 Imprern'entation ptans,"I tr"r1 ,j iirg""rr]1)foirnotlon aut-let in 37:710-12 (Nov. 17, 1978i.

214 |

New Attemptsto Resolve Old ConfNicts:Chopter 22 of AACR 2

Bnrce E. Ford

interlibrary c ooperation.

Arr*r"oN LIBRARIANS expect their author-title catalogs to serve two

objectives. These objectives,- first artkulated by Cutter, were restated

by l-ubetzky:

The objectives implicit in our rules for entry are two: the.first-otrjec-tive is io enable the ,rse. of the catalog to determine readily whether

or nor the library has the book he wants. . . . The second objective is

to reveal . . . under one form of the author's name' what works the

library has by a given author and what editions or translations of a

given work.r

Cataloging practices idealty suited to the achievement of one objective

often iinplde the achievement of the other' Entry of each of an au-

thor's works under the name and f<rrm of name that appear in it

facilitates searches for known items but scatters the works of an au-

objectives."fne aLe rules of 19082 and 19493 favored the second objective,

taking little account of the first. AACR l,a while requiring the use of

Bruce E. Ford is head of the catalog Deparrmenr of the Newark Putrlic Litrrary.

New Attemph to Resolve Olt Cutflicts I ZIE

the heading- under_ which his works were entered in the catalog, unlessuse of initials was likely ro result in conflict. However, if use oT initialsin a heading created a conflict, or, if the author's surname was a com-

be entered under "Lawrence, D. H. (David Herbert)." The rule aboutinitials applies even ro initials used to represent surnames. The userwho goes to the catalog looking for worki of H. D. will no longer bereferred to "Doolittle, Hilda." He will find her works entered

-under

use more than one name are less satisfactory than those of AACR l.The rules presented in the body of the rexrof AACR l, which werefollowed by LC, required that all the works of an author who used

216 I Library Resources €l Technical Senices' Summer 1980

under a single heading helped libraries that followed the alternative

rule know wYhen referJ.r.es'rere needed. For example, if a cataloger

found that LC had entered a novel written by John Creasey as J' J'Marric under ,.creasey,

John," and he chose, instead, to enter it under..Marric,

J.J.," the Lc e"ntry reminded him to make references to link

entries ""t

a?r both headings. If he later encountered a novel written

by creasey under the pse"udonym Jeremy York, and he discovered

that LC had entered i t under "Cieasey, John," he knew that he

needed to make references to l ink entries'under Creasey, Marric, andyork. AACR 2 directs that works of an author who writes under

several names be entered under the "predominant name," but in-

cludes a modifying provision which directs that if such an author is

not known pr.dotiitruntly by any one name, each of his works is to be

entered .rtrd.r the name'that appears in it. The code requires the cat-

aloger to decide whether uny oi several names used -by an author is

preiomina.,t. The diff iculties the cataloger faces in doing so are ob-

i, ious. So is the probabil ity that his decii i,ons wil l differ from those of

his colleagues in other libraries; and every disagreement among {at-

alogers *ill hi.td.r interlibrary cooperation. Furthermore, LC's adop-

tiori of the AACR 2 provisions poses a threat to local achievement of

rhe second objective ihut *uy nor be immediately obvious. If LC de-

cides that non"e of the names used by John Creasey is "predominant"

and chooses to enter the works he wroG as J.J. Marric under "Marric,

J.J.," the cataloger who works with LC copy but.does not have access

io"lC'r authorit! files will nor know that he needs to make references

to connecr entnes under "Marric, J. J." with those under "creasey,

John," and he will inadvertently forialie the se99nd objective. On-line

i...r, to LC authority files would, of course, eliminate the difficulties

mentioned above; Uut, if the application of a rule requires,excessive

reliance on subjective judgment, eue.t the judgment of LC, the rule is

inherently defective.The development of new and very satisfacrory. provisions.for use of

initials in heaiings demonstrates that catalog code revision is a worth-

while undertakirig. The inadequacy of the new provisions respecting

authors who wriie under several names demonstrates the need for

further revision.

L

2 .

4 .

5 .

REFERENcf.S

Seymour Lubetzky, cataloging Rules and. Principles (washington, D.c.: Library of

Congress, 1953), p.36.CataTog Rules: Author antl Title Entrtes, American ed. (Boston: American Library Assn.

Publishing Board, 1908), 88p.A.L.A. Cinlogzng Rules for iuthor and Title Entries,2d ed , ed. Clara Beetle (Chicago:

Arnerican Library Assn., 1949), 265p.Anglo-Amnican Catalogrng /?zlas, Noith American Text, gen' ed , C' Sumner Spalding

(Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967), 400p.Anglo-imerican Catahguing Rules,2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler

(Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), 620p.

t 2r7

Yeo/s Work inDescriptive Corologing: l97g

Conslqnce Rinehqrt

TI o SPEAK oF THE "AFTERMATH" or AACR 2 mav carrv a certain dis-

paraging sense about it; sti l l , how else can one'describe the ebb inpublication in descriptive canloging that followed this notable biblio-graphic event? Following the appearance of the Anglo-Ameri.can cata-b$uyn&,.Rules,2d edition, ar rhe-close of 1978, the coimpletion of yearsof dedicated labor on rhe part of a great many people, a kind ofpause-whether for contemplation or in a collective sigh of relief-seems to have settled over the cataloging community.

Once AACR 2 had become generally available, rhe next obvioussteps were ro become familiar with its provisions and to decide howthe rules.might-affect the situation with'regard to bibliographic access

ll:y given.l ibrary. A number of review articles upftu.'.a during

1979, attempting to summarize the code, forecast its effbcts, .o-*..rdor bewail its provisions, or suggest pracrical or philosophical amend-ment. Simonron offers a compend of the majoi pointi in AACR 2,changes from what is now referred to as AAiR ll and plans for im-plernentation by the major-cataloging agencies. Referring particularlyto the delay between publication and implementationt-of AACR i,simonton points out that because of this interim, "catalogers andother Iibrarians have a unique opportunity and responsibilit/to iden-tify any ambiguities and likely pioblems in the appiication of, the newcode in advance of its formal implementation., ' l 'Two other lengthystudies are those of Weintraub, who approves of AACR 2's loficalarrangement but suggests that "many of the specific details and 6nepoints.^have- n-ot been thought through as carefully as they could havebeen,"z and Shinebourne,-who conlends that both AACR 2 and itspredecessor "have failed to define fundamenral bibliographic corrceptsand have thus failed to presenr a clear set of princiflles which couldguide and standardise cataloguing practice."3 A revi^ew by Friedmanconcludes that AACR 2 presents the cataloger's job as a ,,more ex-acting activity than ever before,"+ but Haclier uid Moot. feer thatthe code's impact wil l be one of "instant obsolescence" for the ri-btary's catalog and propose a partern of bibliographic control thatpermits the closing of local catalogs in favor of nitional networks andlarge data bases.5

-

Constance Rinehart is a professor at the School of Library Science, University of Michigan.

218 | Library Resources €l Technical Seruices' Swnmer 1980

bers of rhe Joint Steering Committee.ra

TRAINING IN AACR 2

Year\ Work in Descriptiue Catalogtng I 2tr9

Handhook for AACR 2. r7 Bernhardt's Introduction to Lihrary Tecknical Servfues, a textbook for library/media technology programs, devotes sever-al chapters to cataloging but attempts to cover AACR 2 in an appen-dix, where it is discussed only as it affects rules previously presented.r8

Decisions of the Library of Congress concerning choke of options inchapters 2-l l of the new code appear in the Library of Congress In-

farmation Bulktin of August 10, 1979;te decisions on chapters l-2, 12,and 2l-26 were published in 1978. Updated information about theimpkmentation of AACR 2 at the Library of Congress and rule inten-pretations for chapters 22-25 appear in Cataloging Seraice Bulletin forFall 1979.20'2r In the same issue, the library began to publish the formof heading that will be used after 1980 for those persons, bodies, anduniform titles appearing twenty-five times or more in the MAR.C bi-bliographic files.22 (The availability of a privately prepared index tobulletins l-125 of Cataloging Service is noted.)23

Another useful preparation for working with the new code isattendance at some sort of training session, of which there is a wideselection. The first of the major introductory programs might be con-sidered that of the International Conference on Anglo-AmericanCataloguing Ruhs, organized by Doris H. Clack at Florida State Uni-versity and held in Tallahassee in March 1979. The proceedings in-cluded a number of papers on the code itself and others on moregeneral concepts and on problems of implementation. At the sarnetirne, the Joint Steering Committee for AACR met in Tallahassee todiscuss the concise versi,on of the code being prepared by C'orman.2a

A preconference in Dallas, organized try the AACR 2 IntroductoryProgram Cornmittee of the Resources and Technical Services Division(R.TSD), served as ALA's "official" introduction of the new code.Several hundred persons who were willing to serve as leaders in work-shops on AACR 2 saw four videotaps on tk new code and a seriesof transparencies showing chief s,ources of information and the hibliographic records derived from them. These resources have now beenmade available by ALA for use in other group training sessions; slideshave been substituted for the transparencies, and an accompanyingscript explains the rules used in each case.25'26 For groups wishing tofollow the Dallas program format, or as a basis for developing samplerecords, these materials should be most useful.

Several other programs aimed at intrducing practicing catalogersto the new rules have already been held by state organizatirons, net-work of,fices, and library schools, and many others are planned, in-cluding a series of "LC road shows" in 1980 and I98l to publicizeLC's interpretati,ons and choices of options in using AACR 2.27,28 lnBritain, an International Workshop on AACR 2 was held in July1979 at Liverpool Polytechnic, which was charged with the prepara-tion of a sample group of bibliographic records to be used in terchingthe use of the new code- This project was commissioned by theCataloguing and Indexing Group and supported by a grant from theBritish I-ibrarl'.2e Britain has designed a national training program forAACR 2, in which all British library schools will participate.3o

220 I Library Resu.uces U Teclnbal Sentites. Summcr 1980

IMPACT oF THE NEw CoDE

One of the major topics of discussion mentioned in the "Year'sWork" article for 1978 was that of the future of card catalogs; theproblem continued to occupy those in positions of responsibility dur-ing the past year. At its ninety-fourth meeting in May 1979, under thetitle "National Planning for Bibliographic Control," the Association ofResearch Libraries (ARL) heard a number of speakers refer to the im-pact of AACR 2,3r and proceedings of a 1978 meeting sponsored bythe Boston Library Consortium became ava lable as Beyond Day 1: TheFuture of the Catalog.32 Proceedings of two institutes on the generaltopic of the card catalog and its future, sponsored by the Library andInformation Technology Association (LITA), were published during1979; included are the papers, debates, and discussions from the NewYork meeting on "The Catalog: Its Nature and Prospects" in 1975;and the New York and Los Angeles meetings of 1977 on "The Cata-log in an Age of Technological Change."sr Proceedings of LITA'sNew Orleans (November 1978) and San Francisco (February 1979)meetings on "Closing the Catalog," previously announced for publica-tion in 1979, are now listed for 1980. Thompson's remarks at the1979 convention of the Catholic Library Association summarize factorswhich must be considered in the decision to close the catalog, deci-sions which must be made, and major options for a second catalog.3a

In an attempt to coordinate information concerning the various"impact" studies being made in individual libraries, ALA PresidentRussell Shank created an ad hoc Committee on AACR 2 Implementa-tion Studies for the period January 1979 to January 1981. The com-mittee, which was directed to "monitor and facilitate studies of the im-pact of implementing" AACR 2,35 was later dissolved at the request ofits chairman, Richard Dougherty, on the grounds that the committeeitself could not conduct studies, adequate means already existed forcommunicating information about such studies, and the committee'sinfrequent meetings made it impossible for them to attempt to solveproblems resulting from implementation of the code.36 Beginningwith the first issue of 1979, the RTSD Newsletter began a column of"News about AACR 2 Implementat ion Studies," edi ted by JamesThompson of Johns Hopkins Univers i ty L ibrary;37 and the ALAOffice of Research will continue to receive and correlate AACR 2 im-plementation studies.38

Not everyone, however, saw the end of the card catalog as an im-mediate result of the implementation of AACR 2. A survey of theTechnical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries DiscussionGroup of RTSD indicated that while twenty-one of the respondentsplanned to close their card catalogs, four directors indicated that theircard catalogs would continue afterJanuary l, 198 l.3e This view is sup-ported by Hewitt and Gleim, who feel that the best alternative avail-able to libfaries is the continuance of the present card catalogs "whileat the same time planning for their eventual replacement by COM oronline" forms.ao

Year's Work in Descriptiae Cataloging / 221

RESEARCH FINDINGS

while a number of small studies were being carried on in individualti$llel concerning rhe number of recordi affected by the use ofAACR 2-or by Le's choice of options in AACR 2----one major re-search project was undertaken. Early in 1g79, ARL surveyed its mem-bers and approximately one hundred other academic research librar-ies on "their interest in a program to provide cost models for develop-ing. alternatives to present caid catalogs." King Research, Inc., was tomake studies in several libraries, develop thJcost models, and hold

pplicafions, and implications.ar Therry Catalog Cost Model Project was; Alternatiues for Future Library Cata-

ffi i',l:[1.lJi'!;T'1'*,lnXX-"',i:thananticipated;of rwelveulr.r.urilu.2fl?L"i:ttt#.htHt.::n::t;;in the project, the unified card catalog appeared to be t6e most eco-nomical;-having the old catalog on ca.ds and the new caralog on COMappeared to be much-mole costly than expected; and a unifild catalog

9l "."1 kind appeared to be less expensiv-e than a split catalog of an!

kind.a3 Support for rhe last of these findings is voicbd by Dw/er, whofound that users tended ro consulr only onl catalog in a muitiple filesystem.44

_ Other projects have concentrated on specific provisions of AACR 2.Tate,.continuing an earlier study of the efficiency of catalog codes infulfilling the finding list function of the caralog, concluded t[at AACR2 was superior to AACR ! in this regard, andlhat both were superiorto the ALA code of l949.ab Gorman and Hotsinpil ler carried'out astudy of the descriptive data on catalog records with relation ro thecontroversy over ISBD; their conclusion was that the diff iculty forreaders in using the descriptive information on such records "lies inthe nature of that data, not in the manner in which it is presented."a6

. Two publications offer assistance to libraries working- on their ownimpact studies. Heinritz presents a method for the qui-ck and preciseselection of random sample categories through the uie of a computerpfogram;+z and Nachlas and Pierce discuss "microcosting," a methodof-isolating the cost of providing a specific service that might reason-ably be applied to cataloging protedures.as

weintraub reviews research on rhe problem of bibliographic accessand concludes that the findings of the-various studies cu.t.tbt be coor-d ina ted due to t he l ack o f an ove ra l l t heo ry o f b i b l i og raph i corganization.ae Research studies on rhe performance of the caid iata-Iog have been summarized by Hafter, who abo considers the method-ology used in such studies ("questionable and . . . characterized by ageneral lack of attention to technical details"), the policy issues raisedby.them (most relate to the on-line catalog), and tie resulrs reported("th-e

-Tql-9r conclusion that emerges . .-. is that the card catalogworks"). Hafter concludes that the adoption of alternative catalo[

222 I Library Resources €l Technical Sentices' Summer 1980

forms may bring a still greater need for research on library catalogs

and studies of catalog use.5o

AUTHoRITY CoNrnol

The impact of AACR 2 and prosPects for closing carrl catalogll-r:Inor. erpi.ially, for maintaining uhified files----cannot be considered

apart from the matter of authority control, and LITA's major -pro-giam for l9Z9 was "Authority Control: The Key_ to Tornorrow's Cata-

ioe." Ivlalinconico's paper from this conference has bee'n published,5t

u.r"d to-. others hive been distributed informally. Clement's paper

presented ar lhe IFLA conference in Copenhag_en descri,bed the au-

ihority file system of the National Library of canada and^ the pilot

project using an on-line system (Dortmunder BibliottrLeks-System or

bO'ntS;;ut tlie latter is also discussed by Newman and others.53Dowell points out that it would not be n_ec€ssary to close the-.catalog

after January 1, 198 I, if libraries kept sufficient control over differing

forms" of names.5a Bregzis, in a paper prepared for the first national

conference of the Ass6ciation oi College and Research Libraries in

1978, suggests that in a machine-based system, both old- and new

forms ofl*ntry can be used, with records linked either in the coding

or at the time of searching,55

COM AS AN ALTERNATIVE

Fitzgerald, summarizing the New Orleans LITA-meeting for his

Harvaid colleagues, commlnted that "the catalog of the immediate fu-

ture for the laiger l ibrary is most l ikely to be a fithe c?t49g of current

acquisitions produced from machine-readable records."56 ALA's Re-

fer'ence and Adult Services Division (RASD) is already getting used to

the microform alternative. Their program at the Dallas Annual Con-

ference was concerned not only with ihe effects of AACR 2 on pu.blic

service operations but also with the effective use of the catalogs resuh-

ing from its implementation. One ,

ports that in using the COM catalrary "overestimated the user's affiesdmated the library stafls resistarRTSD Sections sponsored a jointMicroform Al ternat ives" ; speaktToronto, Prince George's CountyAngeles County Public Library System.58

.A'n extensive independent study, involving more than six hundred

interviews, conducted for the Los'Angeles C-ounty Public Library Sys-

rem in 1,g77 to provide data on parrarns of use of the COM.catalog

and degree of public acceprance of the foIT, was published in a re-

vised edition irr 1979.5e The study concluded, in summary' that "the

COM catalog is more acceptable to patrons than either its book or

card alternaiive; the specialized viewing equipment used _in the test

posed no obstacles to patron use of the catalog, except for.Patrons

wearing bifocals; the most significant factor in providing satisfactory

Year's Work in Descriptiue Canloging | 223

patron service is having enough viewers available at a given site . . . ;provision of information in COM form seems to increase general useof the ratalog; there is. no^significant difference^^amo.ng types of usergroups in reaction to the COM catalog. . . ; staff training, proper in-stallation and illumination, and adequate information about the catalogare as important as prov is ion of the COM publ icat ion and theviewers."60

Other research of interest to libraries considering COM as the cata-log form for l98l and beyond was done by Ronald and Jo EllenForce, who developed a computer simulation queuing model intendedto determine the number of terminals or readers needed by a librarygoing to the on-line or microform catalog.ol Ayres and Yannakoudakisdetermined the average size of the various elements in the UK MARCrecord; this information should make it possible to figure the cost ofany particular element in the record, and thus aid in the design of theCOM catalog.62

During the year several libraries reported on their successful COMprojects. Blackburn published a general statement on Toronto's deci-sion to close the card catalog and begin use of COM;or St. LouisCounty Library reported on its direct conversion from card to filmthrough Brodart;6a Hyatt described the experience of the Universityof Oregon Law Library in us ing the Blackwel l /Nor th Amer icasystem;65 and Hines discussed procedures, products, and practices re-sulting from the change to COM at the tBM library in Rochester,Minnesota.66 White has produced a planning docurnent for the Vir-ginia Commonwealth University Libraries including a review of theadvantages and disadvantages of COM, format and film type, methodsof conversion, and factors relating to catalog closing; appendixes covercard catalog maintenance costs, offer a framework for cost-benefitanalysis, and suggest a design for a catalog use study.67

Orsrn CerelocrNc AcrrvrrrEsLC began a series of meetings with the National l-ibrary of Medi-

cine and the National Agricultural Library, with the announced inten-tion.of "resolving wasteful differences [in technical processingl, p.ro-moting cooperation . . . and working towards open communicationabout their respecrive operations."oa

A proposal that could affect several types of libraries and libraryactivities is LC's plan to reconsider its order of priorities in cataloging.The draft statement and guidelines, as published in the Library of Con-grex Information Bulletin for August 17, 1979, indicated that the newapproach would be reviewed in "a reasonable time" and adjustmentsmade if necessary; but librarians were rerninded that "these guidelineshave to meet a great variety of different and often contradictoryneeds and are, of necessity, a compromise in responding to an ex-ceedingly complex problery1."os In the line of expansion, however, isthe library's announcement of plans to add seven languages to itsrornanized cataloging program.To

224 I Library Resources A Technical Seruices' Summer 1980

Sprcreuzr,u MATERIALS

ject were to upgrade and convert into machine-readable form part oflne tlte cadlog, to assess ways of preparing the records, to deter-mine whether bobk and nonbook records could be merged successful-ly, and to determine the market for the resulting list. AACR 2 ruleswere used (in draft form) in the physical description area. The re-

Non-BoohMedi,a also appeared in 1979,77 as did the second volume ofRedfern's Organising lulusic in Libraries. Revised and rewritten fromRedfern's eail ier text, this volume is devoted to the cataloging ofmusic and includes a comparative study of AACR 2 and the Code In-ternational de Catalogasu of the International Association of MusicLibraries.Ts

In the special field of early printed books, IFLA announced the dis-tribution in draft form of the ISBD(A) for the description of oldermonographic publications. The report points out that a separate stan-dard is necessary for older materials trecause they are "considered asartifacts to be described in such a way as they can be clearly distin-

Year's Work in Descriptiue Cataloging I 225

guished for the purpose of comparison with other copies and other edi-tions of the same work"; modern items, on the othei hand, require "arecognisable entry in a predictable form."?e The draft ISBD(A) formspart of the background for a first draft, distributed in December

During the year ARL applied for a $50,000 grant from the NationalEndowment for the Humanities in order to develop a project for im-proving the bibliographic control of microforms.82 The International

Among publications relating to more specialized forms or types ofmaterials, Emmett reported on the effects on cataloging of the North-western University Transportation Library's entrance into Northwest-ern's automated system; 8a Barnett suggested a formula for makingbib l iographic records for the pr inted guides or cata logs of ar tcollections;85 De Lorge described a cataloging sysrem for buildingplans and offered to send sample work sheers;86 Evans and Stein dis-cussed the use of image-bearing catalog cards as a means of access topic tures;87 and Kaufman presented a system for cata loging andarranging photographs and other visual marerials.s8 Dodd describedthe creat ion of an on- l ine b ib l iographic data base for machine-readable data files,8e and late in the year the Library of Congress re-ported that it had completed a draft MARC formar for such files.eo Adraft cataloging manual for cartographic materials, based on AACR 2,is being prepared by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Committee forCartographic Materials and will be edited by the National Map Collec-tion of Canada.er

. During 1979 the Library of Congress became engaged in develop-ing a series of manuals for special materials-rare books, prints andphotographs, manuscripts, films, cartographic materials, and govern-ment documents-which will expand and interpret AACR 2 and mayoffer changes for consideration.

A group of representatives of specialized library associations met inJanuary to discuss the role of such organizations in future catalogcode revision; later in the year the Council of National Library and

226 I Library Resources U Technical Seraices. Sumrner 1980

Information Associations agreed to "attempt to present the concernsof the specialized libraries to those authorized to revise the code."e2

Nrrwonr DnvrLopl.ttN.ts

MacGregor, in a brief discussion of bibliographic network develop-ment in the United Kingdom, concludes that the principle of creatingor acquiring catalog records through the computer is now established;"what remains to be developed is a viable organizational structure whichwill best meet the needs of all libraries for their catalogue records."s3In an attempt to discover this structure, the Council on Library Re-sources announced during the year its major new Bibliographic Ser-vice Development Program (BSDP), for which the council raised morethan $5 million; the program is expected to extend over four or fiveyears.ea According to the program's chief officer, C. Lee Jones, BSDPwas inaugurated because "careful analysis . . . led to the conclusionthat a comprehensive system for bibliographic control is essential.Such a system should take full advantage of the nation's capacity toproduce bibliographic records and should make those records avail-able to all libraries that need them. The system must accommodate re-cords from other nations as well."e5 It is recognized, however, that theUnited States is not likely to have one file of bibliographic records forthe whole country; instead, BSDP is based on the premise that thenational data base "will be composed of files distributed at various ser-vice sites."e6 In the beginning, the program is expected to concentrateon "mat ters surrounding the creat ion, maintenance, d is t r ibut ion,accessibility, management, and use of data bases." Interests that sur-faced in early meetings were the creation of a system for internetworkcomputer communicat ion, ident i f icat ion of the k ind of data basewhich should be made available and the kind of record it should con-tain, and development of an authority control system.eT

Two advisory groups have been established by BSDP: the NetworkAdvisory Committee, to help with planning and policy decisions, andthe Network Technical Advisory Group (NTAG), to consider technicalmatters.e8 The latter of these, NTAG, has been more thoroughly de-scribed by Avram and Hartmann, who write that the group's primaryobjective is the design of an interconnection of bibliographic utilities.The first task is seen as the determination of the rules and standardsin use i n U .S . l i b ra r i es and the ex ten t t o wh i ch they mus t beaccommodated, and a further matter (number ten in the authors' list)will be the consideration of problems related to varying interpretationsand applications of AACR 2.ee The fifth in NTAG's series of NetworkPlanning Papers appeared during 1979, Long's Study of Message TextFormats, an examination of the search arguments of the differentutilities.roo A paper by Salton, which proposes a "cooperative networkarrangement between library centers" and discusses some of the tech-nical problems which might arise under such arrangements, mightserve as a further contribution to the plan.tot

The networks themselves, however, tended to concentrate on theirown development rather than on any moves toward cooperation.

Year's Worh in Descriptiue Canloging I 227

OCLC's annual report l isted, as usual, growth in number of statesreached, number of libraries participating, and number of terminalsin use.ro2 Major tools published by OCLC during the year include itsCatalogtng: User Manua[ describing operarions in the OCLC catalogingsubsystem;r03 Name-Authority: (Jser Manual, with instructions for re-trieving LC authority records from the on-line file;to+ and Searching theOn-Line Union Cata log, wi th in format ion apply ing to a l l OCLCsubsystems. l 05

OCLC for you and me has been capably described in OCLC: ANational Library Networh, edited by Allison and Allan. Included in rhecoverage are articles on network organization and activities, staff train-ing, use of OCLC in library schools, cataloging workflow, and accep-tance of member library cataloging. The full, annotated bibliography isa noteworthy addition.r06

The cost of using OCLC has been investigated by Morris, whose re-sults wil l surprise no one: charges vary from one contracting center toanother , and in general heavy users pay less.r07 Purnel l o f fers amethod of creating documentation for a new system that interfaceswith OCLC.ro8 Tracy and Remmerde found that OCLC gave rhe high-est number of "hits" in a sample of 1,018 tit les checked against BAL-LOTS, BNA, OCLC, and WLN to determine probable success infinding records for conversion.ros Boissonas reports on rhe quality ofOCLC member cataloging;tro Matrhews considers OCLC's effect onworkf low in law l ibrar ies; r r r and Heine and Yedl in survey the in-formation needs of the Health Sciences OCLC Users Group.r12 Rzecz-kowski describes the use of OCLC by a small college l ibrary that" rents" terminal t ime f rom another inst i tu t ion; the t ime and costfigures given should be useful to other small institutions.rr3

An OCLC affi l iate, the AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, announcedthat it was separating from its parent body (the Interuniversity Coun-cil of the North Texas Area) and would establish a Bibliographic Re-source Center with the ultimate aim of providing an on-line catalogfo r members ; r14 and the boa rds o f e i gh t ne two rks -AMIGOS,SOLINET, M IDLNET, PAL INE ' I - , NEL INET, M IN ITEX, PRLC,and FEDLINK-meI to discuss areas of further cooperation.r15 In-novative Interfaces, Inc., of Berkeley, California, annouirced the de-velopment of a system to permit the direct rransfer of data appearingon an OCLC screen to the CLSI circulation system.r16 The device,which would enable an operator at the terminal ro create both catalogand circulation records at one time, was expected to be "cost effectivefor those l ibrar ies that have CLSI systems which process severalthousand new records through OCLC each year. It can mean a realsaving for those which undertake simultaneous rerrospecrive catalogand circulation record conversion projects."rrT The issue of "thirdparty use" of network records became a major issue briefly in 1979;some RLIN members threatened ro sue OCLC if they were not per-mitted to share a data base which they helped build.r18

The Research Libraries Group (RLG) and its network, RLIN, werealso in a period of expansion; RLG added several institutional mem-

228 I Library Resources U Technical Seraices. Summn 1980

bers during 1979, and the number of libraries contributing to RLINincreased as well. RLG succeeded in attracting $l million in grantmoney from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Alfred P.Sloan Foundation to aid in the development of a utility designed for anetwork of research institutions. I le

Among major RLIN publications for the year are its BibliographicData Element Taggrng Workbook: Boohs Formaf, which deals with the ap-plication of the format in creating and modifying bibliographicrecords; and three audiovisual programs that can be rented or pur-chased as slides or videotapes: RZG.' An Introduction, Searching the BoohsData Base, and Searching the RLIN Non-Boohs Data Bases.r2o A series ofRLIN Cataloging Notes began in January, to "record answers to catalog-ing and coding questions and to disseminate announcements and poli-cies. The information will include answers from the Library of Con-gress and interpretations of RLIN cataloging standards."r2r

With the Library of Congress, RLG began work on a data base de-scribing the MARC data elements-tags, indicators, and subfieldcodes. The data base, which will be made up of information in variousLC documents, will be maintained by RLIN and made available fromLC in loose-leaf form as an integrated MARC fq1rn31.t22'tz:

RLG had also entered into cooperation with the third major U.S.ut i l i ty , the Washington L ibrary Network (WLN), when the two"agreed to share their databases and to work together in the develop-ment of network services." Both bibliographic data and technical planswere included in the plans for exchange.r24 WLN, meanwhile, hadtaken a giant step, at least geographically, by installing its software inthe National Library of Australia.r25

Weisbrod, head of the Systems Office at Yale University Library,has been asked to review all of the MARC formats for the Library ofCongress, in order to "evaluate them in terms of networking require-ments." Weisbrod will be assisted by a working group funded by theCouncil on Library Resources.126

The Nati.onal Leael Bibliographic Record (NLBR)-Boofu, issued as adraft document late in 1978, gave specifications for the data elementsto be included in machine-readable catalog records. Representatives ofthe Association of Research Libraries met with Library of Congressstaff in January 1979 and agreed to substitute for the three levels ofcontent originally proposed (full original, transcription of LC, andminimal original) "a continuum of levels of input" ranging from "anabsolute minimum level to a full level record." Records would becoded to indicate the level of completeness in description, name andtitle access points, subject headings, classification, content designationfor variable field length, and coded data fields.r27

By studying the detection of duplicate records, which can be a ma-jor problem in the large on-line network, Hickey and Rypka de-veloped an algorithm that "can be more accurate than all but theclosest human scrutiny."tzs A project with similar aims was reportedby Williams and Maclaury, who were successful in developing a sys-tem for eliminating duplicates in three large sample files.r2e Research

Year's Work in Desoiptiue Cata.loging / 229

availability of the materials at participating librariss."rss

CoNcr-ustoN

Rrrrnr,Ncrs

l. wesley- simonton, "An Introduction to AACR 2," Library Resources 8 Technical ser-uices 23:321-39 (Summer 1979).

2. D. Kathryn weintraub, 'AACR 2: A Review Article," Library enrterty 4g:4384r(Oct. 1979).

3. J. A. Shinebourne, "A Critique of AACR," Libri 29:231-b9 (Oct. l9?9).

230 I Library Resources €l Technical Services' Surnmn 1980

4. J. Friedman, "Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,nentation 35:2b4-56 (Sept. 1979).

5. Lois Hacker and J. R. Moore, "Anglo-American

Research Libraries 40:27l-76 (May 1979).6. 'AACR2 from Two ViewPoints," Carndian Library Journal36:381-83 (Dec' 1979)'7. Peter Smith, "AACR 2: Another View," Neu Library World 80:221-23 (Nov' 1979)'8. Joel Downing, .,Anniversary and Birth: AA 1908 to AACR 2," Library Assoriation

Record 8l:6647 (Feb. 1979).R. Jung, "Regeln fiir die alphabetische Katalogisierung," International Library Re-

Technical Seruices 23:427-29 (Fall 1979).Robert M. Hiatt, "AACR Il Ceremony," Library of Congress Infonnation Bulletin38:122-23 (March 30, 1979)'

15. Ronald Hagler, where's ThaI Rul.e? A crossJndex of the Tuo Editions of the Anglo-

American Cataloguing Rules (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn., 1979)..

16. Eric J. Hunter, AA CR 2, An Introd.uction to the Second Edition of Anglo-American Cata-

loguing Rules (Hamden, Conn.: Linnet, 1979).17. M"argiret Maxwell, Handbooh for AACR 2, Explaining and lllustrating the Anglo-

American Catalogting Rules, 2n'd Edition (forthcoming).

18. Frances S. Ber;haidt, Introduction to Library Technical Seruires (New York: H. W.

Wi lson, 1979).19. Ben R. Tucker, "AACR 2 Options Proposed by the Library of Congress; Chapters

2-11," Library of Congress Information Bulletin 38:307-16 (Aug. l0' 197-9).

20. "Implementition of AACR 2 at the Library of Congress," Cataloging Seruice Bulletin

6:5-8 (Fal l 1979).21. "Rule Interpretations for AACR 2," Catalogzng Sentice Bulletin 6:8-26 (Fall 1979).

22. "Revised Hiadings for 1981," Catatogt'ng Seruice Bulletin 6:2G-40 (Fall 1979)'

23. "Indexes," Cataloging Seruice Bulletin 6:2 (Fall 1979).24. ,,Concise Edition oT eRcR 2 Planned," Library of congress Infonnation Bulletin

38:144 (Apr i l 13, 1979).25. An Introduction to the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules: A Videocassette Program

(Washington, D.C.: Public Television Library, 1979).26. Exarnples"for Applying the Anglo-Amencan Catalogu,ing Rules, 2d Edihon: A Three-Part

Slid,e Program (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1979).

27. Doralyn Hickey, "Citaloging and Classification," in ALA Yearbooh, 1979 (Chicago:

American Library Assn., 1979) p.72-74.28 ,.RTSD and LC Announce AACR 2 Training Programs," RTSD Neusletter 4:5-6

(une 1979).29.

;National Programme for AACR 2," Librarl Association Record 8l:130 (March

l97e).30. "A National Training Programme for AACR 2," Catal'ogue U Index no.52:l (Spring

I 979)31. Association of Research Libraries, National Planning for Bibliographic Control: Mi'

nutes of the Ninety-Fourth Meeting (Washington, D.C.: Assn. of Research Libraries,

1979 )Beyond Day I: The Fulure of the Canlog (Boston: Boston Library Consortium, 1979).

Tie Natuie and Future of ihe Canlog: eroceedings of the AIA's Information Science and

Automation Diuision's 1975 and 1977 lrutitutes on the Catalog (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx

Pr. . 1979).

James Thompson, "Closing the Catalog," Catholic Library World 5l:226-27 (Dec'

1979)."Shank Names AACR 2 Group," American Libraries l0:134 (March 1979).

James Agenbroad, "AACR 2lmplementation Studies Committee," Library of Con-

gress Inforrnahon Bulletin 38:373 (Sept. 7, 1979).

2nd Edition," Joumal of Docu'

Cataloguing Rules," College U

9.

1 0 .

I l .

12.t 3 .

l 4

3233.

34.

35 .36.

Year's Work in Descriptiae Catnloging I 231

37 ' Mary-Jo Lynch, "News about AACR 2 lmplementation Studies," RTSD Neusletter4:3-5 (an.-April 1979).

38. James Thompson, "News about AACR 2 Implementation Studies," RTSD Newslet-ter 4:7-3 (Oct. 1979).

39. "'Big Heads'Survey on the Future of Library Catalogs," ARL Newsletter no.98:ll(Sept. 1979).

40. Joe A. Hewitt and David E. Gleim, "The case for Not closing the catalog," Arner-ican Librarizs l0: I l8-2 I (March 1979).

41. "ARL Surveying lnterest in Cost Models for Alternative Catalogs, ARL Newsletterno.95: l (Feb. t979).

50. Ruth Hafter, "The Performance of Card Catalogs: A Review of Research," LibraryResearch l:199-222 (Fall I979).

51. S. Michael Malinconico, "B.ibliographic Data Base Organization and Authority FileControl," Wikon Library Bulletin b4:264b (Sept. 1979).

52. Hope Clement, "National Library of Canada Authority File System" (Abstract)IFLA J oumal 5: l0l ( 1979).

53. "DOBIS: The Canadian Government Version," Canadian Library Joumal 56:t8t-g4(Aug. 1979).

54. Arlene T. Dowell, "Staying open in l9}l," HCL cataloging Bulletin no.39:ll-15( l e7e).

55' Ritva-rs Bregzis, "The Technical services Budget-Ig8O and Beyond," tn Neu Hori-

$\ Association of College and Research Libraries, Boston, Mass., Nov. 8-ll, lgTg),

!;qtl ed--Robert D. Stueart and Richard D. Johnson (New york: K. G. Saur, 1979),F.' p.l6G-9.

56. "LITA in New Orleans Eyes 'Closing the Catalog,' " Lzbrarl Journal 104:bB4-56

(March l , 1979).

€ 57. c_arolyn. K. Murray, "Teaching the coM Microcaralogue. A Discussion of How the- tJnilelsity of Toronto Library Educated Its Patrons and Staff to Effectively Usethe COM Microcaralogue," RQtg:52-b7 (Fall 1979).

.-z 58. "The Public catalog: Microform Alternatives," RTSD Neusletter 4:2 {an.-Aprll| 979).

-a 59. Brett Butler, Martha w. west, and Brian Aveney, Library and patron Response to theC.OM

-C^Wlog: Use and Eualuation (Los Altos, Calif.: Information Accesi Corpora-t ion. 1979).

DA0. Brian Aveney and Mary Fischer Ghikas, "600 Users Meet the coM catalog,"- Amenran Libraies 10:82-83 (Feb. 1979t.

-"/ 6+. Donell J. Ga€rtner, "From Cards to Microfilm," Joumal of Micrographics l2:26b-68- (March/Apri l 1979).

232 I Library Resources A Technical Seruices' Sumtner 1980

-/ 65. Dennis Hyatt, "COM Catalog vs. Card Catalog: The Experience of the University

of Oregon Law Library," Law Library Journal 7l:668-72 (Nov. 1978).

,F 66. David Hines, "Lilliputian Library Catalogs and Information Retrieval," Journal of

Micrographics l23 17 -22 (July/Aug. I 979).

-./ 67. Robert L. White, Computer Output Microform (COM) Catalog Requirernents for the Vir-

ginin Commonwealth (Initersity Libraries (Richmond: University Libraries, Virginia

Commonwealth University, 1979) ERIC Document ED 175 472'68. "Three Libraries Meet to Discuss Technical Processing Cooperation," Library of

Congress Information Bulletin 38:31&-20 (Aug. 17, 1979).69. "Cataloging Priorities to Be Reassessed,," Librarl of Congress Information Bulletin

38:320-22 (Aug. 17, 1979).70. "LC Plans Romanization of Cataloging Records," Library of Congress Information

Bul let in 38:143 (Apr i l 13, 1979).71. Helen P. Harrison, "Non-Book Materials: A Decade of Development?" Journal of

Documentation 35:207 48 (Sept. I 979).72 IFLA International Office for UBC, "IFLA's Involvement in the Bibliographic

Standardization of Audio-Visual and Non-Book Materials," IFLA Journal 5:30-34( I 979)

73. Kathleen LaPlume, "The Need for Consistency in Cataloging Audio-Visual Mate-

rials," Catholic Library Worl.d 50:295-98 (Feb. 1979).74. JoAnn Rogers, "Nonprint Cataloging: A Call for Standardization," American Librar-

ies 10:4548 (fan. 1979).75. Dave Ferris, "Developments in the Bibliographic Control of Audiovisual Materials:

The BL/ILEA Learning Materials Recording Study," Education Lihrarie.s Bullelin

22:28-37 (Summer 1979).76. Jean Weihs, Shirley Lewis, and Janet Macdonald, Nonbook Materiak: The Organiza-

tion of Integrated Collectiors (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn., 1979).77. Antony Croghan, A Bibliographic Systemfor Non-Booh Media: A Description and List of

Worh"s,2d ed. (London: Coburgh Publications, 1979).Brian Redfern, Organising Music in Libraries (Hamden, Conn : Linnet, 1978-79) 2v."ISBD(A)," IFLA Journal 5:4345 (1979)Rules for Bibliographic Desmiption of Early Printed Boohs, Pamphlels, Broadsides, and

Single Sheets (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1979).Independent Research Libraries Association, Ad Hoc Committee on Standards fbr

Rare Book Cataloguing in Machine-Readable Forin, Proposak for Establishing Stan-

d.ards for the Cataloguing of Rare Boohs and Specialized Research Materiak in Machine-

Readable Form: Final Report (Worcester, Mass.: Independent Research Libraries

Assn. , 1979)."ARL Seeks Grant to Improve Bibliographic Control of Microforms," ARL Neuslet

lar no.96:8 (Apr i l 1979).International Federation of Film Archives, Canloging Commission, Film Cataloging(New York: B. Frankl in, 1979)Robert C. Emmett, "Automation and lts Impact on a Transportation Library,"

Special Libraries 70:479-86 (Nov. 1979)Patr ic ia J. Barnet t , "The Col lect ion Formula: An Exper iment in Structur ingHeadings," Special Libraries 70:53341 (Dec. | 979).Cathy De Lorge, "Architectural Cataloging," American Archiuist 42:198-99 (April

1979).Grace E. Evans and Lenore Stein, "lmage-Bearing Catalog Cards for Photolibrar-ies: An Overview and a Proposal," Special Libraries 70:462-70 (Nov. 1979).

Judith Kaufman, "A System for Cataloging and Classifying Visual Resources," Li-brary Resources Ll Technical Seruices 23:168-74 (Spring 1979).Sue A. Dodd, "Building an On-Line Bibliographic/MARC Resource Data Base for

Machine-Readable Data Files," Joumal of Library Automation 12:6-21 (March 1979)."Draft of New MARC Format Completed," Library of Congress Information Bulletin38:478-79 (Nov. 23, 1979)."Anglo-American Cataloguing Committee for Cartographic Material Formed," I-i6-

rary of Congress lnformation Bulletin 38:456-57 (Nov. 2, 1979)."Two Meetings Reported," Library of Congress Information Bulletin 38:219 (June 15,1979).

78.79 .80.

8 1 .

82 .

83.

84.

85 .

86.

87 .

88.

89.

90.

9 1 .

92.

Year's Work in Descriptiae Catalogtng I 2ZZ

93. Alan Maccregor, "some Trends in Research and Development in Documenrationc. 1978).c System," College U Research Libraries Neus

ographic Service Development: A New CLRl2:l16-24 (fune 1979).

97. "cLR Announces Bibliographic service Development program," ARL Newsletterno.95:4 (Feb. 1979).

98. "cLR seeks coordinarion of Nat'l Bibliographic Efforts," Library Journal 104:771-74 (Apri l l , 1979).

99' Henriette D. Avram and David c. Hartmann, "objectives and Accomplishments ofthe Network Technical Archirecture Group," progiam l3: l_13 gan. tb7Sy.

100. Philip L. Long, study of Message Text Formars, Bibtiographic sear'ch eueries, NetworkPlanning^Paper no.8 (Washington, D.C: Library of dongress, 1979)i

l0l. Gerard-sa.l1ona^"s1sse.srion-s for Library Network Desi[n," Journol of Library Auto-mation 12:39-52 (March 1979).

102. "ocLC Notes (]rowrh As 'Nationwide' Nerwork," Library Journal 104:44g (Feb. 15,1979) .

l9? 9!f-9, lnc., Catalogtng: Llser Mamtal (Columbus, Ohio: OCLC, Inc., lg79).104. OCLC, lnc., Name-Authority: (lser Manual (Columbus, Ohio: OCLC, Inc., 1979).105. ocLC, lnc., searching the on-Line union catalog (columbus, ohio: ocLC, Inc.,

r979) .106. Anne Marie Allison and Ann Allan, eds , ocLC: A National Lihrary Networh (shorr

Hil ls, NJ.: Enslow, 1979).107. Leslie R. Morris, A comparison of cost Factors Llsed by ocLC seruice cenlers (New

orleans: Xavier University of Louisiana Library, lgig) ERIC Documenr [,D 174238.

108. Kathleen M. Purnell, "Interfacing a Local System with ocLC: The Documentatron..,^ Process," Library Resources tl Technical Ser-uices 23:l2g_3g (Spring lg7g).109. Joan-Tracy and Barbara Remmerde, "Availability of Maihine"-Readable catalog-

!ng: Hit Rates for BALLors, BNA, ocLC and WLN for the Eastern washingtonUniversity Library," Library Research l:277-Bl (Fall 1979).

ll0. christian A. Boissonas, "The Quality of ocLC Bibliographic Records: The cor-nelf Law Library Experience," Lau Library Joumq,t 72:gd_86 (Winter lg79).

lll. Elizabeth w. Matthews, "Effect of ocLC on workflow in Law Libraries,', Lau Ltb-raryJoumal 7l:660-67 (Nov. 1978).

| 12. valerie Heine and Deborah Yedlin, "Information Needs of Health sciences Li-braries f,Jsing ocLC: A Survey," Medical Library Association Bulletin 67:5g-b9 (Jan.t979) .

l13. Matthew Rzeczkowski, "ocLC and the Small college Library," catholic LibraryWorld, 50:44344 (May-June 1979).

f f 4. "AMIGos Announces spl i t from parent Body," Library Journal 104:14l l-12 (fuly1979).

l l5 "Mult istate Network Boards Eye Sharing possibi l i t ies," Library Journal 104:991(May I , 1979) .

I 16' "onfine Interface Linking ocLC & GLSI ciaimed," Library Journal lo4:877 (Aprllr 5 , 1 9 7 9 ) .

I17. "New Records conversion Device," Library Technologl Reports lb:426-27 (July-Aug.l 979).

l l8. 'RLIN Wins More Grant Aid; Adds New Members, ' , Library lournal 104:1505_6(Aug. 1979).

l19. $l Million Goes ro RLG for RLIN co-op Effort," Library Journal 104:g7l (Aprilr5 , 1979) .

120. "Recent RLG Publications," RLIN Newsletter 2:4-b (Nov. l9Z9).l2l "Recent RLIN Publications," rRl.IN Neusletter 2:14 (March lg79).122. "LC & RLG work Togerher to Build New MARC Database," Library Journal104:1099 (May 15 , 1979) .123. "Joint Project Launched to Build Base of u.s. MARC Dara Elemenrs," Libran,f

Congress Information Bulletin 38:55 (Feb. 16, lgTg).

234 I Library Resources Ll Technical Seruices' Summer 1980

124. , .RLG & Washington Library Network Forge New All iance," Library Journal104:990 (May I , 1979) .

125. "Washington Network Leaps across Pacific Ocean," American Libraries l0:100-l0l(March 1979).

126. iNew Study of MARC Formats Planned," Library of Congress Infotmation Bulletin

38:46244 (Nov. 9, 1979).127. "National Level Bibliographic Record," ColLege €l Research Libraries Neus no 4:98

12:143-55 (June 1979).13l. James Thoirpson, "The'New'Catalogs and the Unlinished Evolut ion," Anencan

Libraries l0:357-60 (June 1979).132. John Corbin, "Libriry Automation: A State of the Art," Catholie Libran World

50:27-29 (May-June 1979).133. Patr icia T. Rine, "Bibl iographic Uti l i t ies," CoLlege €l Research Libraries News

no. l I :349 (Dec. 1979).Richard De Gennaro, "From Monopoly to competition: The changing Librarv

Network Scene," Library Joumrtl 104:1215-17 (une I' 1979)."New INMAGIC Softw;re Designed for Small Colleges," Libran Jounnl 104:992

(May l , 1979 ) .';Lib.u.n Automation Proiect," ARL Newsletter no.97: I I (f une 1979)

"HEW hunds Automatioi Studies," Library Journal 104:534 (March I' 1979)'

rbid.,.News from the Field: Grants," oollege €3 Research Libraies Nzas no.9:275 (Oct.

1979).

134

135.

l 36.t37 .r 38.139.

I 235

Yeq/s Work inSubiect Anolysis: 1979

lloris Horgrem Clock

(-t\, loMpARATtvELy SIEAKING, the year 1979 was a rather lean year inthe growth of the body of literature on subject analysis; neverthelessthe publications that appeared reflected the superior caliber of schol-ars and practit ioners who produced them. Unfortunately severalworks announced for a 1979 publication schedule failed to appear,such as the third edition of lmmroth's Guide to the Library of CongressClassification,r Aman's Cataloging and Classifcation of Non-Westirn LiilraryMaterials,z and the Cataloging U Clnssification Quarterly.3

An analysis of the l iterature published revealed no single pivotalpoint around which the year's activities cenrered. Classification, subjectheadings, and indexing constitute the specific areas under which themajority of the literature falls. A few publications dealt with subjectanalysis in general and have been so noted below.

GeneneL Sun;rcr ANelysrs

ln the ongoing attempt to seek ways to recover information from astore of literature, professional techniques have developed and havebecome both invaluable and indispensable. The increasing demandsbeing made on contemporary information systems and the concom-itant problems have developed, economically and scientifically, into theimportant area of subject analysis, the fundamental process of which isfar from. being fully understood or masrered. The whole process oftransmitting messages conveyed by a phrase or term or of recognizinggroups of subjects and their interrelationships is considered fun-damental to effective subject retrieval and is in the national inrerest tobe improved. The ALA/RTSD/CCS Subject Analys is Commit tee(SAC), concerned with finding ways to improve subject access, wasseeking answers to perplexing problems when it asked the themequestion "Can Anyone Do lt?"a-6 at its program ar the American Li-brary Association Annual Conference in Dallas. The participants in theSAC program sought to identify the needs of libraries, varied by typeand size, and to explore the desirability and possibility of meeting allof those needs. The theme quesrion sought to identify the organiza-

Doris Hargrett Clack is an associate professor, School of Library Science, Florida StateUniversity, Tallahassee.

236 I Library Resources tl Technical Seruices' Summer 1980

Year's Work in Suhjecl Arnlysis I 237

versity library-rhe Unive-rsity of Boston and the National Library of9u"1d_u.having given up their classified catalogs earlier. The Lauren-tian.University Library in sudbury, ontario, decided to join a coop-erative, urLAS, to facilitate the creation and maintenu"tr.. of theirdual French and English lgbject caralogs. Subject headings in theFrench language catalog will be linked i-o thos6 in the nn[listr tan-guage catalog.14

CLessIucerroN

classification scheme have been reported. Tomimatsu found it suitablefor use in small libraries2T while Hindson finds that it lends irself ex-

238 I Library Resources U Technical Seruices. Summer 1980

Colon Classification continues to influence classification. Mahapatradesigned a special classification system based on the principles of theColon Classification. He describes it as one of many "depth" classifica-tion schemes published in India using the idea of the "Idea, the Ver-bal and the Notational Planes" initiated by Ranganathan.3o

Numerous other special classification schemes have been devisedand published, some of which display the ingenuity of librarians theworld over. Special schemes are available for business studies, visualmaterials, physics, nursing, polymer l iterature, f iction, and Islamicmaterials. The London Classification of Business Studies, compiled by

business studies librarv communitv.32The University Archives of the State University of New York at

Buffalo developed a system for classifying photographs and othervisual materials. This unique classification system groups materials intodifferent categories, subarranges them by size, then by subject.33 AnInternational Classification System for Physics has been developedunder the aegis of the International Council of Scientific Unions andmarks a significant event in the area of subject analysis and data pro-cessing on an international scale.3a Although the National Library ofMedicine Classification is the most practical system for medical librar-

literature.s5 Over the past thirty-five years polymer science and tech-nology have been growing at a rapid speed into a considerable bodyof literature with unique nomenclature and language. A classificationsystem has been developed to meet the needs of polymer scientistsand engineers in an industrial environment.36 Islamic materials3T andfiction38 also have had special schemes developed to meet the uniqueneeds and to reflect the multidimensional interests of their users.

The International Patent Classification scheme used in patent officesaround the world to group families of patents relating to the same in-vention was studied by Eisenschitz and Oppenheim to determine thedegree of consistency in the use of the system. The lack of consistencythey found in the application of the scheme among users negates itsintended international advantage.3e

Looking at classification from a historical perspective in "Classifica-tory Thinking from Kinner to Wilkins," Schulte-Albert examined theideas of seventeenth-century Brit ish scholars and related their clas-sificatory theories to modern mechanisms for vocabulary control. Theyeither created "analytico-synthetic" classification schemes with elabo-rate systems of notation or made plans for them. Their universal lan-

Year's Work in Subject Analysis I 239

Krinigstein. Its theme quesrion was: How can classification help in thecreation, presentation, and mediation of knowledge?aa

The forty-fifth Congress and Council Meeting of the InternationalFederat ion of L ibrary Associat ions and Inst l tu t ions was held inCopenhagen, where the Round Table on Classification of the Division

The teaching of classificarion is seldom addressed in the literature.Although the environment is Germany, Rdmer's article, "ClassificationTeaching for Students of Librarianship,"4e is a welcomed addition tothis impoverished body of literature. A syllabus for advanced coursesin classification in India at the master's and post-master's level is alsoquite impressive.50

SunJrcr HEADTNGS

subject headings occurring in cataloging records taken from theOCLC data base to find out how many subject access points are avail-able and what their characteristics are. His concern was primarily withapplication rather than with the inherent characteristics of the termsthemselves.52

24O I Library Resources U Technical Seraices' Summer 1980

Steinweg revives the topic of specificity. Specificity is expressed inLCSH with specific terms, adjectival modifiers, terms in glosses andsubdiv is ions, compound headings, dupl icate headings, and dates.Problems can result if the ideal of specificity is applied.s3

On the other hand, Wilson supports the ideal of specific entry insubject cataloging and disapproves LC's new policy of providing dupli-cate entries at specific and generic levels. They reveal nothing newabout the collection and are a wasteful way of repairing the deficien-cies of the syndetic structure.sa Pankin facetiously suggests to cata-logers that they read the LCSH in their spare time to enjoy the"menagerie of colorful topics" that appears there.55 In addressing theannual convention of the Association of Jewish Libraries, Berman dis-cussed the 'Jewish question" in Library of Congress subject headings.Among other faults, there is a hidden bias in favor of Christianity.56

The Library of Congress has been quite responsive to suggestionsfrom the library community, but its policies are tempered by its ownneeds. The decision to delay the closing of the catalog unti lJanuary l,

be changed first.57Catalogers of children's materials welcomed the second edition of

the Library of Congress Worhing List of Subject Headings for Children'sMateriak.ss

Special collections are best served by special subject headings. TheLibrary and Statutory Distribution Service of the Government PrintingOffice are working on the development of a KWIC index for theMonthlry Catalog to supplement the existing Library of Congress subjectheadings.5e The Hennepin County Public Library published a list ofconsumer-related subject headings.60

A new edi t ion of Muench's Biomedical Subiect Headings waspublished.6r The list consists of parallel l istings of MeSH and LC sub-ject headings. Also from the National Technical Information Servicecome revisions of its trio: Permuted Medical Subject Headings,62 MedicalSubject Headings: Annotated Alphabetic List,63 and Medical Subject Head-ings : Tree Structures.oa

Activity abroad relating to subject headings includes the compilationof a list of Australian subject headings to be used in the AustralianNational Bibliography and on AUSMARC tapes. The original plan tohave the list as a supplement of LCSH was scrapped in favor of a

change of bibliographic records.66

Year's Work in Suhject Analysis I 241

The Aslib Library^ has gathered a collection of rhesauri, subjectheadings, and classification schemes for particular subject f ieldJ toanswer inquiries about the existence of a particular schem"e.67

INDEXING

fective.6e

242 I Library Resources tl Technical Seruices' Summer 1980

the lead of canadians who have imporred PRECIS and have de-

veloped it "in imaginative ways to help order data in areas where such

ordir is desperatEly needed."Tb The seventy-four-p^aqe bibliography

compiled by S6rensen reflects the general interest of the library com-

munity in the subject.T6pOpSI is regaided as an all-purpose indexing procedure that is

amenable to .J-p.rt"rization. Bhattacharyya examines the system and

illusrrates how suLject terms are displayed'in natural and artificial lan-

guage similar to PRECIS strings.TT" T"he materials relating to th; visual arts and career counseling have

encountered theoretical and practical difficulties in subject analysis.

Fawcett believes that the problems with the indexing of _visual arts

materials result from a lac'k of coordination of efforts and standard-

ization in indexing methods. There is a need for an internationally

accepted sysrem oT indexing such as PRECIS and LCSH or indexes

,r.ri uS nile (lnternationZl Repertory of the Literature of Art) and

the Rtpertoire d'Art et d'Arch6ologie.?e Clack developed a method for in-

dexing career counseling *atelials with The Dictionary of Occupational

Tittesis the source of vocabulary and notation'7eReviews of two major conferences were reported during the year.

The National Federition of Abstracting and Indexing sponsored a

three-day seminar during which various vocabularies used in ind-exing

were discussed.8O In oxford the Fifth conference of the Aslib co-

ordinate Indexing Group (now lnformatics- Group) was held. Topics

of interest includ6d discussions of indexing languages, computer tech-

niques, and artificial intelligence'8rABI/INFORM is one of iix on-line data bases of Data Courier (Ken-

tuckv). Until 1978 ABI/INFORM was not indexed, and the original

deciiion nor to index was based on certain problems that existed: (l)

the subject range was so broad; (2) minute definitions of terms would

be necdssary bit difficult to supply. Trubkin describes a- project.that

made use of the autoindexing p.ocess to prepare an index for ABI/

INFORM.82 The controlled v6cabulary proved very useful to search-

ers because of the many cross-references and accompanying dictionary

of terms.Harris studied the changes in the vocabulary of information science

over a period of eleven years to determine the effects of such changes

on ind 'ex vocabular ies. t , The research showed that vocabular ies

change at a rate of 4 Percent Ptvocabulary at about the same rate Iber of hardware-oriented terms vmanagement and cataloging termsies are not frequently updated to rdocuments, a burden is placed on the user who must then try to

guess where their subjects are likely to be entered.

CoNcr-ustoN

Cooperation and research hold the promise for the future of library

catalogs. An overview of the literatur-e in the area of subject analysis

Year's Work in Subiect Aml^tsis I 243

reveals that activities were initiated on a case by case basis with little orno group efforts to solve common problems. Few reports of new startsof research projects, such as those previously done by Atherton,O'Neill, and Harris, were noted. Vocabulary control and a suitableswitching mechanism to encourage cooperation and to permit accessto a network of data bases seem to be major needs. An independentcentral agency to provide leadership in such efforts has been sug-gested as a goal worthy of consideration.

The publication of Dewey l9 was, without doubt, the major event ofthe year. To be sure, implementation in lg80 will encourage furtherdialogue for some time to come.

Overall it was a good year. The year's work in subject analysis couldprovide that needed impetus for fundamental changes in the methodsand tools so desperately needed if improvements in subject access areto meet the needs and expectations of library users with any measureof success.

REFERENcES

l. John P Immroth and Lois Mai-Chan, Immroth's Guid,e to the Library of Congress Clas-sification,3d ed., Library Science Text Series (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited,forthcoming).

2. Mohammed M. Aman, ed., Cataloging and Classifcation of Non-Western Library Mate-riak: Concenu, Issues and Practices (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Pr., forthcoming).

3. Calaloging €.l.Cla:sification Quarterly (New York: Haworth Pr., forthcoming).4. "Continuing Reports on the 98th Annual Conference of the American Library

Association, Dallas, Texas, June 23-29, 1979," Library of Congress lnformation Bulletin38:34243 (Aug. 24, 1979).

5. Can Anyone Do I t? sound recording, 1979 ALA Annual Conference (Chicago:American Library Assn., 1979).

6. "Open Questions in Dallas; the 98th Annual Conference of ALA," Library Journal104:1524-27 (Aug 1979).

7. Jessica L. Milstead Harris and Doris H Clack, "Treatment of People and Peoples inSubject Analysis," Library Resources (l Technical Seruires 23:374-90 (Fall 1979).

8. Emmett Davis, "Disatrility-related Subject Cataloging: Defective, Deformed, De-generate, Delinquent," Hennepin Countl Public Library Cataloging Bulletin 38:27-31(Jan. /Feb. 1979).

9. David F. Kohl, "Examining the Library of Congress Subject Catalog," Library Re-sources U Technical Seraices 23:69-74 (Winter 1979).

10. "New Subject Access to OCLC Up for Test by BRS/AMIGOS," Library Journal104 :148 ( Jan . 15 , 1979 ) .

I l. Frederick John Rosenthal, "Managing the Subject Access Problem in a LegislativeResearch Environment," Hennepin CounQ Public Library Cataloging Bullelin 38:l-Z(Feb. 1979).

12. Brian Redfern, Organising Music in Libraries, rev. ed., 2v. (London: C. Bingley,1978-79).

13. A. M. Abdul Huq, "Problems and Prospects in the Organization of Bengali Mate-rials," Libri 29:51-63 (March 1979).

14. Joan E. Mount, "Demise of a Classified Catalogue: Victim of Progress?" LibraryResources U Technical Serices 23:422-25 (Fall 1979\.

15. Benjamin A. Custer, "The View from the Editor's Chair," Library Resources U Tech-nical Seruices 24:99 (Spring 1980).

f 6. 'John Comaromi Will Head Decimal Classification Division," Library of CongressInformntion Bulletin 38:480 (Nov. 23, lS79).

17. Benjamin A. Custer, "Dewey 19," Catahgue tl Indcx 53:l-2 (Summer 1979).18. "Decimal Classification," Cataloging Seruice Bull.etin 4:15-17 (Spring 1979).

9 '

23.24.

244 I Library Resources A Technical Seruices. Sumrner 1980

19 l. N. Sengupta, "Some Observations on the Forthcoming lgth Edition of the DeweyDecimaf Classification (DDC) Scheme," Inwnatiornl Ckzssif.cation 6:I7G-72 (I979).

20. "Dewey l9 Not in Use," Library of Congress Information Bulletin 38:505 (Dec. 14,1979 ) .Henry J. Wellner, "Dewey Can Be Fun: Kenosha Schools Produce Skills Videotapesand Games," Wiscoruin Library Bulletin 75:67-69 (March-April 1979).Eigel Balling, "Cataloguing in Denmark: The Public Libraries," International Cata-loguing 8:2V30 (July/Sept. 1979)."LC Classification: PZ 14," Cataloging Seruice Bullctin 6:55 (Fall 1979).Robert D. Rodriguez, "Use of Alternative Class Numbers for Bibliography in theLibrary of Congress Classification System," Library Resources (l Technical Seraices23 147 -55 (Spring 1979).FID Neus Bulletin 29:72 (Sept. 1979); 29:80 (Oct. 1979).G. Robinson, UDC-A Brief Introduction (The Hague: International Federation forDocumentat ion [FID], 1979).Hisashi Tomimatsu, "The Application of UDC in a Small Library," DohumenteslonKenklu 29:55-59 ( 1979).

28. Richard Hindson, "Reflections on the Utilization of the Universal Decimal Clas-sification," Aslib Proeeedings 3l:305-l I (fune 1979).

29. Arthur Maltby and Lindy Gill, The Casefor Bless (London: C. Bingley, 1979).30. M. Mahapatra, "Design of Special Classification Schedules Based on the Principles

of Colon Classification (Edition 7)," Libri 29:169-88 (fune 1979).31. K. D C. Vernon and Valeria Lang, The London Clnssifcation of Business Studies: A

Classification and Thesaunu for Business Libranes,2d ed (London: Aslib, 1979).32. K. G. B. Bakewell, "The London Classification of Business Studies," International

Classification 6:29-35 ( 1979).33. Judith Kaufman, "A System for Cataloging and Classifying Visual Resources," Lj-

hrary Resources U Technical Selices 23:168-74 (Spring 1979).34 A. Berthelot and others, "The ICSU AB International Classification System fbr

Physics: Its History and Future,"../ournal of the Amencan Society for Information Science30:343-52 (Nov. 1979).

35. Lovisa Kamenoff, "Classification of Nursing Texts in a Hospital Library," BulLetin ofthe Medical Library Association 67:247-51 (April 1979).

36. Herman Skolnik, "A Classification System fbr Polymer Literature in an IndustrialEnvironment," Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Scienees 19:76-79 (May1979 ) .

37. Ziauddin Sardar, Isl.am, Outline of a Classilication Scheme (New York: K. G. Saur,1979 ) .

3[J. Annelise Mark Pejtersen, "Fiction and Library Classification," Sui.d-Afrikaarue Bib-Liotehe 46:91-95 (fan. 1979)

39. T. S. Eisenschitz and Charles Oppenheim, "Reasons for Inconsistencies in the Useof the International Patent Classification," International ClassiJication 6:26-29 (1979).

40. Hans G. Schulte-Albert, "Classificatory Thinking from Kinner to Wilkins: Classifica-tion and Thesaurus Construction, 1645-1668," Library Quarterly 49:42-64 \jan.1979).

41. E J. Coates, G. Lloyd, and D. Simanol,The BSO Manual: The Deuelopment, Rationaleand Use of the Broad Sylem of Ordering (The Hague: International Federation forDocumentat ion [FID], 1979).

42. "Matter and Methods of Subject Access to Knowledge," International ClnssiJication6 : l l 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

43. "Classification and Cognition," International Classification 6:7l-l08 (I979).44. "Classification and Co[nition." Aslib Proceedings 7:52 (March 1979).45. "Concluding Reports on the 45th Congress and Council Meeting of the Interna-

tional Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Copenhagen, Denmark,August 27-September I, 1979," Library of Congress Information Bulletin 38:524-32( D e c . 2 l , 1 9 7 9 ) .

46. "Classification Topics at 4lst ASIS Conference," Internntional Ch.ssifcation 6:36-37( l 979).

47. L Dahlberg, "New Development in Classification," International Classification 6:36( I 979).

25.26.

27.

Year's Work in Subject Arwlysis I 245

48. International Study Conference on Classification Research, Ordning Systems for Gtob-he Third International Study Conference onr, India, on 6-ll January 1975 (Bangalore,n Endowment for Library Science, 1979).' Students of Librarianship: Reflections and).+-8 (1979).national Clnssification 6: I I 7-l 8 ( I 979).bject Headings: A New Manual," lnternation-

52. Edward T. O'Neill, Research Report on Subject Heading patterrs in OCLC MonographicRecords (Cohtmbus, Ohio: OCLC. 1979).

53. Hilda steinweg, "specificity in Subject Headings," Library Resources El rethnical ser-uiees 23:5548 (Winter t97'9).

54. Patrick wilson, "The End of speci6city," Library Resources €l rechnical Sentices23:t16-22 (Spring 1979).

55. Mary Faith Pankin, "A Fresh Look at Library of congress Subject Headings," weslVirgtnia Libraries 32:4144 (Fall 1979).

56' Theodore wiener, "A Report on the l4rh Annual convention of the Association ofJewish Libraries, Cincinnati, Ohio, June l7-19, 1979," Library of Congress InformationBulletin 38:397-99 (Sept. 21, 1979).

57. "ctr-ang,ing subject Headings and closing the catalogs," catalogtng senice Bullerin4 : l l - 15 (Sp r i ng 1979 ) .

58. Lois D. Rose, "cataloging of children's Materials," Library of congress InformationBul let in 38:400-401 (Sept. 21, 1979).

59. "continuing Reports on the 98th Annual conference of the American LibraryAssociation, Dallas, Texas, June 23-29, lg7g," Library of congress Inforruttion Bulletin38:359-64 (Aug. 31, 1979).

60. "A selection of consumer-related subject Headings in the Hennepin county Li-brary Marerials Catalog," I|nabashed Librarian 30:13 ilg7g).

61. Eugene v. Muench, Biomed,ical subject Headings: A comparatiue Listing of MesH El LCSubject Headzngs, 2d- ed. (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String, tg79;.

62. National.Library of l\{edicine, Permuted Medical subjict Headings, 1980 (springfield,Va.: National Technical Information Service, 1979).

63. N^a^tion_al Library of Medicine, Medical Subject Headings: Annotated. Alphabetic List,1980 (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, l97g).

64. National LfbrTy of Medicine, Medical subject Headings: Tree structures, /980 (spring-field, Va.: National Technica.l Information Service, 1979).

65. John McKinlay, "List of Australian Subject Headings: Too Little? Too Late?" A,s-tralian Library Journal 28:23-26 (Feb. 1979).

66' Elaine Hall and Helen Jarvis, "Bibliographic Information on southeasr Asia: BISAApa? Apa BISA-What Is BISA? Whit Can It Do?" Internntional Cataloging 8:46-48(Oct.-Dec. 1979).

67' Valerie Gilbert, "A List of rhesauri and Subject Headings Held in the Aslib Li-brary," Asllb Proceedings 3l:26447 {une 1979y.

68. Amitabha Ghose and Anand S. Dhawle, "Berween Traditional classification and

_^ Coordinate Indexing," Information Processing (l Management l5:22-31 (1979).69. Robert.Fugmlnnt "Toward a Theory of Information Supply and lnd,exing," Inter-

national Classification 6:3-l 5 ( I 979).70' M- E- Maron, ' 'Depthof Indexing,"Joumalof theAmericansocietyfor lnformat ionsci-

ence 3O:224-28 (uly 1979).7l. Annelise lr{ark Pejtersen, "The Meaning of 'About'

in Fiction Indexing and Retriev-al," Aslib Proceed,ings 3l:251-57 (May 1979).

72. D. Kathryn weintraub, "An Extended Review of pRECls," Library Resources €l Tech-nical Seruices 23: l0l-15 (Spring 1979).

73. Rosemarie von Matter, "PRECIS als wischensprachliches System," Dohumentntion In-formation 30 : I 17 -22 (1979\.

74. Carolynn E. Bett, "The Subject Access Project: A Comparison with pRECIS," TheIndcxer ll:145-48 (April 1979).

75. Mary Robillon Sive, "PRECIS-A Better Way to Index Films," Sightlines 13:14-17(Winter 1979/80).

246 I Library Resources (l Technical Seruices' Sunn'er 1980

76. Jutta Slrensen, A Bibliograpfu of PRECIS,2d ed (copenhagen: The Royal school of

77.Librarianship, 1979).G. Bhattachirvva, "PoPSI: Its Fundamentals and Procedure Based on a GeneralTheory of Subject Indexing Languages," Library Science uith a Slant to Documentattonl6: l-34 (March 1979).Trevor Fawcett, "subject lndexing in the Visual Arts," Ar, Libraries Joumal 4:5-17(Spr ing 1979t .Doris

"Hargrett Clack, "Organizing Materials in Career Counseling Information

Centers," -;ibrary Resources ll Techniial Seruices 23:123-28 (Spring 1979). ^ ^"lndexing in Pirspective," Information Retrieual U Library Automation l4:&-9 (fan'ts79)."Informatics 5-Analysis and Meaning," Intemational Classification 6:l I8-19 (1979)'

Loene Trubkin, ..Auio-indexing of the lgTl-77 ABI/INFORM Database," Dtitabase2:56-61 (une 1979).

83 Jessica L. Harris, "Terminology change: Effect on Index vocabularies," InformationProcessing U Management l5:77-88 (1979).

/ tt.

7 9 .

80.

8 1 .82

| 247

Collection Developmentqnd Preservqtion in 1979

Rose Mory Mogrill

T1I HE wRtrEnor EcclrsrASTES could well have been reviewing the 1979

literature on resources when he recorded "and there is no new thingunder the sun" (Eccles. l:9). Slight changes in the amount of attentiongiven a particular aspect of resources are evident-for example, theconcern for preservat ion is c lear ly growing-but no topic thatappeared in 1979 can be called a complerely new development. In-stead, debate continues about such topics as the rising costs and trueeffectiveness of our scholarly communication system, the proper roleof the federal government in resource collection and management, theneed for a national periodicals center and/or other resource sharingarrangements, and the application of quantitative evaluation tech-niques to collection management.

One very subtle but potentially significanr change that does appearin the literature of 1979 is the gradual acceptance of and adjustmentto restricted materials budgets as the normal situation. Lucker sumsup the prevailing attitude: "Except for the Iargest research collections,buying for speculative or anticipated needs will be greatly reduced.This is a function both of financial necessity and accountability. Mostof us do not have, nor will we ever again have, the resources to buymost or even a part of what our patrons might need. We will have todo a much better job of defining and obtaining what they will need."r

The acceptance of lowered expectations may or may not be a goodthing for library collection development. White warns library adminis-trators that they have been working too hard to cover up the effectsthat limited financial resources must have on library collections. Heargues that quietly making adjustmenrs in the allocation of availablefunds has irritated faculty, "because faculty still think we should buyeverything they ask us to, and then they get annoyed with us when wedon't" and has caused academic administrators to believe that theear l ier d i re predict ions and p leas for funds by l ibrar ians wereexaggerated.2 Faculty must be forced to "face the reality of whatappears to be an enormous change in the value system for library ac-quisition" and given the choice of "retreating from their lofty collec-tion aspirations, or of accepting and urging programs for regional li-brary acquisition policies."3

Rose Mary Magrill is professor, School of Library Science, University of Michigan.

The REIIIARC DatabaseThe lt[ARC pnogram has enabled llbrarlans everylwhcrc to benefit

from access to about one-CxtJr of LCs total catatoglng efioils.REIUIARC offers access to tile rcnratnlng firrcclxths.

You know the contents of the more than one mllllon /v1ARC records. Here's what themore than five million REMARC records will contain:

pre-1968 materials in all languages.1968-1971 materials in all languages other than English,1972-1973 materials in all languages other than English and French,1973-1974 materials in all languages other than English, French, Spanish and

Portuguese and,1975-1978 materials in all languages using other than the Roman alphabet.

Libraries, service bureaus, and other customers will receive "hit" records (which

match libraries' holdings) on a quarterly basis beginning October, 1980. Production willproceed at a rate of some 1.4 million records per year until the scheduled completiondate in 1984.

The main database covers all LC records cataloged priorto December 31, 1978.Annual supplements will update the collection.

The records will be offered online via established telecommunications services, andoffline on magnetic tape, COM,computer printout, and catalog cards.They may bepurchased directly from Carrollton hess or indirectly through service bureaus,networks, or circulation control svstems contractors.

The REIyIARC RecordREMARC rrcords are deslgned for use In both onllne catalogs and

clrculatlon control/lll systems.A.lthough it will not contain all of the detailed data in a full I4ARC record, the

REMARC record will include the following items in MARC format: complete main entry;including author's dates and other descriptors; full title up to the first majorpunctuation; edition statement; place of publication; publisher; date of publication;designation of transliterated entries; full tracings, including subject, series, title, andauthor added entries (each tagged separately); complete LC call number (includingbrackets and suffixes); the full LC card number; and finally, the most commondiacritical marks will be included on main entries, titles, and tracings (for printout onequipment with appropriate character sets). In the case of non-Roman records, onlythose fields which have been transliterated will be included.

In offline retrospective conversion projects, the price per record will vary with the sizeof the collection and with the method of identifying the non-irlARC records to beconverted. ln most cases however, this price should not exceed fifty cents per "hit" (thetransfer of the REMARC record (on magnetic tape) to a library or its service bureau foruse within a specified constituency). The prices for abbreviated records and offlineprintouts should be even lower.

Carrollton hess, Inc., 1911 Ft. tttycr Dr{vc, Arllngton, Vlrglnla 22209(703) 525-s940

250 I Library Resources tl Technical Sentices' Summer 1980

RATIONALIZING COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

best to form collections for social scientists.e Taking a historical view

of the purpose of libraries, Williams contends that the expected role

of libraries- now is to provide access to information rather than to ac-

quire and store a large volume of materials.ro In a second Paper on

the conference theme, Swanson reminds everyone that growth of

knowledge and growth of the literature in any field are not the same

th ing . r rIn-a related paper, not part of the conference proceedings' Wilson

and Farid ask whether the use of research literature is really necessary

to rhe conduct of further research. They argue that "use of the litera-

Collection Deuelopment and Preseruation I 251

quence, librarians overestimate the benefit that would come from lm-provements in physical and bibliographical access to the researchliterature."l2

How the collection development function of a library is carried outremains a topic for research. Late in 1979, Cornell University Librar-ies issued an interim report on the first phase of work under a MellonFoundation grant to examine its collection development and manage-ment. To this point the efforts have been concentrated on identifyingand defining the factors that might make up a "unified model for col-lection development and management" and on finding ways to mea-sure and evaluate the factors.r3 A Brit ish study on book selectionsources and their relative effectiveness has also issued an interimreport.ra Most of the research reported in 1979, however, takes theform of studying the end result of collection development or theactual use of a library's resources. These studies will be discussed laterin this paper.

There is still a preoccupation with formalizing collection develop-ment policies and procedures. Goehlert expressed the concerns ofmany: "Without a concrete collection development policy, one whichstates clearly the mission and purpose of the library, it is difficult tosee how acquisit ions are more than a series of unrelated decisions.. . . If we are to maintain a modicum of credibility in the academiccommunity, we must articulate our collection development policies inways our constituents can both understand and, having understood,believe in."rs Libraries which have recently developed or revised theirwritten policies for collection development shared the final products as

vers i ty at Northr idge.16-18 The Washington Univers i ty School ofMedicine Library not only distributed its new manual on selection andacquisit ions,re but also three staff members have supplied an informalaccount of how it was produced.2o In a similar style, Cargill explainshow written acquisitions policies improve communications within thelibrary staff at Miami (Ohio) University.2r Another example of com-municating procedures is the preorder searching manual issued by theCornell University Libraries.22 The British Library Lending Divisionselection criteria and acquisition practices are discussed by Wood andLine.23,24

sion with a few of his own points about buying periodicals and allo-cating funds.26 For those who have wondered how, if at all, college

252 | Lihrary Resources A Technical Seruices. Summer 1980

Iibraries developed written collection development policies, Hellenga'sdescription of the experiences at Knox College with department ac-quisition policies will be particularly welcome.2T

General discussions of collection development continue to appear.Two textbooks and a collection of readings were published in 1979.28-30 Beck, in his article for the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sci-ence, offers concise, general comments on the factors that influencelibrary collections.3t Looking ar the history of one university library,Schultz devotes a chapter to the factors that influenced the collectionof Texas A&M University.az Hoffman discusses how certain acceptedprinciples of management might be applied to rhe collection develop-ment process.33 Martin suggests that a new element has been intro-duced into collection development discussions with the alternativemeans of acquiring documenrs and information available today, "sincebuying and borrowing wil l be seen as complementary funcrions."3aWadsworth also briefly reviews the variety of decisions that selectorsmust make, emphasizing the importance of the people who make thedecisions with the comment that "the salvation of the library as aneffective instrument for research depends upon the judgment thatgoes into this selection."3s Papers from the 1977 Resources and Tech-nical Services Division Preconference Institute on Collection Develop-ment were finally published in 1979. Those who did nor atrend rheconference can now read Osburn's and Feng's arguments for thevalue of collection development policies,36'ez Edelman's discussion ofhis attempts to develop a selection decision model,38 and Dudley'ssummary of the preconference workshop discussions.3e

Fnornel GoveRNnanur AcrrvrrrEsThe most publicized Iibrary event of the year was rhe White House

Conference on Library and lnformation Services (WHCLIS), which

met, the "hidden euestien."aa Wedgeworth noted that governance, ser-v ice, and f inance wi l l remain key problems in carry ing out anynationally coordinated projects "in a society where decision-making isnot centered entirely within government."4s

In January, President Carter presented a FY 1980 budget that elim-inated all Higher Education Act (HEA) funding under Title II-A(basic resources development grants) and Title II-B (library training,research, and demonstration) and kept Title II-C (the research libraryprogram) at $6 million, the same amount as the FY 1979 appropria-tion. Librarians, quickly becoming aware of Congress' new budget-cutting mood and the relative vulnerabil ity of federal l ibrary pro-

Collection Deuelopment and Preseruation I 253

grams, stirred themselves to do some serious lobbying, particularly forTitle II-A. A survey prepared by the Association of College and Re-search Libraries Legislative Committee and the ALA Washington Officedocumented the importance of the Title II-A granrs to small andmedium-size academic libraries.a6 Fourteen librarians. most of themfrom smaller libraries, contributed their views on the importance ofTitle II-A to a symposium published in the Journal of AcademicLibrarianship.aT The introduction to that symposium warned: "If theTitle II-A program is terminated, more than likely some small librar-ies will suffer budget cuts on the order of l0 to 30 percent . . . [t isthe responsibility of college and junior college librarians to informtheir congressmen of how Title II-A has benefited their library."+a 1tt

June, the House Appropriations Committee approved $9,975,000 forTitle II-A (the FY 1979 level), but in July the Senate AppropriationsCommittee approved a subcommittee recommendation that no fund-ing be provided for Title I[-A. Late in July the House-Senate Confer-ence Committee reported on the FY 1980 Labor-HEW appropriationsbill and set the Title tI-A appropriation at $4.9 million, an amountwhich would prov ide an average indiv idual basic grant of about$2,000, the lowest level since funding began in FY 1966.4e At thesame time Title II-C funding was set at $6 million, the amount recom-mended by the president.

The Higher Education Act actually presented librarians with twoconcerns in 1979-(1) the need to get FY 1980 appropriations passedat an acceptable level and (2) the need to secure an extension of theHEA, scheduled to expire on September 30, 1979. Late in July, theHouse and Senate approved a one-year extension for HEA, and, onSeptember 6, a five-year extension bill was introduced in the House.The bill, as submitted, would increase the HEA Title II-A basic grantsto $10,000, eliminate the Title II-A supplemental grants, move thecurrently unfunded special purpose grants of Title II-A to Title II-B,keep the research library program of Title [I-C basically unchanged,and add a Title II-D, authorizing $15 million for a national periodi-cals center.5o Title II-D, however, would be funded only if Tit le II-A,II-B, and II-C are funded at the FY 1979 level.

Two other bills introduced in Congress in 1979 could have a directimpact on library collections. One would reinstate tax deductions fordonations of manuscripts or papers to a library or museum (the condi-tion existing before 1969); librarians concerned about the sharp de-crease in donations of personal papers since 1969 will follow the prog-ress of this bill with interest.5r The second bill with implications forlibrary resources is the proposal to- revise Title 44 of the U.S. Codeconcerning government printing and distribution of documents. Lock-wood of the ALA Washington Office warns that "the current reviewof Title 44 may lead to the single biggest change in federal publishinglaws since their inception in 1895."52 A number of important issueshave arisen during consideration of the revision: questions concerningthe federal government's role in producing and disseminating in-

254 I Library Resources A Technical Serttices . Summer 1980

formation, questions of who shall pay for information, and the sup-port and organization of the Depository Library System are all openfor discussion.

RESoURCE SHARING

The feasibility of a National Periodicals Center (NPC) continues tobe the subject of intense debate, but the implementation of such acenter does not appear any nearer than it was a year ago. 1979 beganwith discussion of the Council on Library Resource's (CRL) technicalplan, issued in 1978.53 An "open forum" was held in March by theNational Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)to bring together librarians, publishers, and others with a vested in-terest in the success or failure of an NPC. Reports from the meetingstressed the mixed reactions to the plan which surfaced in all publicdebate.54'55 One session of the ALA Dallas Conference in June wasdevoted to a presentation on the NPC plan by CRL program officerswith reactions from a panel of librarians and a question-and-answerperiod. Lulled into apathy by much talk and little action, some librar-ians were confused and excited by the news that on September 6,when the Higher Education Act extension bill was introduced in theHouse, a National Periodicals Center appeared as a new Title II-D ofHEA. The bill proposes that the NPC be organized as a nonprofit,nongovernmental corporation with authority to maintain and provideaccess to a ded i ca ted co l l ec t i on o f cu r ren t and re t rospec t i veperiodicals.s6 The corporation could also enter into cooperative agree-ments with agencies of government at all levels, private libraries, andother appropriate organizations as necessary to carry out its purposes.(The bil l would authorize $15 mill ion per year for FY l98l throughFY 1985 for such an NPC, but the funding would only go into effectif HEA Titles II-A, II-B, and II-C are funded at the FY 1979 level.)In general, the proposed Title II-D follows the draft NPC legislationprepared by NCLIS in May.sz'sa

Meanwhile, before legislation was introduced in Congress, NCLISreceived a commissioned report from Arthur D. Litt le, Inc., whichconsidered three possib le systems for prov id ing bet ter access toperiodicals. The report concluded that, due to on-line interl ibraryloan and private document delivery systems, periodical access wouldbe improved by 1985, even without an NPC.5e This was not the onlynegative note to be heard concerning the NPC. Representatives of theprivate sector had always been less than enthusiastic about an NPC,but now librarians began to speak against it. Donald Sager, from theperspective of a public librarian, criticized the NPC proposal for cater-ing to a "scholarly elite."oo From another point of view, the PacificNorthwest Bibliographic Center announced its opposition to the NPC,while endorsing the regional approach to resource sharing.or The yearof 1979 ended much as it began, with the National Commission onLibraries and Information Science announcing another meeting forthe discussion of an NPC proposal-this time the meeting was set forChicago in January 1980, and the topics were the Arthur D. Little re-

Collection Deaelopment and Preseruation I 255

port and the congressional legislation on the NPC.62One of the most prominent developments in resource sharing dur-

ing 1979 was the aggressive membership drive of the Research Librar-ies Group, tnc. (RLG). At least ten university libraries had joined Co-lumbia, New York Public Library, Stanford, and Yale in RLG mem-bership by the end of the year.66 Although most of the public atten-tion has been directed toward RLIN, RLG's on-line bibliographic com-ponent, the four primary programs of RLG include shared access tomaterials, collection management and development, and preservationof research materials.6a RLG stresses, in its various publications, that itis an organization "based on the realization that the environment ofresearch is changing dramatically and that existing programs andpractices may not be adequate to meet the demands of change."65 Inthe 1979 R. R. Bowker Memorial Lecture, DeGennaro devoted muchattention to RLG and predicted "eventually, the separate collections ofthe member libraries will be viewed by users in the various libraries asa single large distributed collection to which they can gain efficient ac-cess via online searching and the rapid delivery of requested items, aswell as by personal visits."66

The 1979 literature on resource sharing may generally be dividedinto two broad groups-the reports describing how a specific networkor resource sharing scheme operates, and the studies, some highlyquantitative in their presentations, which consider resource sharingarrangements in the abstract. From the "applied" ,ql""p we have re-ports on cooperative collection development in the Illinois Library andInformation Network (ILLINET),67 cooperation between ILLINETand the Midwest Health Science Library Network,68 activities of theCenter for Research Libraries,6e and two articles reporting on analysesof ILLINET loan requests.To,Tr Piternick reviews the University ofBritish Columbia's experiences with service to the community outsidethe university;72 Kronick describes a cooperative acquisitions programfor medical monographs;73 Haertle explains procedures and activitiesof the Milwaukee-area Coordinated Collection CommitteeiTa andGalloway gives two accounts of how California State College, Stanis-laus, fared as a member of a regional intertype network.Ts'76 Euro-pean resource sharing projects have also been reviewed during 1979.Rasmussen describes the operation of a storage library for public li-braries in Denmark and Burkett provides information on all thenationally important networks of the United Kingdom.zz'za

The more theoretical studies of resource sharing include Shaw'sstrategy for journal resource sharing;7e Stanfel's consideration of theproportion of the average user's requests that should be filled at thelocal level and at the regional level;8o Salton's discussion of library net-work design;8r and Sandra and William Rouse's management informa-tion system for interlibrary loan networks.82 (Those who find discus-sions of mathematical modeling of library activities to be less intelligi-ble than the average piece of l ibrary l iterature may find Will iamRouse's "tutorial" on the subject helpful.8s) The amount of duplicationfound among individual library collections is of importance in plan-

256 I Library Resources U Technical Sentices. Summer 1980

ning cooperative ventures. Two studies, one by Dingle-Cliff and Davisand the other by Davis and Shaw, compare a set of Canadian andAmerican public libraries and a set of Canadian special libraries deal-ing with addiction materials and conclude that collection overlap is toa great extent a function of library size.84'85 In another view of re-source sharing systems, Pings considers the potential stresses in a net-work organization and argues that network leadership will always bein conflict with member organizations.8o School library media centersreceive at tent ion in Bender 's d iscussion of p lanning cooperat iveactivities.8T Holley makes what he calls a "modest proposal" for a cen-tral deposit collection of modern literature and receives a quick rebut-tal from Larson.88'8e Last, but not least, the proceedings of the 1978Pittsburgh conference on networks were published in 1979 under therilje The Structure and Goaernance of Libran Networhs.eo As Warren Haasobserved at the 1978 ACRL Conference, "fe* topics in l ibrary annalscan match 'cooperation' for staying power as a subject for study anddiscussion."er

Usr Sruorns AND CoLmcrloN ANALySIS

Quantitative techniques for analyzing the collection and its use con-tinue to be applied and reported in the l iterature. The approachestried in 1979 varied from a study of the economics of collection sizee2and an estimation of size and composition of humanities collections inpublic l ibrariese3 to attempts to establish the variables which mostclosely predict circulation patternse4 and to determine the theoreticalp robab i l i t y d i s t r i bu t i ons ce r ta in c i r cu la t i on da ta mos t nea r l yapproximate.e5-et'i A number of library use studies or broader collec-tion evaluation projects were reported. Library of Congress use pat-terns were summarized in two studies-one using data collected in1977 on use of the general collection and the other reporting on asample of interl ibrary loan requests from l975.ee'roo A large speciallibrary was the scene of an evaluation project to determine circulation/inventory ratios for each subject in the monograph collection, andanother report features collection evaluation in a college l ibrary.tot'tozIn addition, two 1978 reviews of collection evaluation methods becameavailable to a wider audience in 1979.ro3'r04

Continuing the trend of recent years, serials collections drew themost applications of quantitative techniques. In a theoretical paperAlabi discusses Bradford's law in terms of its possible contribution to auniversally acceptable policy for the acquisit ion of periodicals.ros Sten-strom and McBride report on serials use by social science facultymembers ; t oo \ , l 2hs1 and Shea re r obse rve unde rg radua te use o fnewspapers'ro7 Rice looks at science periodical use in a university;lo8Wender counts joutnal t it le usage in the health sciences;roe Maxingives results of a use study at a technical college;tr0 and Alabi suppliesdata from Ibadan University. rr I Other projects using quantitative datafor purposes of making decisions about serial subscriptions includeKoenig's procedure for gathering data to make acquisition, binding,and weeding decis ions ' r r2 Usdin 's s tudy of core l is ts of medical

Collection Deaelobment and Presertation I 257

journals;r13 Goehlert 's reanalysis of previous use data to determinecost per use of journals which ranked high on number of requests byusers;rra and the report of a science journal collection evaluation byAmir and Newman.l15 How to determine when to retain and when todeselect journals in the col lect ion was the subject of repor ts byBroude, Wood and Coppel, and Schloman and Ahl.r16-rr8

The idea of making collection decisions on the basis of data fromlibrary use studies generated much discussion during 1979, but theuse study most often chosen to illustrate the value or worthlessness ofsuch an approach was one which originally made its public appearancein 1977.tre This study, conducted at the University of Pittsburgh andgenerally referred to as the Pittsburgh Study, was a source of con-troversy even before the final report was issued in 1978.t2o In 1979,the commercially published version appeared and more people hadaccess to the findings and conclusions.r2r Since the Pittsburgh studydevoted much attention to the cost-effectiveness of serials collectionsin large academic l ibraries, it is not surprising that the Journal ofAcademic Librarianship published a collection of reactions to the studyby Schad, Borkowski, Macleod, Voigt, Massman, and Trueswell, alongwith a rebuttal from Kent;r22 and the Serials Librarian devoted space inthe fall 1979 issue for a summary report by Flynn.t23 The faculty sen-ate of the University of Pittsburgh adopted resolutions condemningthe study and, through its Senate Library Committee, issued a criticalreview.r2a Borkowski and Macleod, faculty members at Pittsburgh, inaddition to their contribution to the Journal of Academic Librarianship,also commented on the study and its implications in an article forS c ho lar ly P ub lis hing. | 2 5

Many of the objections to studies that try to measure use of libraryresources come from the fact that such studies typically use circulationcounts, and librarians generally are uncomfortable with such a narrowdefinition of use. Of course, there are other problems with the defini-tions and measurements that appear in some studies. Kaske contraststhe results of the Pittsburgh Study with data on the use of part of thecollection at the University of California at Berkeley. He concludesthat "a pressing need exists for standardization of data definitions,data collection techniques, and analysis procedures used to assess theutilization of library collections."r26 Bentley looks at certain availablestatistics on academic libraries and argues that none are as useful foreva lua t i on as a use r sa t i s fac t i on su rvey based on ac tua l use rs 'requests.l2T Kronick, however, probably sums up the views of manylibrarians about use studies: "The principal point . . . is not that usestudies are useless but that they are unprofitable, if not improper, asthe basis for management decisions, if the other issues surroundingthem are not considered."r28

ln other collection analysis developments, the Association of Re-search Libraries Collection Analysis Project (CAP) continued during1979. CAP studies were completed during the year at Brigham YoungUniversity, the University of California at San Diego, and Case West-ern Reserve University, and begun at the University of l l l inois.r2e

258 I Library Resources U Technical Sentices. Summer 1980

ARL also reported that Paul Kantor has been working with their staffto develop a CAP component that will take a user-centered approachto collection assessment. The workbook is described as including a sec-tion on availabil ity analysis, a simple methodology for determiningavailabil ity rate, and asection on delay analysis.r30 The papers on CAPexperiences presented at the ACRL Conference in Boston in 1978were published in 1979 in New Horizons for Acndemic Libraries.tst-t33

AceursITroNS METHODS AND Pnocrounrs

Relations between librarians and dealers came in for a fair share ofattention in 1979. The perennial problem of maintaining effectivecommunication was a concern of both Berkner and Safran.r34,l35 Eag-len, on the other hand, took up the question of wholesalers who passon too much information about previous customers' opinions of'cer-tain books in her discussion of "the warning bookmark."r36 Follett re-sponded with his company's side of that 1979 story.r37 The pricingand discounting of U.S. publications are explained by Fast and takenapart in two articles by Eaglen.t38-r40 Choosing dealers and evaluatingtheir perfbrmance is an important aspect of acquisit ions work, and the1979 literature reflects the concern librarians have for this problem.Fraley reviews the difficulties one community college library encoun-tered in its dealings with both publishers and wholesalers.r4r Eaglendiscusses the implications for l ibraries of the 1979 demise of severalmedium-sized general wholesalers,t+z lyhilq two Canadian public l i-brarians offer opposing views of the practice of "buying around," orchoos ing the mos t economica l dea le r , whe the r f o re ign o rdomestic.ra3't+4 Those librarians who want to know how well their ven-dors are doing should be helped by Davis' step-by-step plan for col-lecting and analyzing data on vendor performance.ra5

Approval plans are sti l l a major acquisit ions channel in many librar-ies, and they cont inue to receive at tent ion in the l i terature. TheFourth lnternational Conference on Approval Plans and CollectionD,evelopment, convened in October 1979, indicates that the subject is'sti l l

very much alive.r46 According to one 1979 survey, Ohio universitylibrarians are more satisfied than ever with approval plans, althoughthe rising costs of doing business with the Brit ish are causing reconsid-eration ofBrit ish plans.raT For those libraries with approval plans, themonitoring of these plans is an important way to improve understand-ing and performance by the vendor. McDonald and orhers describethis process at Kansas State University.t+a A comprehensive work onapproval plan management by Cargil l and Alley covers many of thespecific points of operating a plan, such as developing profiles, inter-facing with standing orders and other plans, and processing.t+n It alsoincludes examples of forms, contracts, letters, etc.

Automated acquisit ions systems are becoming available to increasingnumbers of libraries of all types and sizes. Hogan reviews the state ofthe art, examining networks which have or soon will have acquisitionssubsystems (UTLAS, OCLC, RLIN, WLN) and commercial systems

Collection Deuelobment and. Preseruation I 259

with acquisitions capabilities.r5o Another description of the Washing-ton Library Network (WLN) acquisitions subsystem can be found inWoods' review of WLN's computer system.rsr The Second Institute onAmerican Book Publishing, held at Emory University in March, con-centrated on book distribution, including on-line ordering systems,r:'2and the ALA Library and Information Technology Association spon-sored a conference in December on automated acquisitions.

Interest in gifts and exchanges as ways of acquiring materials seemsto be increasing slightly as resources budgets become ever tighter.Tiberio offers hints on how to stretch a map library budget throughrequesting gifts and arranging exchanges.r53 Practical suggestions fbrhandling various aspects of the gift program appear in several articles.Uncomplicated ways of appraising ordinary gift books are listed in twoarticles, while the various ways of obtaining firm title to a gift are dis-cussed in another. 154-r56 One interesting historical note speculates onthe motives behind rejection of a gift collection with many materialson women's rights.rsT Gift and exchange programs are not withoutcos ts , as two pape rs on the economics o f dup l i ca te exchangeexplain.ti 'a't i 'e Wood, reviewing the involvement of the Brit ish Libraryin current serials exchanges, calls international current exchange bothnecessary, because it is the only way to build a comprehensive, world-wide collection of serials, and undesirable, because the procedure in-volves so many diff iculties and the materials which come are infre-quently u5scl.roo Infrequently used exchange materials have promptedBandara to propose "dormant exchange" agreements-a "dormant ex-change" would not operate regularly, but only when material reallyneeded became available.r6r

International publications and their acquisition for U.S. collectionsreceived a modest amount of attention in 1979. LC Acquisitions Trendscontinues to report on the National Program for Acquisit ions andCataloging, special foreign acqtrisit ion programs, and the book tradein selected foreign countries. However, the Association of ResearchLibraries has announced that its Foreign Acquisitioru ],leusletter will sus-pend publ icat ion upon complet ion o l the 1979 volume. "pending theoutcome of a survey of subscribers to determine the future of thepublication."tt;2 gsvsl2l 1979 articles recount the problems of acquir-ing publications in other countries. Two Nigerian librarians discuss thep rob lems o f pu rchas ing ma te r i a l s w i t h i n and ou ts ide the i rcountry;tos'to+ Tjarks offers suggestions for handling Latin Americanserials;16" Gordon warns of the pitfalls in acquiring international legalmaterials;166 and Matsumoto describes the book market in Japan.r(j7Taking the historical view, Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien discusses trends in thebuilding of East Asian collections in U.S. l ibraries.r68 To remind usthat the problems are not all ours, the British have published proceed-ings of a conf'erence called to discuss the difficulties they have in ac-quiring materials for American Studies programs.r6e That U.S. l ibrar-ians have not been neglecting European publications is evidenced bythe fact that the Association of College and Research Libraries has

260 I Library Resources U Technical Seruites. Summer 1980

proposed bylaws for a new Western European Specialists Section,which will join the sections already existing for Asian, African, Slavic,and East European specialists.rTo

PRICE TRENDS, CoLLECTIoN FUNDING, AND Buocn lNc

while sociology and economics, the largest category, averaged $41.73 avolume, an increase of 28.5 percent. A British report published in De-cember, giving average prices of new publications through May-Au-gust 1979, shows a 25 percent increase for all categories combined in

by such prices, many librarians must have turned eagerly to Verrone'sarticle in School Library Journal titled "Why Books Cost So Much."r73

notes that conflicts between authors and publishers, faculty membersand librarians, and publishers and foundarions are inevitable, but,"despite these inevitable conflicts, rhe binding forces, the common in-terests, are ultimately stronger. Each group, each activity, is essentialto all others; should one part fail, the others could not function."r7.,Twelve recommendations are emphasized in the report, including rec-ommendations for a national bibliographic system, a national periodi-cals center, and a national Iibrary agency. Other recommendations con-

In a paper on sources and uses of funds in academic l ibraries,Cohen and Leeson use data from a sample of large academic librariesto document certain trends----one of which is a decline since 1970 inthe number of books purchased by the average academic library.rT8

Collection Deuelopment and. Preseraation I 261

Reports on how well materials budgets kept up with inflated materialsprices in 1979 are fragmented and mixed. Many libraries apparentlyreceived larger budgets than in 1978, but the ways libraries chose toallocate funds to various types of resources and services make com-parisons between years and identification of trends difficult. The Asso-ciation of College and Research Libraries surveyed twenry-seven com-munity college libraries and found that book expenditures were keep-ing ahead of inflation, but expenditures for such budget caregories asperiodicals, audiovisual materials, microforms, and binding did not.rTsOn the average the 1979 budgets for these libraries provided approx-imately 52 percent for books,2l percent for periodicals,2l percentfor audiovisual materials, 5 percent for microforms, and I percent forbinding.

The federal government and private foundations continue to be im-portant sources of funds for special projects. In July, the HigherEducation Act Title II-C grants for FY 1979 were announced. Thirty-four research libraries shared in the grants in some way. Awards total-ing nearly $2 mill ion were given to supporr special collections, andfive other grants went to support the development of area studiesprograms.rso Resource sharing projects of one type or another also re-ceived favorable consideration. The largest single grant, $750,000,went to the University of California at Berkeley, the University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles, and Stanford University to enable them toconvert serial titles to machine-readable form and improve resourcesharing capabil it ies. The National Endowment for the Humanities(NEH) continues to support the strengthening and preservation of l i-brary collections; Rochell gives specific examples of how the ResearchCollections Program of NEH has assisted such diverse institutions asHampton Institute, the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery,Cornell University, the University of Pittsburgh, Northwestern Uni-versity, and the Committee for the Preservation of ArchitecturalRecords of New York City.rat

Budget allocation is sti l l a concern, and experiences with variousapproaches continue to be revealed in the literature. Bender's reporron allocation in public libraries, presented at the 1977 RTSD Precon-fe rence Ins t i t u te on Co l l ec t i on Deve lopmen t , has now beenpublished.t82 Late in 1978, anorher report was issued on the work byEvans and others to develop an acquisit ion formula for the SUNYSystem.r83 McGrath continues his work with budget allocation formu-las, presenting another analysis of variables that seem ro show promiseas predictors of circulation.r8a Two studies-one by Borlase and theother by Snowball and Cohen-look at another part of the resourcesbudgeting and propose models for moniroring the status of variousfunds during the year and regulating the flow of purchases.r85'r86Warner and Anker explain how faculty members' perceptions of theirneeds fo r j ou rna l t i t l es may be b rough t i n to t he a l l oca t i onprocedure,rsT and Myers describes the advantages of allocating sub-scription costs by subject.taa In a slightly unusual approach to fundingof serials purchases, Campese outl ines how medical staff members

262 I Library Resources U Technical Seruices. Summer 1980

were persuaded to "sponsor" certain journals in a hospital library.rse

SpEcrel CoLlncrroNs

The tightening economy and increasing emphasis on accountabilityhave forced many librarians to view their special collections in-a morecritical light. The problem of justifying upkeep of a nationally impor-tant collection with little local use led the Systems and Procedures Ex-change Center (SPEC) ro survey ARL libraries on the roles and func-tions of their special collections, as well as on how they handled bib-l iographic control, preservation and security, and user services.leoStrategies for gaining financial and general public support for suchcollections are also covered in the SPEC Kit on Special Collections.While some kinds of special collections were being questioned, otherswere being encouraged. Temple University's Alternative AcquisitionsProject is focusing on the publications of small and alternative pressesand establishing contact with others who are trying to improve the ac-quisition of this type of publications.tst [16hiyss and historical collec-tions generally appear to be receiving attention in libraries. Straus re-views the recent development of college and university archives.le2The History Section of the Reference and Adult Services Division, re-flecting the current interest, issued "Guidelines for Establishing LocalHistory Collections."tes d66s55 to original research materials, archives,manuscripts, etc., is the subject of a joint statement by the AmericanLibrary Association and the Society of American Archivists.re4 Filmstudy col lect ions are covered in deta i l in a new book by NancyAllen. re5

In addition to literature reflecting concern with the current orga-nization and operation of special collections, several articles haveappeared that describe the development and, to some extent, the pres-ent holdings of notable special collections-the Humanities ResearchCenter of the University of Texas,rs the Schomburg Collection inNew York City,reT and the trade literature collection of the NarionalMuseum of History and Technology.res An issue of Library Trendsedited by Selma Richardson reviews a number of special collections ofhistorical children's books. ree

PRESER.VATIoN

Concern for the preservation from decay, theft, or natural disasterof the resources that we already have in our collections continued togain momentum during 1979. Whether librarians attended meetingsor stayed home and read their journals, they found the subject ofpreservation always before them.2m Library Journal published a seriesof six articles on preservation, introduced by Pamela Darling, who ex-plains that individual articles in the series address needs identified atthe 1976 National Preservation Program Planning Conference, calledby the Library of Congress with the support of the Council on LibraryResources.2or Banks leads off the series with proposals concerning thetraining required of conservators of library and archival materials;2o2Patterson outl ines a model charge to a conservation committee;2o3

Collection Deulopment and Presentalion / 263

funds being made available for preservation projects, the workshopsbeing held on preservation topics, the regional planning efforts, theactivities of library associations, and the great increase in the availabil-

by Morrow and Schoenly.2r3

Library Materials of the University of California made its way to awider audience during 1979;zta and Wright shares advice on disasterp lanning, a long wi th a checkl is t o f the Univers i ty of Toronto 'semergency procedures.zre A new edition of Managing the Library Fire

dealing with cooperative conservation programs providing training,

264 I Library Resources U Technical Seruites. Summer 1980

consul t ing, and other serv ices for the conservat ion of h is tor ica lrecords.222

GurorllNns AND STANDARDS

. During the-year,^various units of the American Library Associationissued a number of official documents that have some reiation to howlibrary collections are built and evaluated. The most pertinent newpublication is Guidelines for collection Deuelopment, prepared by the col-lection Development committee of the Resourcei and Technical ser-

CoNrrNurNc ElucarroN

Collection Deuelobment and Presentation I 265

continuing education opportunities for those who select, acquire, andmaintain library collections, the sample available from listings in thenational library journals indicates that preservation/conservation wasfar and away the favorite topic. With the quickly rising costs of traveland tight personal and institutional travel budgets, the number ofmeetings organized for librarians is beginning to be questioned. Intheir article "We Can't Go On Meeting This Way," Neely and Demosattempt to document how the number of meetings aimed at academiclibrarians has increased since 1970.231 Those dealing with library re-sources have surely made their contribution to the total.

CoNcr-usloN

The average librarian with collection development responsibil i t ieswill probably not remember 1979 as one of the most rewarding timesin his/her career. It was a year when even librarians from major re-search libraries acknowledged that selectors must pay more attentionto immediate and expressed needs of their users and much less topossible future research needs; when prices of library materials rose,the buying power of slightly increased budgets actually went down,and the average federal grant for library resources was reduced; whenthe acquisition and maintenance of collections of little-used materialsreceived ever more serious challenges; when librarians proclaimed thevalues of resource sharing but seemed unable to decide about themost appropriate ways to organize such projects; and when more andmore l ibrarians became aware of the serious physical condition ofmany of the materials in their collections.

Reactions to these conditions have not all been discouraging, how-ever, as collection development librarians continue to search for waysto rationalize their collecting practices and demonstrate a willingnessto try quantitative and other methods of collection assessment in orderto evaluate their performance in building useful collections. Theacceptance of use studies and other similar methods is not uncritical,and that, too, is an encouraging sign. Those who know intuitively andfrom experience how our great collections have been developed in thepast must take a leading part in our attempts to identify, understand,and justify to the public the most effective collection development pro-cedures for the future.

REFERENcES

l. Jay K. Lucker, "Library Resources and Bibliographic Control," College U ResearchLibrar ies 40:142 (March 1979).

2. Herbert S. White, "Library Materials Prices and Academic Library Practices: Be-tween Scylla and Charybdis," Journal of Acad.emie Librarianship 5:23 (March 1979).

3. rbid.4. Frederick C. Lynden, "Resources in 1978," Library Resources El Technical Serices

23 :238 (Summer 1979 ) .5. Charles B. Osburn, Academic Research and Library Resources: Changing Patterns in

Amenca (Westport, Conn : Greenwood Pr., 1979).61

Ibid., p.xvi.Don R. Swanson, "Libraries and the Growth of Knowledge," Library Quarterly

8.

9.

10 .

I l .

12.

1 3 .

t4.

1 5 .

16 .

t 7 .

266 | Library Resources A Technical Serrices. Summer 1980

2 t .

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3 l

32.

33.

34.

49:3-25 (fan. 1979); reprinted in Library Qtnrurly 50:ll2-34 (fan. 1980).Karl J. Weintraub, "The Humanistic Scholar and the Library," Library Quarterll50:22-39 (an. 1980).Patrick Wilson, "Limits to the Growth of Knowledge: The Case of the Social andBehavioral Sciences," Library Qnrter\ 5O:4-21 (Jan. 1980).Gordon R. Williams, "The Function and Methods of Libraries in the Diffusion ofKnowledge," Library Quarter\ 50:58-75 (Jan. 1980).Don R. Swanson, "Evolution, Libraries, and National Information Policy," Library

Qrnrter\ 50:7G-93 (fan. 1980).Patrick Wilson and Mona Farid, "On the Use of the Records of Research," library

Qnrterly 49:142 (April 1979).Hendrik Edelman and Dan C. Hazen, Collection Deueloprnent and Management atCornell; An Interim Report on Actiaitics of the Cornell Uniaersity Libraries Project for Col-lection Deaelopment and Management, July 1977-June 1979 (lthaca, N Y.: CornellUniv. Libraries, 1979).Mafcolm Smith, "Book Selection Sources," Library Association Record.8l:l3l (March1979).Robert Goehlert, 'Journal Use per Monetary Unit: A Reanalysis of Use Data,"Library Acquisitions: Praclice and Theory 3:98 (1979).Unive rsity of Kansas Libraries, Collection Deueh|ment Policy for the Uniuersity of Kan-sas Libraries, ed. Ted Seldon (Lawrence, Kans: Univ. of Kansas Libraries, 1978).Mary Tressider, Collection DeaeloPment Poliq for the John Vaughnn LibrarylLearningResources Center of Northeastern Ohlahoma State Unfuersity (Tahlequah, Okla.: North-eastern Oklahoma State Univ., 1978). (ED 167 075)Charles T. Taylor, Education Reference Department Booh Collection Poliq (LongBeach, Calif.: California State Univ., 1979). (ED 175 476)Washington University School of Medicine, Library Selection and Acqukitions Manual(St. Louis: Washington Univ. School of Medicine, 1978).Suzy Conway, Kathy Gallagher, and Barbara Halbrook, "Selection and AcquisitionsManual Development," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 67:54-58 (Jan.l 979).

Jennifer S. Cargill, "Bridging the Gap between Acquisitions and Public Services:One Approach," Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 3:29-31 (1979).Cornell University Libraries, Acquisitions Department, Manual of General SearchingProcedures (Ithaca, N.Y : Cornell Univ. Libraries, 1979).David N. Wood, "Acquisition Policy and Practices at the British Library LendingDivision," Interlend.ing Reaiew 7:l I l-18 (Oct. 1979).Maurice B. Line, "Criteria for Selecting Material for a Central Lending Stock," /z-terlcnd.ing Reuieu 7:126-29 (Oct 1979).William Miller and D. Stephen Rockwood, "Collection Development from a Col-lege Perspective," College U Research Libraries 40:318-24 (July 1979).Evan I. Farber, "Collection Development from a College Perspective: A Commentand a Response," College U Research Libraries 40:325-28 (July 1979).Robert R. Hellenga, "Departmental Acquisitions Policies for Small College Librar-ies," Library Acquisitioru: Practice and. Theory 3:81-84 (1979).Phyflis Van Orden and Edith B. Phillips, eds., Bachground. Read,ings in BuildingLibrary Collections,2d ed. (Metuchen, NJ.: Scarecrow, 1979).Wallace J. Bonk and Rose Mary Magrill , Building Library Collections, Sth ed.(Metuchen, NJ.: Scarecrow, 1979).G Edward Evans, Deaeloping Library CoLlections (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Un-limited, 1979).William L. Beck, "Selection of Library Materials," in Encyclopedia of Library and In-

formation Science, Y.27 (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979), p.20.+-8.Charles R. Schultz, Mahing Something HaFFen: Texas AUM Uniuersitl Libraries, 1876-1976 (College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M Univ. Libraries, 1979).Andrea Hoffman, "Collection Development Programs in Academic Libraries: AnAdministrative Approach," B oohrnarh 38 : I 2 l-25 (Spring 1979).Murray S. Martin, "Buying, Borrowing, and Bibliographers: Some Observationson Colfection Development Flexibility," Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory3 : l l 8 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

t 8 .

19.

20.

45.46.

47 .

48 .49.50.

5 1 .

Collecli,on Deuebpment and Preserz,ation / 267

35. Robert W. Wadsworth, "The Library Selector," College U Research Libraries Neus40:26547 (Oct. 1979).

36. Charles B. Osburn, "Some Practical Observations on the Writing, lmplementation,and Revision of Collection Development Policy," Library Resources U Technical Ser-aices 23:7-15 (Winter 1979).

37. Y. T. Feng, "The Necessity for a Collection Development Policy Statement," Li-brary Resources U Technical Seruices 23:3944 (Winter 1979).

38. Hendr ik Edelman, "Select ion Methodology in Academic Librar ies," L ibraryResources U Technical Seruices 23:33-38 (Winter 1979).

39. Norman Dudley, "Collection Development: A Summary of Workshop Discussions,"Library Resources U Technhal Seruices 23:52-54 (Winter 1979).

40. "ALA Draft Goals for WHCLIS to Consider," American Libraries 10:239--42 (May

l 979).41. "WHCLIS Observed," American Libraries ll:18-20 (fan. 1980).42. "The WHCLIS Resolutions," American Libraries ll:22-23 (fan. 1980).43. "Cadres for the Library Future," LibraryJournal 105:149-66 (fan. 15, 1980).44. Robert Wedgeworth, "Implementation: The Hidden Question of WHCLIS," Arzer-

ican Libranes 10:54446 (Oct. 1979).Ibid., p.544."ACRL Legislative Network Backs Title Il-A," College U Research Libraries Neus40:208-9 (uly-Aug. 1979)."Title II-A-A Bargain at the Price: A Symposium," Journal of Aca.demic Librar-ianship 5:188-99 (Sept. 1979)Ibid., p.188-89.ALA Washington Neuslctter 3l : I (Aug 7 , 1979)."Higher Education Act Extension," ALA Washington Neusletter 3l:l-4 (Sept. 14,1979) ."Tax Credits for Gifts of Manuscripts," Collcge U Research Libraries Nrzrrs 4l:3 (fan.1980).

52. James D Lockwood, "lnside Washington," Collcge U Research Libraries Neus 40:.213guly-Aug. 1979).

53. Council on Library Resources, A Natiorutl Periodicak Center: TechnitaL DeueloprnentPlaz (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library Resources, 1978).

54. Noel Savage, "A National Periodical Center: The Debate in Arlington," Librarl

Joumal 104:1108-15 (May 15, 1979).55. Glenn L. Brudvig, "The Open Forum on a National Periodicals Center," Bulletin of

the American Society for Information Science 5'.34 (June 1979).56. "National Periodicals Center," ALA Washington Neu,slettur 3l:3-4 (Sept. 14, 1979).57. "Draft Legislative Proposal for NPC Issued," Library Journal 104:1399 (July 1979).58. "Legislative Proposal Drafted for National Periodicals Center," College U Research

Libraries News 40:221 (fuly-Aug. 1979)59. Arthur D. Little, lnc , A ComParatiue Eaaluation of ALternntiue Slstems for the Proaision

of Effectiae Access to Periodical Literature (Washington, D.C.: National Commission onLibraries and Information Science. 1979).

60. Donald J. Sager, "A National Periodical Center: Too Limited a Goal," AmericanLibraries l0:465-66 (Sept. 1979).

61. "PNBC Reiterates Opposition to Periodicals Center," Library Journal 105:466 (Feb.

16, r980) .62. "National Periodical Center," College U Research Libraries Neus 40:34546 (Dec.

1979) .63. "Colorado State, Cornell, Brown Join RLG Consortium," Library Journal 105:140

(fan. 15, 1980).64. Research Libraries Group, lnc., Progress Report (Stanford, Calif.: Research Librar-

ies Group, 1979), p.9.65. Ibid., p.5.66. Richard DeGennaro, "Research Libraries Enter the Information Age," Library Jour-

nal 104:2409 (Nov. 15, 1979).67. "Cooperative Collection Development in the Illinois Library and Information Net-

work," Illinoi Libraries 6l:566-70 (Sept. 1979).68. Patricia Jones, "Inter-Network Cooperation: ILLINET and the Midwest Health

268 I Library Resources A Technical Seruices. Summer 1980

ment 15:219-25 (1979).

-^ Scien_ce I.ibrary Network," Illinois Libraries 6l:590-91 (Sept. l9Z9).69. R y Boylan, "scholarly citadel in chicago: The centei for Research Libraries,"

Wilson Library Bulletin 53:509-6 (March 1079).70. Herbert Goldhor, "An Evaluation of the I l l inois Interl ibrary Loan Network

(ILLINET)," Illinois Libraries 6I: I3-tb (lan. l9Z9).71. sandra H. Rouse and william B. Rouse, "Analysis of Monograph obsolescence ar

Two Levels of an Interlibrary Loan Network," lnforruttion Froiessing and Manage-and Manage-

72. Anne B. Piternick, "Problems of Resource sharing with the community: A case

_^ S_tudy,",/oumal of Academic Librarianship 5:153-58 (J"uly 1979).73' David A. Kronick, "A Regional cooperative Aiquisition program for Mono-

graphs," Bulktin of the Medical Library Aisociation 67:ig7-Z}l guty tSZOy.74. Robert Haert le, "coordinat ing col lect ions in the Mi lwaukie 'Area, ' ; in Mahinp

Cooperation Work, Lilxary Journal Special Report, no.9 (New york: Bowker, lgTg),p.35-38.

75. R. Dean Galloway, "ILL can Be cost-Effective Today," in Mahing cooperationno.9 (New York: Bowker, 1979), p.4245.ln at rhe Grass Roots: A Regional Intertyper Valley," Journal of Academic Librarianship

';intl.urt, A Co-operative Scheme," Intenn-

A s l i b , 1 9 7 9 ) . N e t u o r k s i n t h e u n i l e d K i n g d o m ( L o n d o n :79 y Y Sh^aw, Jr , "A Journal Resource Sharing Strategy," Libran Research l:lg-2g

lSpr ing t979).80. Larry E. stanfel, "Designing Simple Library Hierarchies Using Linear program-

ming," I nformation P rocessing and M anagemenr' l 5 : 65-49 ( l 97 g).81. Gerard-sallon-,^"Suggestions for Libraiy Network Design," Journal of Libratl Aukt-

ruttion 12:39-52 (March 1979).82. Sandra H. Rouse and william B. Rouse, "Design of a Model-Based online Man-

agement Information system for Interlibrary Lian Networks," Information proccs-s ing and Management l5:109-22 (1979).

83. william B. Rouse, "Tutorial: Mathematical Modeling of Library systems," Joumal^.

o! th, American S-ocy:ty for Information Science Z0:l8l-9I guty l97g). '

84. susan_ Dingle-cliff and charles H. Davis, "collection dverlap in canadian Addic-trons Libraries," Special Libraries 70:ZG-81 (Feb. l9Z9).

85. charles H. Davis and Debora shaw, "collection overlap as a Funcrion of Librarysize: A c^omparison of American and canadian publit Libraries," Jrurnar,f the

^^ !!u,r?\ Sotiety for Information Science 10:19_24 (fan. l9Z9).86. J-ep M. Pings' "Management conflict in Netw.rk Development," special Lihraies

70:71-75 (Feb. 1979).87. David R. Bender, "Networking and School Library Media programs," Schoo! Li-

braryJournal 26:29-32 (Nov. l9]9).88. Robert P. Holley, "A.Modest Proposal on Modern Literature collection Develop-

^^ ment,"

_Journal of Aca"d,ernic Librarianship 5:91;94 (May 1979).89. Jeffry Larson, "There Is No Present Need for a National 2Oth-Centurv Literature

^^ Library,"./ournal of Academic Librananship E:940-41 (Jan. l9g0).90. Alfen Kent and rhomas_J. Galvin, eds., The structur"e and Gouenrance of Library Net-

3or&s, proceedings ofthe 1978 conference in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, cosponsoied by

National commission on Libraries and Informaiion science and Universitv oi'Pittsburgh (New York: Marcel Dekker, lg79).

91. warrenJ. Haas, "Managing our Academic Libraries: ways and Means," college &lResearch Libraries 40: I l0 (March 1979).

92. Michael D. cooper, "The Economics of Library size: A preliminarv Inouirv." Li-brary Trends 28:63-78 (Summer 1979).

93. Herbert Goldhor, "U.s. Public Library Adult Non-Fiction Book collections in theHumanities," C ollection M anagement Z :Z | 4I (Spring I 979).

94. william E. McGrath, Donald J. s11non, and Evely-n Bullard, "Ethnocentricity and

cross-Disciplinary circulation,i' college €l Research Libraries 4o:bll-lg (Nov. 1979).

Collection Deuelobment and Preseruation I 26g

95. Gerald l. Lazorick, "Paterns of Book Use Using the Negative Binomial Distribu-tion," Library Research l:l7l-88 (Summer 1979).

96. Seymour H. sargent, "The uses and Limitations of rrueswell ," college $ ResearchLibraries 40:416-23 (Sept. 1979).

97' Richard w. Trueswell, "'The uses and Limitations of rrueswell;' A comment,"

- Qoilege €l Research Libraries 4O:424-25 (Sept. 1979).98. Richard w. Trueswell and stephenJ. Tuiner, "simulating circulation Data," Jour-

nal of the American Society for Information Science 30:Bl-87 (March 1979).99. Paul Metz, "The use of the General collection in the Library of congress," Library

Quarterly 49:415-34 (Oct. 1979).100' Melissa D. Trevvett, "Characteristics of Interlibrary Loan Requests at the Librarv

of Congress," College tl Researrh Libraies 40:36-43 (jan. 19791.'l0l. charleJB. wengei. christine B. sweet, and Helen"J. stiles, "Monograph Evalua-

!on_ f9r Acquisitions i-n 1 L1rye Research Llbrary,"-Journal of the Ameiican Societyfor Information Science 3O:88-92 (March 1979).

102 . Robe r t L . Bu r r , "Eva lua t i ng L i b ra r y Co l l ec t i ons : A Case S tudy , " I ou rna l o fAeademic Librar iaahib 5:25G-60 (Nov. 1979).

103. Paul H. Mosher, "collection Evaluation in Research Libraries: The search forQuality, Consistency, and System in Collection Development," Library Resources ElTechnical Seruices 23:16-32 (Winter lgTg).

104. Catherine Yancheff, Criteria for Collection Anal,tsis in the Academic liDrar"y (Columbia.S.C.: School of L ibrary Science. Univ. of Soutf r Carol ina, 1979). (ED 168 496)

105. G. Alabi , "Bradford 's Law and I ts Appl icat ion," Internat ional L ibrar l RedewI l : l 5 l - 58 ( f an . 1979 ) .

106. Patricia stensrrom and Ruth B. McBride, "Serial use bv Social science Facultv: A

_ 9uly.y." College tl Re:carrh Libraries 40:426-31 (Sept. 1979).107. wi l l iam J. Maher and Benjamin F. shearer, "Undergraduate Use pat terns of

...^ f.Trpupers on Microfilm," College €l Research Libraries 40:254-60 (May l9?9).108. Barbara A. Rice, "science Periodicals Use Study," Seriak Librarian 4:2547 (Fall

1979).109. Ruth w. wender, "countingJournal rirle Usage in the Hea.lth sciences," speceal

Libraies 70:2 l9-26 (May-June 1979)l l0 Jacquel ine A. Maxin, "Per iodical use and col lect ion Development," cot tege €l

Research Libraries 40:248-53 (May 1979).l l l . G. Alabi , "stat is t ical Analysis of Journal Usage," Internat ional L ibrary Reuieu

l l : l 4 l - 5 0 ( f a n . 1 9 7 9 ) .| 12. Michael E. D. Koenig, "on-Line Serials collection Analysis,"./oumal of the American

Societl for Information Seiente 3O:148-53 (May 1979).l l3 B. Tommie Usdin, "core Lists of Medical Journals: A compar ison," But tet in of the

Medical Libran Association 67:212-17 (April 1979).l l4 . Goehler t , 'Journal Use per Monetary Uni t : A Reanalysisof Use Data," p9l-94.l l5. Michlean J. Amir and Wi lda B. Newman, " Informar ion: Unl imi ted bemands-

Limited Funds (Testing the Viability of a Scientific Journal Collection in Light of

, , - Economic Realities)," Colledion Management 3: I I I-19 (Spring I979).l l6 . Jet f rey Broude, 'Journal Deselect ion in an Academic Envirdnment: A compar ison

of Faculty and Librarian Choices," Seriak Librarian 3:14746 (Winter 1978).l l7 . John B. Wood and Lynn M. Coppel , "Drowning Our Ki t tens: Deselect ion of

Periodicals in Academic Libraries," Seriak Librarianl:317-31 (Spring l97g).ll8. Barbara Frick Schloman and Ruth E Ahl, "Retention periodi foiJournals in a

Small Academic Library," Special Libraries 70:377-.83 (Sept. 1979).ll9. ThomasJ. Galvin and Allen Kent, "Use of a University Lib.u.y corection," Libratl

Journal lO2:2317-20 (Nov. 15, 1977).120. University of Pittsburgh Office of Communicarion programs, A Cost

ll Some Critirul Library Operations in Terms of Use of Materiak: Finalburgh: Univ. of Pir tsburgh, 1978).

l 2 l .

Beneft ModelReport (Pitts-

yse of Libryn Materials: The llniaersity of Pittsburgh Stzdl, (New York: MarcelDekker .1979) .

A Symposium," Journal ofto the Editor," Journal of

122. "Pit tsburgh.University Studies of Collect ion Usage :Academic Librarianship 5:60-70 (May 1979); "LetGrsA cademic Librarian"ship 5 : 286-8 7 (Nov. I 9 79).

270 I Library Resources A Technical Serices. Summer 1980

123. Roger R. Flynn, "The University of Pittsburgh Study of Journal Usage: A Sum-mary Report," Seriak Librarinn 4:25-33 (Fall 1979).

124. University of Pittsburgh Senate Library Committee, Report on the Study of LibraryUse at Piltsburgh fu Professor Allen Kent, et al. (A Pittsburgh Repll) (Pittsburgh: Univ.of Pittsburgh, 1979).

125. Casimir Borkowski and Murdo J. Macleod, "The Implications of Some RecentStudies of Library Use," Scholnr\ Publi:hing ll:3-24 (Oct. 1979).

126. Neal K. Kaske, "Library Utilization Studies: Time for Comparison," Lihrary Journal104:686 (March 15, 1979).

127. Stella Bentley, "Academic Library Statistics: A Search for a Meaningful EvaluativeTool," Library Research l:143-52 (Summer 1979).

128 David A. Kronick, "Preventing Wastelands: A Personal Statement," Library Journal105:483-87 (Feb. 15, 1980).

129. "Colfection Analysis Project (CAP)," ARL Neusletter g8:14 (Sept. 26, 1979).130. "New CAP Workbook for Collection Use Studies," ARL NeuslettergSl.14 (Sept. 26,

1979 ) .l3l. Jeffrey J. Gardner, "CAP: A Project for the Analysis of the Collection Develop-

ment Process in Large Academic Libraries," in New Horizoru for Aca.demic Libraries(Papers presented at the First National Conference of the Association of Collegeand Research Librar ies, Boston, Mass. , Nov.8- l l , 1978), ed. Robert D. Stueartand Richard D. Johnson (New York: K G. Saur, 1979), p.a5G-59

132. Jutta R. Reed, "Collection Analysis Project in the MIT Libraries," in Neu Horizotts

for Acad,emic Libranes, p.490-95.133. George J. Soete, "The Collection Analysis Project at Arizona State University Li-

brary: An Exercise in Staff Development," in Neu Horizoru for Academic Libraries,p.495-501.

134 Dimity S. Berkner, "Communication berween Vendors and Librarians," Library Ac-quisitioru: Practice and Theory 3:85-90 (1979)

135. Franciska Safran, "Defensive Ordering," Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory3 :5 -8 ( 1979 ) .

136. Audrey B. Eaglen, "The'Warning Bookmark ' : Select ion Aid or Censorship?"Library Acquuitioru: Practice and Theory 3:65-71 (1979).

137. Charles R. Follett, "FLB's Side of the Story," Library Acquisitioru: Practice and.Theory3:73-75 (1979\.

138. Barry Fast, "Publishing and Bookselling: A Look at Some Idiosyncracies," LibraryAcquuitions: Practice and, Theom 3: I 5-l 7 ( I 979).

139. Audrey B. Eaglen, "Short Discount Shuffles-What lt's All About," School Library

Joumal 25:30-33 (May 1979).140. Audrey B. Eaglen, "More about the Discount Mess," Sclool LibraryJournal26:105-

8 (Oct . 1979).14l. Ruth Fraley, "Publishers vs. Wholesalers: The Ordering Dilemma," Library Acquisi-

tioru: Practice and Theory 3:9-13 (1979).142. Audrey B. Eaglen, "Book Distribution: Present Conditions and Implications for

the Future," School Library Joumal 26:55-59 (Dec. 1979).143 Bryan L. Bacon, "Buying Around: The Economics of Library Purchasing," Cono-

dian Lihrary Joumal 36:24749 (Oct. 1979).144. John E. Dutton, "Buying Around: The Economics of Library Purchasing, Part^f

wo," Canad,inn Library Journal 36:349-50 (Dec. 1979).145 Mary Byrd Davis, "Model for a Vendor Study in a Manual or Semi-Automated

Acquisitions System," Library Acquisitions: Praetice and Theory 3:53-60 (1979).146. Richard E. Chapin, "Summary Statement of the 4th lnternational Conference on

Approval Plans" (Paper presented at the Fourth lnternational Conference onApproval Plans, Milwaukee, October 29-31, 1979).

147. "Approval Plans in Ohio Grow in Popularity," LibraryJoumal 104:991-92 (May l,r979).

148. David R. McDonald, Margaret W. Mpxfield, and Virginia G. F. Friesner, "Sequen-tial Analysis: A Methodology for Monitoring Approval Plans," College €l ResearchLibraries 40:329-34 (fuly 1979).

149. Jennifer S. Cargill and Brian ltlley, Practhal Approaal Plan Management (Phoenix,Ar iz. : Orvx Pr. . 1979).

Collection Deueloprnent and, Preseruation / 271

150. Walter Hogan, "Automated Acquisitions Systems: A Review," RTSD Neusletter 55_7 (Jan.-Feb. 1980).

l5l. Richard Woods, "The Washington Library Network Computer System," Online Re-ueu 3:297-330 (Sept. 1979).

152. Janet L. Flowers, "second Institute on American Book Publishing: The Prelimi-

156. Trudy Huskamp Peterson, "The Gift and the Deed," American Archiaist 42:61-66(fan. 1979).

157. Gould P. Coleman, "Women's Rights and Central izat ion of L ibrar ies: A NoteConcerning Collection Development," Jourrutl of Library History 14:73-76 (Winterr 979).

158. Alex Allardyce, "Some Operational Costs of the Gift and Exchange Section of theBritish Library Lending Division," Interlending Reaiew 7:9O-98 (July 1979).

159. Howard Rovelstad, "The Economics of the Universal Serials and Book Exchange(USBE)," Interlend.ing Reuieu 7:98-l0l (July 1979).

160. D. N. Wood, "Current Exchange of Serials at the British Library Lending Divi-sion," Library Acquisitions: Practice and. Theory 3:107-13 (1979).

l6l. S. B. Bandara, "'Dormant Exchanges': A Suggestion for Less Wasteful Exchangesbetween Libraries," Libri 28:313-22 (Dec. I 978).

162. "Editor of FAN Dies," ARI Neusl.euer 98:8 (Sept. 26, lS79).163. M. W. Anyakoha, "'Our Stars Are to Blame': Persisrent Problems of Collection

Development at Nsukka," L ibr i29:27-35 (March 1979).164. Briggs C. Nzotta, "The Acquisition of Publications in Indigenous Languages in

Developing Countries: The Case of Nigeria," Library Acqui.sitions: Practice andTheon 3:99-106 (1979).

165. Alicii V. Tjarks, "Coping with Latin American Serials," Seriak Librarian 3:407-15(Summer 1979).

166. Edward Gordon, "Acquiring International Legal Materials: Some Things to Bearin Mind," Lau Library Journal 72'.476-83 (Summer 1979).

167. Hisao Matsumoto, "The Book Market in Japan and LC's Acquisitions Program,"Foreign Acquisitions Neusletter 49: l-l I (Spring 1979).

168. Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien, "Trends in Col lect ion Bui ld ing for East Asian Studies inAmerican Libraries," College I Research Libraries 40:405-l 5 (Sept I 979).

169. Peter Snow, ed., Proceedings of the American Studies Library Conference, held at theU.S Embassy, London, 16 and 17 February 1978 (Oxford, England: AmericanStudies Library Group, 1979).

170. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Proposed Bylaws of Western Euro-pean Specialists Section," College U Research Libranes Neus 40:322-23 (Nov. 1979).

l7l. Chandler B. Grannis, "1979 Title Output and Average Prices; Preliminary Fig-ures," Publishers Weehl1 217:57 (Feb. 22, 1980).

172. "Book Prices: Inflation Continues." Library Association Record.8l:575 (Dec. 1979).173. Robert J. Verrone, "Why Books Cost So Much," School Library Journal 25:20-22

(Feb. 1979).174. National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication, Scholnr\ Communication: The Re-

port of the National Enquiry (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Pr., 1979).175. Ib id. , p.6.176. August Frug6, "Two Cheers for the National Enquiry: A Partial Dissent," Scholnrly

Publishing I 0:21 3-l 8 (April I 979).177. Fritz Machlup, Kenneth Leeson, and Associates, Information through the Printed,

Word,: The Dissemination of Scholnrly, Scientif.c, and Intellectual Knouledge (New York:Praeger, 1978).3v.

178. Jacob Cohen and Kenneth W. Leeson, "sources and Uses of Funds of AcademicLibraries," Library Tren"ds 28:2546 (Summer 1979).

272 I Library Resources U Technical Seraices. Summer 1980

lT9. "Community College Libraries Polled on Materials Budgets," College U ResearchLibraries Neus 40:298 (Nov. 1979).

180. "Grants," College U Research Libraries Neus 40:274-7 5 (Oct. 1979).l8l. Carlton C. Rochell, "The Research Collections Program of NEH," Library Journal

104:1617-22 (Sept. l , 1979).182 Ann Bender, "Allocation of Funds in Support of Collection Development in Public

Libraries," Library Resources €l Technical Setices 23:45-51 (Winter 1979).183. Glyn T. Evans, Mary H. Beilby, and Roger Gifford , Deuelopment of a Resporufue Li-

brary Acqui:itions Formula (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Central Administration, Office ofLibrary Services, 1978).

184. William E. McGrath, "Two Models for Predicting Subiect Circulation: A Contribu-tion to the Allocation Problem," jourrnl of the American Society for Information Science30:264-68 (Sept. 1979).

185. Rod Borlase, "A Nonlinear, Bimodal Model for Monitoring the Flow of MaterialsFund Allocations," Journal of Academic Librariarchip 5:274-76 (Nov. 1979).

186 George J. Snowball and Martin S. Cohen, "Control of Book Fund Expendituresunder an Accrual Account ing System," CoLlect ion Managemenl 3:5-20 (Spr ingr 979).

187. Edward S. Warner and Anita L. Anker, "Utilizing Library Constituents'PerceivedNeeds in Allocating Journal Costs," Journal of the American Societ',t for InformationSeience 30:325-29 (Nov 1979).

188. Judy Myers, "A Subject Fund Accounting System for Serials," Seriak Librarian3:373-80 (Summer 1979).

189. Michael A. Campese, "Adopt a.fournal?" Bulletin of the Medical Libram Association67:262-63 (Apr i l 1979).

f 90 "Special Collections in ARL Libraries," SPEC Flyer No.57 (Sept 1979) (Washing-ton, D. C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of University Library Manage-ment Studies, 1979)."Miscellany," College U Research Libraries Nrurs 40:9 (March 1979).Annabel Straus, "College and University Archives: Three Decades of Develop-menL," College €l Research Libraries 40:432-39 (Sept. 1979).American Library Association, Reference and Adult Services Division, History Sec-tion, "Guidelines for Establishing Local History Collections," RQ l9:29-30 (Fall1979) .

194. American Library Associat ion and Society of American Archivists, 'Joint State-ment on Access to Original Research Materials in Libraries, Archives, and Manu-script Repositories," Collcge El Research Libraries News 40:11l-12 (April 1979).

195. Nancy Allen, Film Stud) Collections: A Cuide to Their Deuelopment and Use (NewYork: Ungar, 1979).

196. "Libraries: The Humanit ies Research Center, University of Texas, Austin,"Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 65:205-8 (April 1979).

197. Jean Blackwell Hutson, "The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture,"in Enqclopedia of Library and Information Science, Y.26 (New York: Marcel Dekker,1979), p.355-60.

198. Irene L. Travis, "Trade Literature at the National Museum of History and Tech-nology," Special Libraries 70:272-80 (fuly 1979).

199. "The Study and Collecting of Historical Children's Bodks," Library Trends 27:421-567 (Spring 1979).

200. "Preservation Interests Manifested at the A.L.A. Midwinter Meeting," Library Scene8:8-9 (March 1979).

201. Pamela W. Darling, "Towards a Nationwide Preservation Program," Library Journal104:1012 (May l , 1979) .

202 Paul N. Banks, "Education for Conservators," LibraryJournal 104:1013-17 (May I,1979) .

203. Robert H. Patterson, "Organizing for Conservation," Library Journal 104:ll16-19(May 15, 1979).

204. Pearl Berger, "Minor Repairs in a Small Research Library," Librarl Journal104: l3 l l -17 (June 15 , 1979) .

205. Carolyn Harris, "Mass Deacidification," LibraryJoumal 104:1423-27 (uly I979).

l 9 l .192

193.

206.

207.

208.

209.

210 .

2t t .

2r2.

213.

214 .

2 r5 .

2 t 6 .

2 r7 .

2 18 .

219 .

220.

22t.

222.223.

224.225.

226.

Collection Deuelopment and Presertation I 273

Hilda Bohem, "Regional Conservation Services," Library Joumal 104:1428-31 (fuly1979).Paul S. Koda, "The Analytical Bibliographer and the Conservator," Library Joumal104:1623-26 (Sept. I , 1979).Pamela W. Darling, "Preservation Epilogue: Signs of Hope," Librarl JournallO4:1627 (Sept. I, 1979).Robert DeCandido, "Preserving Our Library Materials," Library Scene 7:1O-12(Sept. 1978); 8:4-4 (March 1979); 8:.{-5 (June lg79).Rosemarie Riechel, "Public Libraries: A Method of Survival thrbugh Preserva-tion," Catholic Library Worl.d.5l:162-65 (Nov. 1979).Richard D. Smith, "Progress in Mass Deacidification at the Public Archives," Cana-dian Library Journal 36:325-32 (Dec. 1979).Christinger Tomer, "Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Books for Pres-ervation," Collection Management 3:45-54 (Spring 1979).Carolyn Clark Morrow and Steven B. Schoenly, A Conserttation Bibliography forLibrarinrc, Archiaists, and. Afuninistrators (Troy, N Y.: Whitston, 1979).

J. Michaef Bruer, Touard a California Dorument Consentalion Program (San Jose,Calif.: California Library Authority for Systems and Services (CLASS), 1978).Carolyn C. Morrow, A Coweraation Poltcy Statement for Research Libranes, OccasionalPaper no. 139 (Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois, Graduate School of Library Science,1979).Philip D. Leighton, "The Stanford Flood," College €l Research Libraries 40:450-59(Sept. 1979).Sally Buchanan, "The Stanford Library Flood Restoration Project," College {lResearch Libraries 40:539-48 (Nov. 1979).Hilda Bohem, Disaster Preuention and Disaster Prefared.ness (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. ofCalifornia, Task Group on the Preservation ofi Library Materials, i978).Gordon H. Wright, "Fire! Anguish! Dumb Luck! or Contingency Planning," Cana-d.ian Library Journal 36:254-60 (Oct. 1979).

John Morris, Managingthe Library Fire Rish,2d ed. (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of Cali-fornia, 1979)."OMS Seeking Specialist for Preservation Study," ARL Neusletter 99:13 (Nov. 30,1979 ) .'NHPRC Invites Grant Proposals for 1979," ARL Newsletter 95:8 (Feb. 26, 1979).David Lampe, "Your Neighbor in the Library May Be a Thief , " Smithsonianl0:140-54 (Nov. 1979)"Civil War Collections Stolen," ARL Newsletter 99:2 (Nov. 30, 1979).Alan S. Wheelock, "Beware of Captain Kidd of the Lending Libraries," Chronicle ofHigher Education (lan 22,1979\.American Library Association, Resources and Technical Setvices Division, Re-sources Section, Guidelines for Collection Deuelopment, ed. David L. Perkins (Chicago:American Library Assn., 1979).

227. Association of College and Research Libraries, Undergraduate Librarians Discus-sion Group, "The Mission of an Undergraduate Library (Model Statemenr\," Col-Iege U Research Libraries Neus 40:317-19 (Nov. 1979).

228. Association of College and Research Libraries, "An Evaluative Checklist for Re-viewing a College Library Program," College tl Research Libraries Nezrs 40:305-16(Nov. 1979).

229. Association of College and Research Libraries, Community and Junior CollegeLibraries Section, "Draft: Statement on Quantitative Standards for Two-YearLearning Resources Programs," College €l Research Libraies Neus 40 69-73 (March1979).

230. Joint Committee of the Association of Research Libraries and the Association ofCollege and Research Libraries, "Standards for University Libraries," College El Re-search Libranes Narus 40:l0l-10 (April 1979).

231. Glenda S. Neely and John T. Demos, "We Can't Go On Meeting This Way,"3fozr-nal of Aca.demic Librariarchip 5:322-25 (Jan. 1980).

274 t

Seriols in 1979

Ilorothy J. Glosby

Colmc.rtoNs

It is not news to anyone who works with serials to Iearn that prices

continued to rise in 1979. One cannot, of course, make a blanket

statement that every price of every serial rose; some serials simply

maintained their already inflated 1978 costs. Reports of serials which

decreased in price in 1979 are scant. Investigation of these few usually

disclosed the fact that the seeming decrease did not really exist since

prices quoted for 1978 and l9?9 were not comparable because ele-

*.tttr, iuch as the inclusion or exclusion of postage in the rates or the

number of issues for the year, varied.Brown and Phillips calculated that the average subscription price of

an American periodical was $30.37, a l0.l percenr increase over thescience and technology (particular-

I medicine) continued to show thes, for the first time in manY Yearsot evidence the greatest p€rcentagetncrease in Price and Clasquin and

cohen, reporting on prices of physics and chemistry journals over the

years, pointed oirt thit the sustained rate of inflation in the prices of

sc ient f f ic journals has led to a cont inuing acquis i t ions cr is is in

academic libraries. They went so far as to suggest that it_was time for

narional officials to urge Congress to provide federal aid so subscrip-

tions and collections could be maintained.2The ofttimes indispensable serial services (the periodical publica-

tions which cumulate, abstract, or index information) had an average

cost, in 1979, of $171.06. This figure was ll. l percent higher than the

1978 average and represented the largest percentage of increase since

1970,3over a period of ten or more years, as prices of serials-have climbed

and budgbts for acquisition have failed to keep pace, libra.rians have

had to reexamine th-eir serial subscriptions and serial collections with a

view toward paring both to the smallest size they thought they -couldmaintain withbut markedly reducing, service to their users. The litera-

ture in L9?9 again was filled with reports and paPers concerningattempts made 6y individual libraries or librarians to accomplish this.

With 'the

exception, perhaps, of some of the larger research libraries

Dorothy J. Glasby is CONSER operatirons coordinator, Library of Congress.

Seriak I 275

with a comrritment to preserve publications for anticipated but as yetunidentified future needs or as a record of the tirne for later genera-tions, many libraries must try to measure present-day usage of theirmaterials and weed their collections or cancel their subscriptionsaccordingly.

Usage of Serials, however, particularly of periodicals, is difficult torneasure with any feeling of great confidence that the measurementhas been either accurate or revealing. Since serials, again periodicalsin particular, do not circulate in many libraries, circulation records,even thos€ maintained in a manner which identifies the publicationsinvolved, are of little value. Most use studies, therefore, must be con-ducted, as was the one documented by Weil,a by asking users to rnarkon lists the publications they use regularly, by asking users to sign slipsattaehed to unbound issues after they have frnished with thern, or byasking users to refrain from reshelving bound serials so that a countor observation of titles consulted can be made by the library staff.Armther type of survey sometimes undertaken in combination withthose already rnentioned is an examination of interlibrary loan re-quests, those going out from a particular tribrary as well as those com-ing in to it.s If a library must often borrow a particular publication orrequest photoiopies of articles it may be possible that, despite thetightness of the budget, the serial should be added to the library's sub-scripti,on lists or be represented among its back files. Figtrres on titlesfrequently hent can be added to figures obtained through "in-house"surveys sirrce they are, in a way, indicative of the "use" of a particularpublkation-

mands rr.rade upon academic libraries or when new investigationsun&rtaken by researchers or other users of specialized libraries turnjournals once eagerly sought into dust catchers. Maxirn suggested thatuse studi,es must, therefore, be continuous or at least undertaken atreasonable intervals to catch these changing patterns.s She reportedthat the Clarkson College of Technology used a computer for its in-formation on periodical usage so that the figures could be updatedand tabulated and new printous prepared in which titles are rankedby use.

Use studies are conducted not only to determine which currentsarials should be continued and which should be canceled but also tomahe decisions regarding the acquisit ion, retention, binding, andshelving of back files. Schloman and Ahl, applying the results of a sur-vey made of users of the Biochemistry Library of Purdue University,fotrnd that the number of feet of journals shelved in the library couHbe reduced by 19 percent, that rnany.volumes could be moved to stor-age or discarded entirely, and that it was possible to assign to each

276 I Libran Resources U Technical Seraices. Surnrnn 1980

title an appropriate class of binding (from long-lasting but costly toleast serviceable but cheapest) based on an expected period of reten-tion of the journal by the library.e

In considering the costs of purchasing and binding serials, librariansmust also consider the cost and availabil ity of the space to shelvethem. Although long runs or complete back files of certain publica-tions may be desirable in a particular library because surveys indicatethat the serial is used, there is a point at which the amount of roomavailable runs out. Feinman, writing from Adelphi University Library,noted that student seating space had been cut to a "ridiculous" mini-mum in order to accommodate the publications and yet the periodicalproliferation had filled the stacks.ro At one time the only possible solu-tions to such a problem might have involved either the provision ofmore space or the ruthless reduction in the volume or numbers of thepublications. The librarians at Adelphi, however, decided to purchasemicroforms for many of their longer runs, converting about 250 titlesa year until 25 to 30 percent of the collection, the maximum amountthey consider desirable, is in that format. A similar solution to a spaceproblem was reported by Zamora and Adamson, working in the tech-nical library of a physics and nuclear science laboratory.rr There themost recent five years of each publication were kept in hard copywhile 3,365 bound journal volumes have been replaced with cartridgessince 1976, in a program that will continue as commercial microfilmcartridges become available.

Before leaving the question of serials costs, it is interesting to notethat initial production costs are a primary factor in high subscriptionrates. Lea indicated that the journals of the future may be differentbecause publishers cannot afford to continue their present patterns.r2He suggested that economic and other considerations will produce"synoptic" journals which give short, summary papers backed up byarchival records of the full-length papers on microforms. These jour-nals would be cheaper to produce and he did not anticipate any greatdemand for the full texts. He mentioned, also, the electronic or"paperless" journal and the journal produced from a text-processingtypewriter so that text editing could take place without rekeyboardingand copies of the journal could be "printed" by phototypesetting. Hisfourth type of "new" journal is the microform, that in the future willbecome the original and only publication format for some serials.

IotN.rtrrcerloN AND BIBLrocRApHrc CoNTRoL

In 1979 as some serials catalogers were already applying the provi-sions of the second edition of the Anglo American Catalogting Rules(AACR 2) and others were examining or studying the rules whileawaiting the date of application selected by their library, Byrum andCoe issued the results of a 1975 survey of the research library com-munity concerning the use of the first edition of AACR for serialscataloging.13 A number of the libraries surveyed were dissatisfied withthe rules as written and chose to deviate from them in various ways.Some libraries particularly disliked the provisions requiring that cer-

Seriak I 277

tain serials be entered under the issuing corporare body while otherlibraries preferred a simpler bibliographic description rhan that man-dated by AACR l. If libraries in adopting AACR 2 depart from therules in this manner one may again wonder, as did Byrum and Coe,"about the consequences of this deviation . . . especially the extenr towhich it may have an adverse impact on the exchange of bibliographicdata in the context of cooperative on-line catalogs."r4

Sadowski wrote of a persistent problem in serials caraloging noraddressed by either edition of AACR, the question of "what is thetitle" of the serial.rs He examined a number of periodicals each ofwhich had an initialism that would have been considered part of thetitle by many serials catalogers and found, upon quesrioning the pub-lishers, that in most cases they regarded the initialism as decorarionfor the cover rather than as part of the title. Sadowski suggested thatall libraries might agree on and use the same title for a serial with aninitialism if the spelled-out version of the title (without the initialism)were always preferred or, alternatively, if pages inside the publication,where initialisms occur less frequently, were selected, in preference tothe cover, as the chief source from which information could be taken.

In mid-1979 the Library of Congress (LC) issued guidelines for a"unique serial identifier" in answer to the question of uniquely iden-tifying main, linking, and added entries, especially series-added en-tries, for the many serials that probably will be entered under titleunder AACR 2.to The concept, developed by LC and the NationalLibrary of Canada (NLC), provides for the use of a unique title as aheading for some serials entered under tit le or the insertion of aunique title before the title proper of some serials entered under amain entry heading. The unique title would be the title proper of theserial plus qualifying elements such as place of publication or name ofthe corporate body associated with the serial. The unique title pro-vides a means of distinguishing among serials, entered under tit le,which have the same title proper or among serials, entered under thename of a corporate body or person, which have the same combina-tion of name heading and title proper. NLC and LC submitted theirstatement on the unique serial identifier to the Joint Steering Commit-tee for Revision of AACR 2, which approved it in principle. It ishoped that some of the guidelines for the formulation of the uniqueserial title may be adopted by the Internarional Serials Data System(ISDS) so that revisions to Guidelines for ISDS will allow for grearercompatibility among the ISDS key title, the title associated with ihe In-ternational Standard Serial Number (ISSN), and the NLC/LC uniqueidentifier for serials.

As of January 1979 the United States Postal Service (USPS) require-ment that serials mailed at second class rates carry an identifyingnumber went into effect. Since, under an agreement worked out be-tween LC and USPS, this number was to be the ISSN whenever it wasavailable, more U.S. periodicals began displaying ISSN in 1979. TheNational Serials Data Program (NSDP) at LC, which assigns ISSN forU.S. imprints, extended its work through USPS to include publications

278 / Library Resources €l Techniratr Scrvi.ccs. Summer 198:0

with controlled cireulation in addition to those with second class mail-ing privileges.IT

Recognizing the value of the ISSN as a means of serials identifica-tion, the Policy and Research Committe of the American Library Asso-ciation's Serials Section. at a meering in Dallas in August, urged thesection's Exeeutive Comrnittee to encourage the Government PrintingOffice and LC to cooperate in the matrer of the use of ISSN on feder-al documents.rs Although serials librarians may have accepted the con-cept of the ISSN as an "identifying" number, it is clear ro many ofthem that the number may prove to have little practical value in li-braries unless the number appears on rhe publications it identifies. TheISSN can be, and is, used as an easy direct access to some automatedcheck-in records and one can conceive of a sirnilar use in manualcheck-in systems although published reports of this larrer use do notseem to exist. Unless the ISSN is printed on the serial, however, suchaccess becomes a t\{o- or even a three-step process. According to aninformal survey of serials coming in to the Library of Congress duringa two-week period in 1979, there did not appear to be enough serialscarrying an ISSN in a relatively prorninent position on each issue towarrant LC's undertaking an experimental project within its extremelylarge rnanual systern to provide access to check-in records via ISSN.

In May 1979 Indiana University was accepted into rnembership inthe CONSER (CONversion of SERials) project, becowring rhe first newparticipant since 1976. By the end of the year applications had beenreceived from several other institutirons wishing to join. As CONSERrnernkrs continued to input their serials cataloging records to theOCLC system, it was estimated that the entire CONSER file (authenti-cated and unauthenticated records), which the Library of Congresswas planning to make available for the first time in early 1980, wouldrun to more than 250,000 records. A new product of CONSER, theCONSER Micrafiche, appeared during 1979. It was published by theNational Library of Canada, funded by a grant from the Council onLibrary Resources, with distribution in the U.S. handled by LC. Thefiche included a listing of the 75,(X)O-plus CONSER records which hadbeen authenticated by NLC or LC, the centers of respo.nsibility for thebiblirographic quality and integrity of the CONSER dara base.re

Over the years of its existence there have been a nu.rnber of reportsconcerning the benefits of the CONSER project both to librarires par-ticipating in it and to those that do not. In 1979 the Library of Con-gress described ways in which it had been able ro use records input byother CONSER participants as a basis for its own serials cataloging.LC had decided early in the project to accepr data contributed byoth€rs and to podi{y its-cataloging_practices so that records for serialsappearing on its printed cards and in its MARC-S distribution wouldbe the equivalent of natinonal bibliographic records rather than a re-flection of LC's own holdings of the serial. By 1979 an esrimared 25p€rcent of LC's newly received serials were represented on the CON-SER data trase, all,owing LC to catalog these serials by nrerely updatingor adding to existing records. In other words, CONSER had elimi-

Serink | 279

nated the need for LC to do purely original cataloging for one-fourthof the new serials it received.2o Anderson and Melby tried to demon-strate statistically the extent to which cataloging copy inout to OCLCby selected CONSER participants or by the Library of Congress couldbe accepted without modification ar rhe library of the University ofIllinois, which is not a CONSER participant. Although the actual pur-pose of their study was to determine whether LC copy or that of theCONSER participants required more modification by Illinois, theyconcluded, among other things, that "to the extent that the individuallibrary conforms in internal policies to the standards and practices ofthe Litrrary of Congress, records can be accepted without modifica-tion" and that an individual library must "weigh the speed of catalog-ing against what. . .,[it] mut accept without checking and the possibleproblems thereof."2l

UNroN Ltsrs

There was much interest in union l isting during 1979 as well assome announcements of grants or other funding to enable various in-stitutions to begin or continue projects in this area. The term "unionlist," with all its connections to the past that cause us to think of labo-riously gathered information displayed on printed pages in ofttimesmassive volumes, does not adequately express the scope and breadthor even the nature of the "products" of projects in various places us-ing the technology presently available. Although the union list of se-rials in Missouri does appear in printed form (under the title MissouriIInion List of Serial Puhlications Representing Holdings of Librarizs in Mis-souri and Adjacent States), it is prepared by means of direct on-line in-put of holdings by participating l ibraries. St. Louis Public Libraryhandles all of the new title verification and entry functions and theother libraries have available to them, at all times, the ability to use thedata base for interlibrary loan purposes.22 Indiana University, with Ti-tle II-C funds and the cooperation of the INCOLSA (Indiana Coop-erative Library Services Authority) network, is developing a union listcapability for OCLC as a foundation for a union list for the state ofIndiana. The capatrility will upgrade the OCLC system with a comPo-nent that will give libraries the ability to maintain union lists of hold-ings on-line. Testing of the component will begin in early 1980, and itis assumed that it will be available for libraries or union listing agen-cies to use during the last quarter of that year.23 Another projectfunded by Title I[-C is that involving the University of California atBerkeley, University of California at Los Angeles, and Stanford,where the grant is to be used to convert serial tides to machine-readable form so that resource-sharing activities will be possible; agrant went, also, to the University of Michigan, Michigan Stace Uni-versity, and Wayne State University for a similar purpose.2a

Because of the rapid proliferation of union list projects, concernw:rs expressed in sorne quarters that a desirable uniformity among theprojects rnight be lacking. A resolution recommending that the Amer-ican Library Association Serials Section cr€ate a committee to study

280 I Library Resources U Technical Senti.ces. Summer 1980

union lists of serials projecrs was presented at the meeting of the sec-tion's Policy and Research Committee in Dallas. [t was suggested thatsuch a committee might assemble data and guidelines which could befollowed by libraries or other agencies creating union lists. Action onthe resolution was deferred.25 The Section on Serials Publications. In-ternational Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), had, mean-while, commissioned the loint UNESCO/IFLA Guidelines for thecompilation of Union Lists of Serials Project with the hope that"guidelines for union lists would contribute to needed standardizationand compatability [sic] of serials control across national boundaries."26A report on this project, given at the IFLA meeting in Copenhagen inAugust, indicated that data were being collected from seventy coun-tries with special attention being given to holdings statements. Samplebibliographies will be studied, focusing on such matters as method ofupdating, physical format, geographic coverage, bibliographic com-pleteness, and policy on changes.

In November, at the invitation of the Office of Education and theCouncil on Library Resources, a group made up of representativesfrom institutions which had received Tide II-C funds, CONSER par-ticipants, representatives from uti l i t ies (OCLC, RLIN, WLN), andothers assembled in Washington for a two-day meeting to discuss theirpresent activities and how these activities might be related toward thebuilding of a "national serials data base." The CONSER project, forexample, began as an attempt to build a bibliographic data base, burthe feeling is now that holdings and location dara are also desirable.The group expressed concern that conversion projects now under way,or projected, follow consistent standards and that records prepared bemade available, in some manner, to all involved in building the as yetincompletely defined "national" data base. A number of recommenda-tions were approved by the group, which considered them as steps tobe taken toward such a data base. At this writing, reports or informa-tion on these recommendations have not been published.

NetroNeL PnnroolceLs CENTER

A number of hearings, forums, and assorted meetings were heldduring 1979 to discuss the question of the creation of a NationalPeriodicals Center. Although the majority opinion seemed to favor theconcept of the center, the majority did not always supporr the detailsof the technical development plan for the cenrer issued by the Councilon Library Resources in 197837 It became clear as a result of themeetings that there was no possibility that the Library of Congresswould run the center as had, at one time, been suggested.28 LC with-drew itself from Eny further consideration on the grounds that therewas no way it could get foundation funding and that it could not pro-vide space without cutting into its own budget.

Toward the end of the year a report of a study, commissioned bythe National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, madeby Arthur D. Little, Inc., indicated that the time for a centralizedNational Periodicals Center "has come-and it also appears to have

Serink / 281

FTNEI- NOTE

1980, 1981, and other years of the decade to see and understand whatreally happened in 1970 in serials.

RErunrucrs

6. Barbara A. Rice, "science Periodicals Use study," The serinls Librarian 4:3b47 (Fall1979).

7. Roger R. l]ynn' "The University of Pittsburgh study of Journal Usage: A summaryReport," The Seriak Librarian 4:25-39 (Fall 1979).

8 Jacqueline A. Maxim, "Periodical Use and collection Development," college 8 Re-search Libraries 40:248-60 (May 1979).

9. Barbara Frick Schloman and Ruth E. Ahl, "Retention periods for Journals in aSmall Academic Library," Special Libraries 70:377=81 (Sept. 1979).

10. Valerie Jackson Feinman, "Dilemmas and consequencis of converting periodicalHoldings to Microformat," The Seriak Librarian +7i-84 (Fall l9Z9).

ll. GloriaJ. zamora and Martha c. Adamson, "Looking Back at the Microfilm Deci-- ̂ liol, Expectations and Experiences," Special Libraries 70:179-81 (April 1979).12. P' w. Lea, "Alternative Methods of Journal Publishing," Aslib proceedings 3l:33-39

(Jan. 1979).13. John_D. Byrum,Jr., and D. Whitney Coe, "AACR as Applied by Research Libraries

for ^Serials Cataloging," Library Resources tl Technicaf 'Seraices

25:l}g46 (Spring1979).

14. Ibid, p.146.15. Frank E. sadowski, Jr., "Initially, we Need Some Definitions: The problems of Ini-

tialisms in Periodical Titles," Library Resources €l Technical Serrices 23:365-73 (Fall1979).

16. "Unique Serial ldentifiers," Catalogtng Seruice Bulletin 5:4-9 (Summer 1979).17. "Reception Marks ISSN/usPS Plan," Library of congress Informntion Bulletin 38:2bG-

5l (uly 6, 1979).18' Judith P. cannan, "Policy and Research committee," Library of congress Information

Bulletin 38:34243 (Aug. 24, 1979).

282 I Librarl Resaurces U Technbal Seruices. Summer 1980

| 9 "Library Announces Publication of CONSER Microfiche," Li,brarl of Cmgress Informa-tion Bullehn 38:19-20 (Jan. 19, 1979).

20. "Benefits of CONSER Project Described," Library of Congress Information Bulletin38:333-34 (Aug. 24, 1979).

21. Sandy E Anderson and Carol A. Melby, "Comparative Analysis of the Quality ofOCLC Serials Cataloging Records, as a Function of Contributing CONSER Partici-pants and Field as Utilizeil by Serials Catalogers at the University of lll inois," TheSeiak Librarian 3:363-7 | (Summer 1979).

22 "Missouri Union List of Serial Publications,"'/outnal of Library Automation 12:182-83gune 1979).

23. "Indiana U. to Build Model OCLC-Based Serials Lisr," Library Journal 104:2AIF32(Oct. I , 1979).

24. "$6 Million in HEW Title II-C Goes to 25 Research Libraries," Libram lournal104:1610-- l l (Sept. I , 1979).

25. Cannan, "Policy and Research Committee," p.342.26. "Concluding Reports on the 45th Congress and Council Meeting of the Internation-

al Federation of Library Associations and Institutions," Librat'v of Congress Informa-hon Bulletin 38:526-28 (Dec. 21, 1979).

27. Nancy H. Knight, "Forum Favors Concept of National Periodicals Center," AmerieanLibraies l0:229-30 (May 1979).

28. Noel Savage, "A National Periodicals Center: The Debate in Arlington," Iibrarl

. lournal 104: l108-15 (May 15, 1979).29. "House Gives Initial Boost to Periodicals Center," Ameiean Libraies 10:509 (Oct.

r 979).

I 283

Micrqruphics,Reprogrcphy, ond GruphicCommunicctions in 1979

Williom Sof'{udy

the decade ahead.The year ended a decade which saw a continuation and refinement

of a trend toward simple equipment operable by nontechnical person-

nel in an office environmenl. During the l970s, copiers'became faster

and more versatile, the customer benefiting from increased competi-tion, improved performance, and lower prices in the plain-paper seg-ment of the mirket. Micrographics equipment vendors sought and

found new markets with small-office-microfilm (SOM) products, which

William Saffady is associate professor, Graduate School of Litrrary and Information

Science. Pratt Institute.

284 | Library Resources A Technital Seruites. Surnmcr 7980

ments, or microform representations of them, would eventually bemade obsolete by on-line systems based on massive amounts of in-creasingly eheaper disk storage. The trend toward the conversion andstorage of information in machine-readable form intensified with therapid acceptance of word-processing systems and the growing interestin electronic mail that characterized the late 1970s.

Rather than competing with this trend toward increasing computer-ization, the reprographics industry has recently begun to identify itselfwith it. A resulting emphasis on the integration of reprographic andcomputer technologies was, thus, the dominant theme in 1979. Theremaining sections of this article survey the year's most significant de-velopments in micrographics, reprography, and graphic communica-tions, emphasizing products, applications, and events of importance tolibraries.

COM AND CAR

During 1979, the integration of micrographics and computer tech-nology manifested itself in two ways: (l) in the design of informationsystems and applications that employed micrographics in combinationwith computers and/or word processing; and (2) in the incorporationof computerlike components, notably microprocessors, within rnicro-graphics equipment.

The continuing popularity of COM is the most obvious and perva-sive example of the attractiveness of a computer/micrographics inter-face. COM technology has matured considerably in the past five years,and the implementation of COM applications is now easily accom-plished and well understood. From the standpoint of COM technolo-gy, 1979 saw an intensification of the trend toward dry-process re-cording as Bell and Howell added a dry silver COM recorder to itsproduct l ine, following the earlier example of 3M and Kodak. Interms of marketing, COM vendors sought the closer identification oftheir products with high-speed, nonimpact paper printers (the IBM3800 and Xerox 9700, for example) which, like dry silver COM re-corders, use laser-beam technology. As an example, Kodak advertise-ments for its KOMSTAR product line, which appeared in 1979 issuesof Datamation and other data-processing periodicals, emphasized thedevice as an impactless laser-printer, with microforms mentionedseemingly incidentally. To gain acceptance for COM in applicationsrequiring both microform and paper output, DatagraphiX, the indus-try leader in the placement of COM recorders, introduced its 9800Laser Printing System, a high-speed, nonimpact paper printer whichcan operate in conjunction with a COM recorder. Similarly, Xerox in-troduced a microfiche subsystem for its Model 9700 Electronic Print-ing System, a high-speed, nonimpact printer.r

In libraries, computer-output-microfilm applications, especially asalternatives to card or printed book catalogs, are now so commonplacethat their implementation is no longer routinely reported in the litera-ture. The few case studies published in 1979 provided further con-firmation of the potential for savings and improved performance in-

Micrographics, Reprograplry, and Graphit Communicatioru I 28b

The year's mosr interesting and innovative article related to COM,however, was a report by Aframe on the.direct conversion of word-

serts it in a reader or other appropriate display device.

286 I Library Resources tl Techniral Sentites' Swnnur 1980

IMT-150 and IMT-250, attracted considerable attention in on-line

CAR applications. They are described in a later s€ction of this article.

While Koa* itself does not offer information retrieval softwar€, th€

IMT units can be used with microform indexing and retrieval pro-

grarns made available through time-sharing- comPuter service trurcaus,

s"uch as I. p. Sharpe. Similaily, Warner-Eddison Associates announced

the availability of i microform and document indexing packa.ge called

INMAGIC which is written in FORTRAN IV for operation on a

cess more extensive index files maintained by a remote computer'

For CAR systems employing fiche, Image Systems.Incorporated in-

rroduced its ISI 2000 and iSt SOOO retrieval units, which are essentially

enhanced versions of the same vendor's earlier CARD system. Up to

If the CAR concept sounds familiar to librarians, the reason is that

it dates from the 1960s when it was used in MIT's Project lntrex. It

lems of space and file integrity. Access to individual patents is con-

trolled by a minicomputer-based turnkey system called Questicon' a

product of Image Syitems Incorporared. The. CAR application that

ittracted the mo"st atiention in t9?9, however, involved the use of mi-

crographics, computers, and video technology to store, retrieve, and

disiminate technical information at the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-

sion. As described by Felton, the system' implemented by the -high-technology firm TERA, features a cornputer-based on-line index, a

Micrographics, Reprography, and Graphit Cotnmunicat'imrs | 287

specially designed microfiche retriever, and a video transmission sys-tem which provides rapid dissemination of document images ro usersat remote CRT terminals.e

Nnw MrcnocRApHrcs Equreunur

Among micrographic products introduced in 1979, several incorpo-rated computer like circuitry in the form of microprocessors designedto function as equipment controllers. Among microfilm cameras forsource document applications, a product group that experiencedsomething of a resurgence in 1979, Bell and Howell introduced a verycompact rotary microfilmer called the Classic. Designed for the re-cording of card- and check-size documents, it is microprocessor con-trolled, as is the Bell and Howell ABR-100, which received several en-hancements in 1979. It remains the only available automatic-feedplanetary microfilmer capable of producing l6mm microfilm. TheCalifornia Technology Group announced its CTG 8000, a micro-processor-controlled step-and-repeat camera that allows users to alter-nate between several microfiche formats with only a simple lenschange. Older step-and-repeat cameras with hardwired controllers re-quired a cermplete replacernent of f i lm movement mechanisms inorder to accomplish format changes.

The Kodak IMT-150 and IMT-250, mentioned briefly above, un-questionably were the most publicized microprocessor-controlled mi-crographics products of 1979. Marketed as "intelligent microfilm ter-minals," the two models are designed for use in computer-assisted re-trieval applications where they can function on-line, in the manner de-scribed earlier. Each of the devices also features a small internal mem-ory capable of storing a group of microform addresses to be sequen-tially accessed within one or more cartridges. It is expected that thetrend toward microprocessor control will continue in 1980, with moreand more micrographics equipment taking advantage of the flexibility,power, and reliability of integrated electronic circuitry.

While the integration of micrographics and compurers was rheyear's dominant theme, 1979 saw the introduction of a number ofother useful micrographics products. Bell and Howell, for example,introduced its Microx updateable microfiche system in the Washingtonand Boston areas. It competes with the System 200 Record Processormarketed by A. B. Dick Systems (formerly A. B. Dicldscott), but is de-signed for somewhat smaller applications and is, consequently, lowerpriced. A unique feature of the Microx sysrem is that the film used tocreate fiche is not only updateable but erasable as well.

As a remedy for problems of cartridge incompatibil i ty, Kodakannounced its Ektamate-A cartridge which conforms to the standarddeveloped jointly in 1977 by the National Micrographics Association(NMA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) but notpreviously observed. It is designed for use in Kodak Srarvue and Ora-cle readers and reader/printers. Tuscan Industries introduced a dualcartridge suitable for use with both Kodak and 3M readerlprinters.Newly introduced microfiche readers demonstrated a continuation of

288 I Library Resources €l Technical Seruices' Summer 1980

introduced large-screen, dual-page fiche readers. MAP InternationalMicrofilm introduced two automatic fiche readers that display the in-

for Documentation issued four reports dealing with microform read-ers and reader/printers.r2 The National Micrographics Associationpublished an updated version of its Guide to Micrographics Equipment, in

i.wo volumes initead of three.r3 Microform Review, Incorporated, pub-Iished the 19?9-80 edition of The International File of MicrographicsEquipment and Accessorie-s, a compilation of the entire texts of vendorcataiogs on fiche with access provided by a series of printed indexes'ra

MTcnopUgLISHING

Two articles by Adamson and Zamota confirmed the eventualacceptance of micropublications by users in ,a government technicallibraiy,rs while Harlan and Johnson examined micropublish-in^g within

the context of a discussion of innovative publishing trends.16 On a less

Micrographics, Reprograph,y, anl Graphic Communicatiorc / 2g9

million cards in the Library of congress Shelflist. The ser, which canbe purchased complete or in classificition segments, is accompanied bya printed guide. Meckler Books, a Microforir Review-associited com-pany, introduced its- Publishers' Catalogs Anru.tal, a compilation of thecatalogs of u.S. publishers on 24x microfiche that extends biblio-graphic control to many publishers not covered in the prLA or other

program provided COM-generated l istings of foundation grants infi fty-nine subject categories.

catalog- cards bearing Library of congress subject headings. Govern-ment documents l ibrarians, concerned about-bibliograp[ic contror,asked the .public p^rinter to -provide srandardized plaiement of filingindicators in microfiche heading areas.

O.IHTR MICROGRAPHICS DEVELOPMENTS

In the area of standards, the National Micrographics Associationestablished a Library Standards committee with carl Spaulding aschairperson. As the name implies, the committee will deal with varli,ous

29O I Library Resources tl Technical Serui'ces' Summer 1980

aspects of microform standardization for library applications. JeffreyHeynen, current chair of the RTSD Reproduction of I jbrary M1!9-rials Section, was appointed to the NMA Standards Board. The PublicRecords and Archives Committee of the National Micrographics Asso-ciation is reportedly working on standards for the microfilming ofpublic records. American national standards issued in 1979 includePIJL.+Z-t979, Storage; PHl .5 l -1979, F i lm Dimensions; and PHl .60-1979, Diazo Stability. The NMA combined two of its most useful rec-ommended practice publications into a single publication entit ledPractice for Operational Proceduresllnspection and Quality Control of First-Generation Silaer Gelatin Miuoli lm of Documenls (NMA MS23-1979).NMA MS22-1979, Practice for Uniform Product Disclosure for UnitizedMicroform Readers, attempts to assist purchasers by prescribing the im-portant descriptive information to appear on specification sheets forsuch products. These and other NMA and ANSI standards can beobtained from the National Micrographics Association, 8719 ColesvilleRoad, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

The acceptance of microforms as legal substitutes for paper docu-ments is the subject of The Legality of Microflm.2a Prepared by Robert

croform Review and held in Boston. Attendance was likewise up inmicrographics seminars of fered by the Cont inuing Engineer ingEducation Division of the George Washington University, the NMAInstitute, the Records Management Institute of the American Uni-versity, the American Management Association, and others.

PHoToCoPYING

velopments in 1979. A Predicasts study indicated that copiers ratherthan duplicators will offer the best prospects for market growth in the1980s, as xerographic-type plain-paper equipment erodes the marketshare of offsef presses.2T In 1979, the most interesting new productswere designed for relatively low-volume applications where Japanese-manufactured plain-paper copiers gained increased acceptance byusers seeking a combination of low cost, high quality, and compact

Micrographics, Reprography, and Graphi.c Communications I 2gl

emphasize previously introduced equipment with accessories (sorters,staplers, and feeders) designed to speed work throughput and reducelabor.

I trl]-gt-t-tcrNT CopIERS

utor is _perhaps a better representative of this emerging productgroup._Introduced in 1979, it can reproduce either paper documentsor machine-readable output from computers or word-piocessors. Simi-lar products from other vendors are eipected in 1980.

IMAcE TneNsttrssroN

The late 1970s were characterized by a growing interesr in elec-tronic alternatives to conventional message dtlivery services. It is ex-pected that this so-called "elecrronic mail" wil l be the information-

292 I Library Resources U Technical Senices' Summer 1980

based in that they send a reproduction of a document to a designated

remote location electronically'Facsimile and related image-oriented transmission technologies were

the subject of Daniel M. Costigan's Electronic D,eliuery of Documents and

Graphii, a revision of the saire author's l97l monograph entitled

FAX-The Principles and Practice of Facsimile Communication.2e Among

equipment vendors, the emphasis was on speed of operation as Xerox,q*ip. Telautograph, and others introduced machines. capable of two-

t6 t6ree-minutE transmission rather than the four to six minutes char-

acteristic of the equipment which dominated the facsimile market in

the mid-1970s. tTT^introduced its FAXPAK service as a facsimile

communication network alternative to the conventional telephone net-

work. FAXPAK rates are, in mosr cases, lower than their Bell System

counterparts and the network itself resolves incompatibilities among

the equipment of the various manufacturers. Compression I aborator-

ies announced a device which would allow facsimile terminals to inter-

face with TWX, Telex, and communicating word-processing terminals,

thus providing an important link between the keyboard- and^ image-

orienied electionic miil syste-s. In the still uncertain area of micro-

facsimile, Planning Research Corporation announced additional en-

hancemenrs for its-Telefiche system, which was introduced in 1978.

CoNcI-ustoN

In retrospect, 1979 probably will be viewed al the first year of the

1980s in reprographic-ielated activities. Early 1980 product announce-

menrs confiimJd i continuation of the trend toward the integration of

micrographics, reprography, and facsimile with compgters and word-

pro..iri.tg technoiogy". As ihe year ended, the National Micrographics

Associatioir a.tnonnC-ed plans for a conference on Integrated Informa-

tion Sysrems to be held in washington in the fall of 1980. The year

1979 iaw the clear emergence of-what is l ikely to prove to be the

dominant information-pro-essing theme of the next decade.

REFERENCES

1. One of the best sources of information about new micrographics and related in-

formation-processing products is the various issues of Micrographics Toda1, the news-

letter publiihed by the National Micrographlcs Association.

2. David'Hines, "Liiliputian Library Catatogs and Information Retrieval," Journal of

Micrographics 12:317 -21 (July-Aug. 1979).3. Doneil j. Gaerrner, "Froim bardJ to Microfilm," Journal of Micrographics 12:265-8

(March-April 1979).4. ilrian Aveney and Mary Fischer Ghikas, "600 Users Meet the COM Catalog," Amer-

ican Libraries l0:82-83 (Feb. 1979)'5 Steven S. Chwe, "A Study of Data Elements for the coM catalog," Journal of

Libran Automation 12:94-97 (March 1979).

Joe A. Hewitt and David E. Gleim, "Adopting AACR 2: The case for Not closing

the Catalog," American Libraies l0:l l8-21 (March 1979).

Deborah S].Aframe, "The Congressional Research Service: A Case Study," Journalof Micrographics 12:371-75 guly-Aug. 1979); A. S. Linden, "congressional Research

Retrieva"l iombines Movabli Vi/P Microfiche from Output," Data Management 17:14(Nov. 1979).

6

7

8.

9.

10 .I l .t2.

Micrographics, Reprography, and Graphic Communications I 2gZ

Patricia M. McDonnell, 'Patentability Searching Using CCMSS," Journnl of Mirro-

graphi ts l3: I l -15 (Oct . 1979;.

Daniel M.-Costigan, .ed., Gutde to Micrographics Equipment,2v. (Silver Spring, Md.:

National Micrographics Association, | 979).william Saffady. ed., Intcrnational File of Mirrographics Equipment and Arcessories(Westport, Conn.: Microform Review, 1979).

*Community College Libraries Polled on Materials Budgets,', Coltege €l Research

Libraries News 40:298 (Nov. 1979).Publuheri Catalogs Annual (Westport, Conn.: Meckler Books, 1979).Brituh and European Publishers' Catalogs Ann,al (Westport, Conn.: Meckler Books,1979).Curtis A. Finch, George A. Copa, and Joel Magisos, .,Impact of a Microfiche Re-search Journal ," Journal of Micrographics 12:213_18 (March-April I979).Edward C. Carroll, "Bibliographic Control of Microforms' lvhe.e Do We Go fromHere?" Microform Reuiew 7:321-26 (Dec. 1978).Ann Vandenburgh, "Inventory of Microform Cenrers on a Maior Universitv Cam-pus," Microform Reaieu 7:317-20 (Dec. 1978).Thomas J. Mann, "A System for Processing and Shelving Works of Mixed MediaFor.mat." Library Resources Ld Teehniral S?rai(i 2Z:16Z-67 (Spring 1979).Robert F. Williams, ed.,

'lhe Legality of Microfihn (Chicafo: dohassett Assocrares,

1979 ) .Admissibility in Euidence of Microfilm Records (Rochester, N.y.: Easrman Kodak, l97l).

J:=p! Z Nitecki, "Reprographic Services in American Libraries," Lihrary ResourcesU Techniral Scraices 23:.407-21 (Winter lgTg).'Copier

Sales Gain over Duplicators," Reproductions Reaiew and Method^s 29:16 (Sept.1979 ) ."LC Inaugurates CARDS," Ameriean Libraries l0:49 (Jan. l97g).Daniel M. Costigan, Electronic Deliaery of Documeni and Craphics (New york: VanNostrand Reinhold, 1978); Costigan, FAX-The Principles and practice of FacsimileCommunication (New York: Chilton Books, l97l).

1 6 .

t 7 .

13 .

t4.

1 5 .

18 .19 .

20.

2 t .

22.

23.

24.

25.26.

27.

28.29.

Edfior, LRTS

11415 Faxmland Drive

Foclcville, MD 20852

From: Mary K. Pietris, chief, subject cataloging Diuision, Library of congrerr.-In

the article "Treatment of eeople and Peoples in Subject Analysis" by- JessicaHarris and Doris Clack in the-Fall 1979 LRTS (23:37.t-390), the reader may

conducted.These defects should not detract from the basic usefulness of a study that

Editor 's Note: Let ters sent to the edi tor for publ icat ion in th is journal cannot be

".[nl*f.dg.a, answered individually, or.eturned to the authors. Letters may be edited

for clarity "or

abridged to.uu..pa.e. Selected letters will be.published whenever space is

available in an issue.

Letters / 295

make a saa reference, we may provide a temporary explanatory note such as:"This heading has been replaced by the heiding . . . ," o. "this heading hasbeen _replaced by the heading . . . , a heading not printed because it uses afree-floating subdivision," or similar notes. These notes are retained in the

changes for the current quarter only. Cancellations are carried in the list for afull year.

Finally, an announcemenr appeared in the Spring l97g Cataloging SenticeBulletin (4:ll-13), which was nor yet available when Presron wrote hii arricle,

In spite of the errors in describing LC policies and pracrices, Preston's basicthesis-that it is not only desirable but also possible to prepare for coping withsubject heading changes-remains valid.

From: Hans H. Wellisch, associate professor, College of Library and Information Ser-uices, Uniuersity of Maryland.-ln her article "The Essentials or Desiderata ofthe Bibliographic Record as Discovered by Research" (Library Resources €lTechnical Seruices 23, Fall 1979) Weintraub srates: "The differences berweenthese types of system [LC subject headings and PRECIS] are well known, butthere are no studies that relate these differences to the needs of catalog users(p.a0l)." For the benefit of the readers of this journal I wish to draw arrenrionto the large-scale comparative study undertaken at the University of Wollon-

296 I Library Resources A Technical Seraices' Summer 1980

From: Herbert H. Hoffman, catalog librarian, Santa Ana College. [Abr!dg^ed]' -In "False Economy; oi, Subotug. lt the Catalog!" (Winter 1980- [24:69-70])Elisabeth Norie deplores unnecessary changes advocated by enthusiasts who

deed an act of sabotage.But what else should the card catalog do: tell readers "which works by a

particular author" the library has (Paris Principles, 2.2'a)^? If that.is truly one

bf i$ p,rrpores, rhen I think all catalogs have failed so far. For they list only

books. . . .

catalog. . . .

| 297

IN MEMORIAM:WYLLIS E. WRIGHT, I9O'-1979

It is with deep regret that members of the Resources and TechnicalServices Division take note of the death on October 2, 1979, in PortolaValley, Califotnia, of Wyllis E. Wright, one of the most versatile andmost talented individuals ever to grace our profession.

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Williams College in philosophy andGreek, with a degree also from the Columbia University School of Li-brary Service, Wright was, at various times in his career, librarian of theAmerican Academy in Rome, cataloger, chief classifier, and chief catalog-er at the New York Public Library, librarian of the Army Medical Li-brary, librarian of Williams College, and, following his official retirementfrom Williams, rare books cataloger at Stanford University.

Throughout his career Bill was involved intensively in numerous ex-tracurricular activities; among the titles he held were secretary of theAmerican Book Center for War-Devastated Libraries. chairman of the

Joint Committee on rhe Union Lkt of Seriak, chairman of the DecimalClassification Editorial Policy Committee, U.S. delegate to the Interna-tional Conference on Cataloguing Principles, chairman of the CatalogCode Revision Committee, president of the ALA Division of Catalogingand Classification (one of the forerunners of RTSD), president of theAssociation of College and Research Libraries, president of the NewYork Library Club, chairman of the Council of National Library Asso-ciations, and trustee of the Williamstown Public Library.

Wright translated the Vatican cataloging rules and edited various pub-fications, including the Catalogers' and, Ckusifiers' Yearbook and the BoukerAnnu,al.

Recognit ion for his professional accomplishments came to Bi l l inmany forms, including the Melvil Dewey Medal for creative professionalachievement and the Margaret Mann Citation.

Bill was a warm and friendly person with a pervasive sense of humor,who had thousands of friends, but never an enemy. He was a man whoknew how to get people to work together; it was, in fact, a delight towatch him chair a meeting and keep in line its sometimes unruly partici-pants. He could sum up in a few brief sentences the substance of a longand complicated discussion or exposit ion and make i t clear exactlywhither a debate was heading.

If the author of these lines may interject a personal note here, he willalways remember Bill as mentor and guide, beginning in New York inthe early 1930s, to a green and innocent neophyte in whom, apparently,he detected promise. Bill encouraged and cajoled, and made catalogingand classification so exciting that this young librarian never forsookthem. Not quite old enough to be a father, Bill was for nearly fifty yearsan inspiring old brother.

Of the profession of librarianship he was more than an individual; hewas a compendious human multitude.

Benjamin A. CusterEditor EmeritusDewev Decimal Classification

IN MEMORIAM: CAROLYN SMALL

It should not surprise Carolyn Small's friends in RTSD to know thatshe was a t work the day be fore she d ied on September 18 , 1979.Although her struggle against cancer had forced her resignation fromthe Descript ive Cataloging Commitree the previous summer, she hadcontinued her work at Yale, treating the disease as a minor irr i tant thatinterfered with her teaching. revisin!, and planning for the future.

Building on her undergraduate degree from the University of Maineand library degrees from Simmons and Michigan, Carolyn began hercareer at the University of Washington and conrinued ar the MidwesrLibrary Center, where she advanced to become assistant head. Themove to Yale followed, where she was a very effective head of descrip-tive cataloging.

Carolyn's contr ibutions to the work of RTSD included service as amember of the RTSD Nominating Commirtee, 1969-70, the CCS Ex-ecutive Committee, 1972-75, and the CCS Descriptive Cataloging Com-mittee, f i rst in 1966-6U and again from 1975 to 1979.

In the memorial service conducted bv her fr iends at Yale, she was de-scribed as a prolessional 's prof lessionai. alrvavs mainraining the higheststandards for herself 'and for those who worked with her. We shal l missher wisdom, laced with the common sense and pracrical iry of her Maineheritage.

Frances B. WoodsCatalog LibrarianYale Law School

THE FOURBIBLIOGRAPHIC

UTILITIES:A Gomparison

by Joseph R. Matthews

A 97-page report with 77 Pages ofappendices which include copies ofthe current contracts and price l ists

ln Library TechnologY ReqortsNovernber/ December 1 979Volume 15 Number 6

Single issue price $40.00

Library Technology RePortsAmerican Library Association50 Ea3l Huron Street, Chicago, lL 60611

Faxon makesthe difference.Faxon offers access to more than100,000 t i t les through three renewalserv ices and s ix o rder ing p lans , w i thone yearly invoice and a ful l range ofvaluable subscript ion services, ena-b l inq ser ia ls l ib ra r ians th roughoutthe

-world to operate their depart-

ments with eff iciency and economy.Faxon combines the computerizedservices l ibrarians need with thepersona l ized a t ten t ion l ib ra r iansappreciateWrite or cal l Faxon todaY for ourL IBRARIANS' GUIDE and SERVICEBROCHURE

Library buslness is our only busi/less- s ince 1881.

f.ltf. Fnxon c0mPRnT, nc.Library Magazine Subscription Agency

15 Southwest Park. Westwood, Massachusetts 02090Tel : 800'225-6055 (toll{ree)

617'329-3350 (collect in Mass and Canada only)

A Style Manual for CitingMicroform and Nonprint MediaEuB€ne B. Fle ischer

This manual orovides, for the f i rs t t ime, asty le for c i tat ions of a l l the nonpr intmedia l t is designed to be a companionto such works as Campbel l 's Form andSty I e : T heses, Reports, T e r m P ape rs ; T heMLA Stvle Sheet lor Reports and lheses;and Turabian's A Manual for Wri ters otT e r m Pape rs, T heses and D i sse rtations.I t inc ludes models and ru les for c i tat ionsoi the fu l l range of nonpr int media-micropubl icat ions and nonpr int per iodi-cals, charts, f i lmstr ips, g lobes, k i ts , maps,microscope s l ides, models, mot ion pic-tures, real ia, sound recordings, and v ideorecordings Br ief and complete forms arefurnished wi th many examples arrangedfor convenient reference.74 pages Paper LC78-9375rSBN 0-8389-0268-s (1978) $4 50

Order DepartmentAmerican Library Association50 East Huron StreetChicago, l l l inois 60611

Some Thin g s

You Can

Count On,.. . . .. Inadequate book budget. Priority orders. Books wanted "Yesterday". THE BOOK HOUSE

Cal l 517-849-2117 Col lectr If,neBOOITHOUSEs tNcE 1962JOEBERS SERVING L IBRARIESWITH ANY BOOK IN PRINT208 WEST CHICAGO STREETJONESVILLE MICHIGAN 49250

International, Inc.66 Austin Boulevard,Commack, New York 11725Toll-free Watts line:(8OO) 645-5237

Firm orderservices

Rush/ReserveDepartment

University PressDivision

Comprehensiveand CustomizedApprovalPrograms

Continuation/Standing OrderServices

RECIONAL OFFICES: Atlanta, CA,La Jo l la . CA

Now duplicate thousands of copies in full color atincredibly low cost. With a pushbutton Roneo Vic-kers duplicating system, you can reach morepeople more effectively, and get more response!

Mail this couDon for free booklet:"How to Duplicate in Color"

IfElll . , !The Most Authoritative,Comptehensive Work Available onSeridls ln The LibraryA Major New BookBy Clara D Brown& Lynn S Smith

$EIIf,I.S:PAST, PNESEIIT IIIII FIITUNEThis new book rs a heavrly revised, much enlarqed and motecohprehensrve edition ol Mrs. Brown's firsl widely renownedbook, SERIALS: ACQT ISITION & MAINTENANCE.

SERIALS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTT RE soes rar beyond rhefrrct edition in both deplh aad scope. Ir was wrjrten lor use as

I A text {or studen(s in ljbrad science2 A Euide Ior the beqinner u lhe ser:als held3 A dqnuql lor the serials libraridn4 A book needed by every library

Order today for $19 50 (plus g s0 U S or $l O0 etsewhele lorposldqe & handlinq)Note: Deducl $I 00 rl payment sent with order

EBSCO PRESSAtrn: J WeedP O Box 1943Birhinqhdn, AL 35201

BOOKRTWEWDIGESTAddition of 32 Perindicals PrwidesBroadn Scope Deepr C,oaerage

During the past year, the Company, with thehelp of an advisory cornmittee of librarians,completed a study of. Book Review Digest.

Beginriing with the i\Iarch 1980 issue, BooAReuiew Digest now provides new and addi-tional coverage, especially in the fields of his-tory, busincss, labor, management, and science. Black studies, particularly historical as-pects, and comparative literature, due to theaddition of. World. Literature Tod,ay, also re-ceive increased attention.

The following review media in the fields ofchildren's and young aduk literature havealso just been added: Appraisal, Bulletin olthe Center lor Child,ren's Books, CanadianfuIateriak (Canada) , Grouing Point (GteatBritain) , In Reuiew (Canada) , InterracialBoohs lor Children Bulletin, Science Booksand Films, and Voice ol Youth Aduocates.

The termination of the requirement thatCanadian books be distributed in the UnitedStates as a qualification for listing, and theaddition of Books in Canad,a, and Quill lc

Quire wlll result in increased Canadian list-rngs.

The requirement of four reviews for a workof fiction in children's and young adult books

All permanent bound cumulations are in print:

1905-L924 (20 vols.) each vol. $25 U.S. and Can.; $80 foreign

1925-1959 (38 vols.) each vol. $45 U.S. and Can.; $50 foreign

1960-1969 (10 vols.) each vol $60 U.S. and Can.; $65 foreign

1970-1979 annuals are sold on the service basis.

THE H. W. WILSON COMPAI{Y950 University Avenue, Bronx, N. Y. lO+52

has been reduced to three; these can be quick-ly accessed through the Subject and TitleIndex undcr the headings Children's litera-ture, and Young adult literature, Adult fictiontitles continue to require four reviews to beincluded.

Booh Reaiew Digbst now covers current fic-tion and nonfiction appearing in 83 journals

(18 journals were deleted) . Reviews of approximately 6,000 books, a year are included'Each book is entered by author (or title, ifappropriate), with price, publisher, year ofpublication, descriptive note, citations for allreviews, ISBN's when available, and excerptsfrom as many reviews as are necessary to re-flect the balance of critical opinion. These list-ings are followed by Subject and Title Index.

Assisting the Company in the study ol BookReaiew Digest was an advisory committee con-sisting of Rjchard K. Gardner, Chairman,Patricia K. Ballou, David G. Cook, Robert W.Evans, Jane Richter, Patricia Simon, andlVlargaret A. Stervart.

Book Reuiew Digest is published montlfy,except February and July, with quarterly andpermanent bound annual cumulations. Writefor your service basis rate today.

DANA LINDSEY

SHELLEY HELLMANN

"20 Years of Service toCollege and University Libraries"

MIDWEST LIBRARY SERVICE11443 St. Charles Rock RoadBridgeton, Mo. 63044

MEET4OF THE NICE TPROBLET.SqYERS H THE ENflREBOq( roBBrNG Brr$ilESS!

PHYLLIS HUTCHISON

LINDA MARKET

Phyllis and Dana, Linda and Shelley are Midwest Library Service's Personal CustomerService Representatives who are specially trained to solve any book ordering problem yourIibrary may encounter. They are thoroughly knowledgeable in every facet of the libraryjobber business, and if you are ever in need of their services, they can be reached by usingour TOLL-FREE WATS line, 1-800-325-8833 (Missouri customers please call COLLECT:0-314-739-3100). Once you call, your own Customer Service Representative will followthe problem through to a satisfactory conclusion-without delay. Remember, Phyllis andDana, Linda and Shelley are working for you and your library. It's all part of MidwestLibraryService'straditionof exce-Il-enlce.

A practical, step-by-step guideto the Anglo-AmericanCataloguing Rules, 2d Edition

Handbook forAACR2MARGARET MAXWELL

Designed as a companion to AACR2, this new work will as-sist library school students and experienced catalogers in gain-

ing a clearer understanding of how to apply the most com-monly used rules for description, choice of access points, and

form of heading as set forth in the Anglo-Amertcan Catalogu-ing Rules,2dEdition.

The Handbook is easy to use since it follows the now

familiar structure of AACR2. The organization also has im-mediacy in its numbering of paragraphs to correspond withspecific rules of the code. Explanation and commentary,together with full cataloging examples, are keyed to the brief

statements given by AACR2.Rules are elaborated in three ways. First, each chapter

highlights basic directions and shows departures from AACRIas well as relationships to other rules. Second, the rules are

presented more succinctly for better understanding. Third, for

almost every rule, a copy of a title page is given to show how

the rule is applied in actual practice.

544 pages Paper ISBN 0-8389'0301'0 $20.00

Order Department

AMERIC AN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION50 East Huron Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611

Place your subscription needsin the hands of the "Pros"

Library Service SpecraLsts Since 1933

o All domestic and foreign titles o Prepaid subscriptionso Title research o Automatic renewalo Single billing o Personalcustomeraccountrepresentatives

Phone 815/734-4171 or write for free service brochure.

McGreg0r Magazine Agency Mounr Morris, rL 61054

Organizedocuments, prints, clippings, magaines,

photos. Highsmith's expanded selection of Shelf-t i lss let you save spaco, save time searching forloose materials Styles and sizes lo suit any need;guaranteed quality for long use Among thethousands ot items tor l ibraries, schools, officss inths newest Highsmith catalog Send for your ownfree copy

HJghsmlthP O 2 5 1 R 9Ft Atkinson, Wl 53536

INTRODUCING...

SERVICE COMMUNICATIONSWITH. . .

EBSIDNETEBSCO Subsc r ip t i on Serv i ces has a lways been

commi t ted , t h rough i t s ne twork o f reg iona l o f f i ces , t o p ro -v ide the mos t respons i ve se rv i ce and the mos t f l ex ib lecapab i l i t i es . Th i s ab i l i t y t o p rov ide pe rsona l i zed se rv i cehas now been enhanced .

EBSCONET i s t he on l y na t i onw ide da ta commun ica -t i ons ne twork i n t he subsc r ip t i on agency bus iness .

Now se rv ing you th rough an on - l i ne re la t i onsh ipw i th EBSCO's cen t ra l compu te r . . .EBSCONET can reachr igh t i n to you r l i b ra ry . . .Con tac t EBSCO SUBSCRIPTIONSERVICES To d i scuss on - l i ne o rde rs and c la im t ransmis -s ion f rom you r l i b ra ry . . .More to come.

EBSGO SUBSGRTPTTON SER\ 'TGES

INSTANT OtrDEFS,CLAIMS AND OTHEtr

P O. Box 2543 Ei rmingham, 4L35202 (205\ 252-9010 Telex: 5-9717