Problems of applying telefacsimile equipment to library purposes include lack of suitability of the equipment (the hardware is designed for business, not library, functions), high cost, and most librarians' lack of understanding of the nature and extent of the need for such a service. Prospects for improvement include new technical developments, such as improving quality and availability of connecting telephone and other lines, more effective scanners and viewers, development of a scanner to copy directly from bound volumes; and the evidence of feasibility provided by the working and growing telefacsimile system connecting the campuses of Pennsylvania State University.
After preliminary preparations for changing to EC, Bowling Green decided against it for the following reasons; (1) productivity per cataloger and per FTF cataloging staff member using Dewey did not appear to differ significantly from productivity in some libraries using LC; (2) theoretical savings through use of LC would be more than offset by costs of minimal reclassification; (3) computer costs for the automated circulation system would be doubled until such time as all books in active circulation were converted to LC; (4) public services departments would experience added difficulties in locating books and orienting users.
Subject headings requiring indirect subdivision by place were extracted from the seventh edition of the Library of Congress subject heading list. These headings were categorized into subject groups, and the determination was made of the most prevalent areas in which indirect subdivision was used. In a second part of the study the extracted headings were compared to a list published by the Library of Congress in 1935 for any possible changes that had occurred in the form of the subject heading or in the type of local subdivision employed.
The use of microtexts in libraries indicates a departure from the initial interest in microf arms as means for the preservation of records only. Consequent expansion of unclassified microform collections makes them increasingly cumbersome. The importance of micro forms as primary material requires full bibliographic description, the variation in their physical format necessitates separate storage facilities, while the arrangement of individual items by broad subjects makes the collection more accessible to the user. This paper describes a method of classifying and cataloging the microform collection in a modern university library.
Because of multiple contents and various information points of entry, the classification of phonorecords presents particular problems. Solutions should be reached with the patron's orientation in printary consideration, reinforced with thoughts on internal control. No approach to classification has yet been standardized. This article explores various techniques and their advantages and shortcomings. Indiana University has selected its own code, representing the composer initially, then the medium and specific work. This is essentially a counterpart on the shelves of the main entry in the card catalog.
Several methods of organizing sound recordings have been reported in the library literature. The Library of Congress, as well as others, carries out descriptive cataloging of phonorecords after the manner of books. On the other hand, no attempt to classify phonorecords is made by the Library of Congress. A variety of classification, schemes, however, have been reported in the literature incorporating varying levels of complexity. This paper describes a simple notation scheme for identifying and retrieving spoken phonorecords which have been fully cataloged according to the Anglo-American cataloging rules. It is also pointed out that spoken phonorecords can be described in the same manner as the book form of a document whereas music phonorecords usually demand complete analysis of contents.
A procedure is given for determining the optimum allocation of available man hours among the various functional subunits of any given technical processing division so as to minimize the time required for a volume to be processed. Cost implications are also discussed.
Results of a survey of processing arrearages in American and Canadian university libraries is reported. Seventy-eight percent of responding libraries now have arrearages significant enough to require special procedures for handling and locating monographs in that status. Various methods of selecting books for arrearage treatment, shelving them, listing them in catalogues or finding lists, circulating them, and selecting them for final cataloguing are compared. The future of arrearages and alternatives to arrearage treatment are discussed.
When the cataloguing costs more than the books themselves, there is certainly some ground for inquiry. But this same public that clamors at the cost of good catalogues, clamors even more if it is not furnished with them. So the problem is how to make these catalogues at a less cost, and to stop making them will be no solution. At the present time, if a specially valuable book is published, it finds its way to at least a thousand different libraries, in all of which it must be catalogued. One of the highest salaried officers of each of these thousand libraries must take this book and examine it for the scores of points that only a cataloguer can appreciate the necessity of looking up. Then the title must be copied and revised. Perhaps a half day is spent in preparing a satisfactory note to append for the benefit of the readers, etc.. etc. And all this work is repeated to a certain extent in each of the thousand libraries! Can librarians complain if practical businessmen call this sheer extravagance?