ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Continuing Education Opportunities

The following continuing education activities have been listed with ACRL’s Continuing Education Clearinghouse. If your organization is sponsoring an activity that you think may be of interest to ACRL members, please send the pertinent details to the ACRL Office, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611.

January

17-19—Video: “Video Production Techniques,” workshop, Drexel University. Fee: $110. Contact: Director, Office of Continuing Professional Education, Drexel University, 32d and Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19104; (215) 895-2153.

February

8—-Environment: Environmental Information Resources, workshop, Drexel University. Fee: $55.

Contact: Director, Office of Continuing Professional Education, Drexel University, 32d and Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19104; (215) 895-2153.

20-22—Management: Management Skills Workshop for Librarians, Successful Library Management Associates, Travel Lodge Tower at Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Fee: $175/Group $150.

Contact: Successful Library Management Associates, P.O. Box 488, Grayslake, IL 60030; (312) 866-8073.

22, 28: March 7, 14—Accounting: Accounting for Librarians Institute, Rosary College Graduate School of Library Science, River Forest, Illinois. Fee: $100.

Contact: Continuing Education Programs, Rosary College Graduate School of Library Science, River Forest, IL 60305.

27-March 1—Statistics: “Statistical Methods for Professional Librarians,” workshop, University of Minnesota Department of Conferences; location: Louisiana State University, Graduate School of Library Science, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Contact: John S. Vollum, Program Director, Department of Conferences, 222 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Dr., SE, University of Minnesota, MN 55455; (612) 373-3157.

March

7—Library Instruction: “Advanced Techniques in Teaching the Library User,” workshop, Drexel University. Fee: $55.

Contact: Director, Office of Continuing Professional Education, Drexel University, 32d and Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19104; (215) 895-2153.

7-9—Statistics: “Statistical Methods for Professional Librarians,” workshop, University of Minnesota Department of Conferences; location: University of Alabama, School of Library Service, University, Alabama.

Contact: see Statistics, February 27.

21—Classification: Dewey Nineteenth Edition, Rosary College Graduate School of Library Science, River Forest, Illinois.

Contact: Continuing Education Programs, Rosary College Graduate School of Library Science, River Forest, IL 60305.

April

18—Alternative Press: Alternative or Small Press Publications Collection Development, seminar. Alternative Acquisitions Project, Temple University Library and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Contact: Alternative Acquisitions Project, Temple University Library, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

18, 25; May 2, 9—Automation: Library Automation Institute, Rosary College Graduate School of Library Science, River Forest, Illinois. Fee: $125.

Contact: Continuing Education Programs, Rosary College Graduate School of Library Science, River Forest, IL 60305.

19—Bibliographic Instruction: “Teaching Bibliographic Research Skills,” workshop, University of Wisconsin-Parkside Library/Learning Center, Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Contact: Jim Nelson, University of Wisconsin-Extension Communication Programs, 610 Langdon St., Madison, WI 53706; (608) 262- 3566.

21-22—AACR 2: Maine Conference on AACR 2, workshop, Chase Hall, Bates College Library, Lewiston, Maine.

Contact: Mary E. Dudman, Bates College Library, Lewiston, ME 04240; (207) 784-2949.

May

2—Alternative Press: Alternative or Small Press Publications Collection Development, seminar. Alternative Acquisitions Project, Temple University Library and the Library School, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Location: Madison, Wisconson.

Contact: Alternative Acquisitions Project, Temple University Library, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

August

23-September 23—Travel: Fifth International Traveling Summer School, Association of Assistant Librarians, Tour of Libraries: Edinburgh-York Area-Bath-London. Fee: £450 (subject to change).

Contact: John Faughey, Department of Librarianship, Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic, Northumberland Building, St. Mary’s Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, England. ■■

Retired Librarian of Congress, L. Quincy Mumford answers librarians’ questions about the new

CUMULATIVE TITLE INDEX TO THE CLASSIFIED COLLECTIONS OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 1978

the unique 132 volume, single-alphabet listing of virtually every work classified by LC since 1897.

Background:Librarians have been asking penetrating questions about the Cumulative Title Index to the Classified Collections of the Library of Congress (TLC) ever since it was first announced. We distilled what we believed to be the most significant of these questions and discussed them with retired Librarian of Congress Dr. L. Quincy Mumford, whose 21 year regime (1954-1974) witnessed such relevant landmarks as the beginning of MARC and the introduction of the Shared Cataloging Program. Here are some of the questions and his answers.

Carrollton:Dr. Mumford, just why is title access so important?

Mumford:Well, in the case of the Title Index to the LC Collections, its greatest value probably lies in its most obvious use. When only titles are known to a searcher, TLC will show: authors’ names (and the years of publication), which lead to National Union Catalog entries; precise LC Classification Numbers, which lead to specific card images on the LC Shelf list microforms, and LC Card Numbers for ordering from the Cataloging Distribution Service. In the case of the Shelf list, of course, searches for the precise Class Number should be made in TLC even if the author is known as well as the title. In addition to this primary use, I should like to comment on the recent trend by acquisitions departments to set up their records by title in order to enjoy faster and more precise access than is provided in main entry catalogs (especially when corporate authors and other problem authors are involved).

The Catalog Management Division of the Library of Congress converted its own Process Information File from a main entry to title arrangement about eight years ago, and I understand that their searching efficiency increased substantially after that change.

In short, librarians have long needed a definitive, single- alphabet title index to the Library’s huge retrospective collection of the world’s literature, and there is no doubt in my mind that this 132 volume set is going to fill that need.

Carrollton:Now that we’ve established the importance of title access, let's explore just how many and what kinds of titles are in the Classified Collections.

Mumford:Essentially, these contain all of the materials (both monographs and serials) which have ever been cataloged and classified by the Library of Congress since the adoption of its Classification System in 1897. As of January 1979, these totaled approximately 6.5 million titles. About one million (or 18 percent) of these records are included in the MARC (MAchine Readable Catalog) data base which was established in 1968.

Carrollton:In view of the fact that access to the MARC data base is already available to libraries in a wide variety of segments and formats — and as it amounts to only one-sixth of the Library's collection — would you describe for us just what records make up the non-MARC portion of TLC?

Mumford:Yes. The more than 5¹/₂ million non-MARC entries in TLC will include the following:

— English Language works cataloged before 1968,

— French Language works cataloged before 1973,

— German, Spanish and Portugese Language works cataloged before 1975,

— Materials in the other Roman-alphabet languages cataloged before 1976, and

— Transliterated non-Roman alphabet ma- terials cataloged by LC through 1978.

Because of these delays in entering the Roman- alphabet non-English-Language materials, it is estimated that more than half of the one million records prepared during the 12 years of the Library's Shared Cataloging Program have not entered the MARC data base.

A small number of exceptions to the above listing are represented by the Library's highly selective RECON (REtrospective CONversion) Program which after several years has only just reached its 150,000th record (most of which covered 1968 and 1969 English Language reprints).

Actually, it has been the Library's long range emphasis on collecting and cataloging non-U.S. materials which has led it well beyond the role of a "national library” to its preeminence as a “library to the world”. This emphasis is illustrated by the fact that in the last ten years, only 37 percent of the books processed by LC were in English (and. of course, a large number of these were of non-U.S. origin).

Carrollton:Well, that pretty well takes care of TLC's coverage of the non-MARC records. Now let's talk about OCLC. Several librar- ians have asked what benefits they would get from the Title

Index that they would not already be getting as OCLC participants.

Mumford:First, of course, is the matter of coverage. Because of the overwhelming size, longevity and international scope of LC's holdings, the great majority of records in its classified collections have not been included in MARC. OCLC, or any other data bases.

Actually, there’s no way of knowing exactly how many records are in the LC Classified Collections that are not in OCLC. We know how many records LC has sent to OCLC (over one million MARC records) but we do not know how many nonduplicate retrospective LC records have been put into the data base by OCLC participants. In spite of the large numbers of records cited by OCLC, after one deducts the MARC input, non-print materials, duplicate records, local publications, and other non-LC materials, the number of retrospective non-MARC LC records entered by OCLC participants should be relatively small. Based on conversations with LC catalogers and others, however, my outside guess would be that some 1.5

“Because of the overwhelming size, longevity, and international scope of LC’s holdings, the great majority of the 6.5 million records in its Classified Collections have never been included in MARC, OCLC, or any other data base.”

Mumford (Continued)

million unique non-MARC LC records may have been added by OCLC participating libraries.

This, of course, leaves 4 million non-MARC records in the Classified Collections that are not in the OCLC data base.

The main reasons for the relative lack of OCLC overlap, as indicated above, are the size and international nature of the Library of Congress holdings when compared to those of even the largest of the OCLC participants.

COMPARISONS OF HOLDINGSThe overwhelming relative strengths of the LC collections in specific subject areas are best illustrated in the biennial report, Titles Classified by the Library of Congress Classification: National Shelflist Count (published by the University of California at Berkeley under the auspices of the organization of “Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries”). This study compares the holdings of LC to those of 27 major U.S. research libraries in individual LC Classifica- tion Schedules.

The 1977 edition of this report shows that the Library of Congress’ holdings are often two or more times as large as those of second-place libraries in a wide variety of significant subject areas, in- cluding: American History (Classes E-F), Social Sciences (H-Hx), Language & Literature (P-Pz), Technology (T-Tx), and Bibliography and Library Science (Z).

In a telephone survey conducted by Carrollton Press during September, 1979, of the 20 largest members of the Association of Research Libraries, it was learned that although 16 of them are currently OCLC participants, none submit significant numbers of retrospective LC records to OCLC. (A possible exception to this is the University of Texas, which has sent OCLC approximately 20,000 retrospective records to date.)

LC CLASSIFICATION NUMBER CHANGES

Tens of thousands of LC Classification-Number changes will have been picked up and printed in TLC. In many cases where participating OCLC libraries derive their cataloging data from old LC printed cards it would be beneficial if they would consult TLC entries before they contribute retrospective cataloging to the OCLC data base.

Access to up-to-date LC Classification numbers, of course, will also be extremely important to libraries converting from Dewey to the LC Classification system. Moreover, OCLC participants can refer to TLC to find LC Class Numbers for those OCLC records which show only Dewey call numbers.

Carrollton:Dr. Mumford, you’ve demonstrated the usefulness and unique coverage of the LC Title Index. But the set is expensive (even with our pre- publication prices and extended payment plans). How can librarians justify its cost?

Mumford:I think the cost effectiveness of the set is best illustrated by the fact that for a one-time expenditure which is less than the year's salary of a cataloger, TLC will go on year after year saving time and money for a library’s Reference,

Acquisitions and Cataloging Departments — and do so during those future years when inflation will have increased staff salaries and other costs.

Looking at it another way, TLC records cost only $1.78 per thousand at the pre-publication price — and even less if paid in advance. The arguments for ordering the set now and paying in advance also seem impressive to me. Those libraries which ordered Mansell’s Pre-1956 Imprints edition of the National Union Catalog when it was first announced paid less than half of today’s price for that set. Also, the 10% prepayment discount on the Title Index amounts to a healthy $1,143. It is therefore obviously advantageous for libraries to get their orders on record now at the pre- publication price. That way, they’ll be certain to get the “Z” volumes at the same price they paid for the “A” volumes.

“For a one-time expenditure which is less thana year’s salary of a cataloger, TLC will go on, year after year; saving time and money for a library’s Reference, Acquisitions, and Cataloging Departments.”

NEWS BRIEFS

Inside Washington by James D. Lockwood ALA Washington Office

Higher Education Act: A bill amending and extending the Higher Eduucation Act (HEA) of 1965 passed the House of Representatives on November 7. The bill, H.R. 5192, would increase the HEA Title II-A College Resources program basic grant to $10,000. It would continue.the Title II-C Strengthening Research Libraries program without major change except that recipients of Title II-C grants would not be eligible for II-A basic grants. The extension bill would add a new Title-D, creating a National Periodicals Center.

Tax Deductions for Manuscripts Donation: Norman Tanis, California State University, Northridge, library director, and Daniel Boorstin, librarian of Congress, testified at October 22 hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and Debt Management in support of the Artists Tax Equity Act of 1979 (S.1078). The bill would provide a tax credit to authors or artists who donate literary, musical, or artistic compositions or papers to a library or museum. The tax credit would be equal to 30 percent of the fair-market value of the gift.

Title II-A Basic Grant Deadline: The Office of Education has announced that the grant application deadline for College Library Resources basic grants for FY 1980 will be December 21, 1979. The announcement appeared in the November 9 Federal Register (pp.65,186 - 65,187) and is contingent upon the expectation that funding will be available for the program. For further information about basic grant applications, call Frank Stevens, U.S. Office of Education,. (202) 2^5-9530.

NCLIS Sponsors January Meeting on NPC

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) will sponsor a meeting entitled "The National Periodicals Center Legislation and Implementation: Next Steps" on January 18, 1980 at the Palmer House in Chicago just before the ALA Midwinter Meeting. NCLIS has invited representatives of organizations that support the legislation for a National Periodicals Center to participate in the meeting, but representatives of other organizations, as well as observers, may also attend and will have an opportunity to express their views.

The tentative agenda for the meeting calls for the discussion of the NPC legislation now in Congress, differences in language between the NCLIS legislative proposal and the congressional legislation, possible amendments to congressional legislation, legislative strategy, the Arthur D. Little report, and possible steps to put NPC legislation into effect.

At its September, 1979, meeting in Colorado NCLIS passed a resolution that the commission's testimony at Senate hearings in October "recommend that the final wording of Part D of H.R. 5192 (a bill that would create an NPC) reflect the essence of the NCLIS Final Draft Legislative Proposal of July 19, 1979, and the Implications described in the System C model in the Arthur D. Little Study." C&RL News suggested incorrectly in the November issue (p. 325) that the resolution Implies NCLIS support for a "decentralized" NPC. Ed.