Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
Volume 32, no. 4, 2001
Roe, News Editor
to the news column. Its purpose is
to disseminate information on any aspect of cataloging and classification that
may be of interest to the cataloging community.
This column is not just intended for news items, but serves to document
discussions of interest as well as news concerning you, your research efforts,
and your organization. Please send
any pertinent materials, notes, minutes, or reports to: Sandy Roe; Memorial
Library; Minnesota State University, Mankato; Mankato, MN 56001-8419 (email: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org;
phone: 507-389-2155). News columns
will typically be available at the CCQ website (http://catalogingandclassificationquarterly.com/)
linked from their corresponding volume and issue numbers prior to their
appearance in print.
would appreciate receiving items having to do with:
or reports of on-going or unpublished research
of materials available on specific subjects
or description of new technologies
or opinions on the art of cataloging
minutes, or summaries of meetings, etc. of interest to catalogers
of changes in personnel
of honors, offices, etc.
FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS, 67th Annual Conference,
Boston August 2001
0F BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL, SECTION ON CATALOGUING
OF THE ACTIVITIES 2000-2001
number 110 "Open Forum" of the Division on Bibliographic Control
interest in cataloguing and for harmonization at the international level has
been shared for a long time by the libraries throughout the entire world. The
Section on Cataloging is one of the oldest IFLA sections and attracts an
increasing number of members. The
goal and focus of work on standardization has been the Section's main activity.
this context, the Section has looked at the development and maintenance of
cataloging standards and guidelines for traditional formats, but also has taken
into account developments in the digital, electronic, and networked environment
in order to promote universal access to and exchange of bibliographic
information. The Section has developed a new view of bibliographic description,
based on functional requirements: the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records (FRBR). Concerning the usages of computerized cataloges, we created the
Working Group on Guidelines for OPAC Displays.
During the last ten years we took also into account the questions of
authority information, harmonization of which is necessary for efficient use all
over the world.
and Standing Committee
Section increased its membership by ten percent, advancing from 149 members in
December 1998 to 163 members in December 2000.
For several years now the SC has functioned with IFLA's maximum number of
20 persons (21 between 1999 and 2001), plus corresponding members, the
observers, and honorary members (who are sometimes as active as the regular
report on the Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, published by IFLA and
written by Ton Heijligers (Nederlands), is the result of a 6-year Working Group.
After the identification of the most problematic rules of the FSCH
guidelines and their comparaison with AACR, RAK, and AFNOR, the group abandoned
the idea of updating the FSCH Guidelines and proposed a report on the
possibilities of contributing guidance regarding the form and structure of
corporate names. This guidance would be available to developers of a future
virtual international authority file and people in charge of online catalogs. A
virtual international authority file was suggested which could be used by any
for Authority Records and References (GARR)" was also published at the
beginning of 2001. The objective of this work, led by de Isa de Pinedo (Italy),
was to create single comprehensive and flexible set of rules with examples
(covering all types of materials, including music, electronic resources, and
Section's newsletter "SCATNews" is published twice a year, in print
and electronic form (available online at the IFLANET web site).
last year the web pages of the Section have been enriched (see
www.ifla.org/VII/s13/). You will find there the latest news and the texts of
standards and guidelines currently on review (see "Announcements"). In
the paragraph "Family of ISBDs" which links directly to the UBCIM
pages you are presented with the bibliography of ISBDs. Other web information
available includes "Conferences and Seminars", "Minutes of
meetings", and "Annual Reports."
Minutes of the ALCTS Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries
Discussion Group ("Big Heads"), held during the Annual American
Library Association Meeting, San Francisco, CA, June 15, 2001.
introductions and announcements. (Lee Leighton, Chair)
Leighton introduced two new members: Beth Picknally Camden (University of
Virginia) and Rosann Bazirjian (Pennsylvania State University).
announced that David Banush of Cornell would be speaking at the BIBCO meeting on
Sunday about his survey of core records. [His report is available at http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/coretudefinal.html
of a new Chair-elect
Wolven (Columbia) nominated Sally Sinn (NAL) and she was elected unanimously.
Heads/ALCTS Research Initiative update (Nadler)
Nadler (Chicago): At Midwinter we discussed three research initiatives to be
presented to the ALCTS Board for funding. The questions were aimed at generating
information that would help us focus our operations and services on what is most
useful for our patrons.
Cataloging coverage: What is the percentage of overlap among collections of
large research libraries? Is there evidence that the percentage of overlap for
monographs and serials is growing or shrinking? Are there unique materials that
are not being cataloged?
Copy acceptance policies: What are the record acceptance policies of large
research libraries for printed monographs and serials and how do these policies
affect cataloging production? What are the record acceptance policies for
electronic resources and their affect on cataloging production?
Classification and subject analysis: Are the standard subject analysis policies
and practices in large research libraries adequate for contemporary library
patrons who must search library catalogs as well as the web in conducting their
research? What level of uniformity is necessary?
three questions were deemed important by the Board. A combination of questions 1
and 2 had support in that they would provide much needed information, but could
be performed by BigHeads on our own. (This then lead to the Copy Acceptance
Policies Survey to be reported on by Arno Kastner later in this meeting.)
3 was supported as the one true research question. Funding would be required for
refining the question, designing the survey, and carrying out the research. The
Board recommended that this question be tabled for further discussion and
it was suggested that we rephrase the question along the lines of "How much
effort is necessary to put into checking subjects and classification access on
cataloging copy from member libraries to ensure the level of access desired by
polled BigHeads and we agreed against this change of wording which focuses on
cataloging rather than on user needs. Also,
we wanted to wait for the results of Arno's survey before we decided on what to
take back to the ALCTS Board.
and license tracking update (Tim Jewell, Head of Collection Management Services,
University of Washington)
Midwinter he had reported on a paper he was preparing for the Digital Library
Federation on practices of different libraries relating to the selection and
presentation of commercially available electronic resources.
This is an update. He has completed the survey. The systems he had looked
at included, among others, the University of Michigan, the University of Notre
Dame, MIT, the University of Texas at Austin, Pennsylvania State University,
Yale, and the University of Virginia. Under development are systems are UCLA,
Stanford, and Cornell. His spread sheet is available on the web: http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/.
web site was prepared by Adam Chandler (Cornell) and Tim and Diana Rosolowsky
(Washington). They also maintain an e-mail list, instructions for joining which
can be found on the web site.
has identified basic elements, organized them functionally, and is defining
them. Designing a prototype database system remains to be done. He has had
expressions of interest from several vendors and plans to meet with people from
Ex Libris USA and III.
will try to develop a topical discussion of some of these elements on the list,
get people together for face to face meetings to discuss them, and try to
develop a white paper for standard development.
Wolven asked what kinds of influence could be placed behind this work. He also
asked what the Digital Library Federation's role is in this activity.
said that someone from DLF (Dan?) thought the work could have a major impact and
wanted to support it. One possibility would be through an invitational
Arenales asked how soon a standard could be expected and what we could do to
advance that. Tim said that UCLA has put together a data dictionary which is on
the web site. The web site also contains related working documents from various
sites. He has no idea of a timeframe but thought it important to have Integrated
Library System vendors provide input and be involved.
Wolven asked if there has been any discussion with publishers about licensing?
Tim replied that he hasn't thought much about bringing publishers into the
discussion. Duane Arenales agreed with Bob Wolven that publisher involvement was
important and asked what Big Heads could do to at least standardize what rights
publishers say libraries have or don't have. Tim said they were very early on in
identifying stakeholders. He hoped Big Heads would be deeply involved in doing
hoped to have definitions worked on in Fall 2001 and a white paper prepared. He
hoped to have further discussion at Midwinter ALA 2002.
Leighton (Berkeley) said the Big Heads would do whatever we could to help.
Heads Copy Acceptance Policies survey (Kastner).
Kastner (NYU) said that the Task Force had been set up following Midwinter ALA
2000 to gather information on institutional policies for accepting and using
cataloging copy from other libraries and to make recommendations to improve the
processes. He was still collecting data. As in any survey there was room for
ambiguity and he had had to interpret some answers. He would need to get back to
some respondents for clarification.
basic assumption under which they had worked was that in a shared cataloging
environment an item should be cataloged only once, made available quickly to
others, and should be of such quality that it didn't need to be reviewed in
TF had found that the meaning of the word "acceptance" was critical.
There were various levels of acceptance involving levels of staff used, types of
data examined, source of records, etc.
were surveying policy, not exceptions to that policy.
wanted to underline that there are different types of copy involved: full LC, LC
core, CIP, member full, member core, minimal, vendor-created, etc. Many
libraries didn't base their policy on such questions but rather on whether or
not there was a call number and subject headings in the record found.
were certain observations he could make after a quick look at the responses.
Are there trends in who does the copy cataloging?
is being done in 10 libraries in Acquisitions. At least 9 libraries have
students handling copy of various types.
Are there certain types of copy cataloging that is pass-through?
all copy gets some type of review (to ensure you had record that matched the
piece: 245, 260 etc., matched). Even
beyond this almost all copy had some review.
4 libraries said they add a call number (050 or 082) yet call number
availability is a major criterion for acceptability of copy. Perhaps many
libraries had misunderstood questions.
libraries still review the final Cutter number to see if it fits into their
shelf-list, doing so even for LC records.
libraries still check class numbers against the classification schedules.
libraries do some type of post-catalog authority work which means we are not
sharing the improvements to access points.
Is there a distinction between processing PCC full and PCC core records?
libraries checked LC core and over 2/3 took a quick look at all access points
for typos. LC full and LC core are treated the same by just about every library.
libraries take PCC core records and search for fuller records.
Is there a treatment difference between checking done for PCC and non-PCC copy?
there is slighter greater confidence in PCC.
What levels of staff are being used to look at copy?
had expected that lower level of staff would be used for LC and PCC, with higher
level staff left to look at other copy. Some institutions said they had team
approach based on subject or language expertise and didn't differentiate very
much on level of staff.
Nadler (member of the Task Force) said she had tested the survey with her staff
which had recently been re-organized. They had found that there were
inconsistencies in what different people did. As a manager she was pleased that
they did a lot of cataloging and that they used their human resources
efficiently, using high level of staff for poor cataloging and using lots of
as a group (all the survey respondents) produced relatively little original
cataloging. Does that mean backlogs are being developed? Not many libraries felt
a need to place importance on subject analysis? Why? Why don't many institutions
use students? Because they don't feel students are qualified? Because they just
don't employ many students?
Burger (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) wondered if any libraries
had actually sampled the copy they used in order to see what percentages of
error actually existed rather than routinely check every record.
Kastner said that question hadn't been addressed in the survey.
Ogburn (Washington) asked if libraries that had provided lots of NA answers
could re-do the survey. Could the survey be re-tweaked? Arno said the Task Force
would be getting back to some institutions for clarifications.
Calhoun (Cornell) said that libraries have lots of exception categories that the
survey couldn't bring out.
Horrell (Harvard) pointed out that the Harvard answers represented only one
library, Widener, but that the university had many other libraries, each with
its own policies and practices.
Arenales wondered what effect would this survey have? Are people finding errors
in PCC records?
Nadler said it was not clear if the answers represent historical practice in
libraries or thoughtful analysis of what work is needed.
the end that there were suggestions that perhaps the survey could be revised to
eliminate some of the ambiguities and then recirculated and a second suggestion
that it might be useful to circulate the survey every couple years to see how/if
libraries are changing/evaluating their acceptance policies.
Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium (Beacher Wiggins)
Wiggins (LC) reported that the conference participants had made 150
recommendations from which LC had teased-out six over-arching objectives to
serve as the framework for an action plan (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/draftplan.html);
they think the objectives represent the essence of the recommendations. These
six objectives, under which action items are placed, are:
Increase the availability of standard records for selected electronic resources.
Enhance the access to and display of records for selected Web resources across
Work collaboratively with metadata standards communities to improve
bibliographic control of selected Web resources.
Develop automated tools for harvesting and maintaining metadata to improve
bibliographic control of selected Web resources.
Provide appropriate training/continuing education to improve bibliographic
control of selected Web resources.
Support research and development on emerging metadata standards and address the
challenges of interoperability to improve bibliographic control of selected Web
this point onwards LC will be seeking advice on the content of the plan. They
have identified some potential collaborators and Big Heads are identified as
collaborators for some of the action items. Beacher said that if any of the
action items resonated with anyone and made them want to participate in the
work, they should get in touch with LC. All comments, etc. should be sent to
Judith Mansfield at LC (email@example.com).
had looked at the prioritization of the action items in terms of 2 aspects:
Time to carry out. Near term could be accomplished within 18 months; long term
could be accomplished in 5 years.
The aspect of HIGH, MEDIUM or LOW was assigned on the basis of the benefit each
action would bring the library community relative to the expense involved in
carrying it out.
actions will be worked on concurrently. About one-third have LC as lead
Hemmasi (Indiana University) commented that under objective 1 there is no
mention of many records produced and distributed by vendors.
replied that they would be involved to the degree that vendors produce records
for web resources. Vendor records cover a range of materials but perhaps not web
Wolven commented that Big Heads is not set up to do formal research but it can
Calhoun said Big Heads could set up small groups to participate.
Leighton summed up the general feeling with the comment: LC has taken on a
the break, Lee Leighton introduced Charles Wilt, the new director of ALCTS.
is a catalog? (Harriette Hemmasi).
said that she had talked with Judith Nadler and Joyce Ogburn when the
possibility was raised at Indiana of loading the entire inventory of netLibrary
records even if they didn't have access to all the titles in the collection.
those discussions the following issues were raised.
the catalog represent what we "own" or have access to, or does it
represent everything that users may potentially access or purchase?
concept of access vs. ownership is pushed one more step further; it becomes
"providing access to potential access." Will this be confusing to the
the complete inventory of one publisher is loaded, why not load inventories of
all publishers, distributors, bookstores? Where do we stop?
would mass loading of inventories affect the role of OCLC or RLIN, the
development of Z39.50 and other cross-database searching? Should we care?
user-selection via the catalog becomes the new model, will users be notified
when funds are expended?
it matter at what rate annual collection funds are expended, especially if they
are expended quickly?
the user-selection model displace collection managers? If so, what is the impact
of this change?
a complete inventory is loaded, is there a need to differentiate between
purchased and un-purchased titles (e.g., assessment, ARL statistics, and
potential need to purge un-purchased titles)?
generations, librarians have been purchasing materials with the hope that users
will want to use their resources. Is the greatest risk of the expanded catalog
with the user in the "selection seat" that this model will become
Calhoun agreed that the role of the catalog is definitely changing. Lots of
substitutes for and accessories to the catalog now exist. We are starting to put
more and more in the catalog to provide access to materials not owned by the
libraries. At the same time, new products are emerging -- like Endeavor's
EnCompass and Ex Libris' Metalib-- that could make it feasible for the catalog
to be integrated with, and searched alongside, other kinds of digital
collections. So, the catalog could eventually go back in the direction of being
a repository for what the library owns.
Wolven said the question is more one of preferential access. There are various
methods of access: e.g., we have this, we can get access to this if you want it;
and we can purchase this for you. There is also more gradation in the tools we
use to provide access. The end user has a role: by choosing a netLibrary record
they acquire the work for the library.
Tierney: we need to ask 12 year olds, freshmen, etc., what the catalog is to get
idea of what the catalog will be in five years. The catalog is more the
interface than the records it contains.
Wolven said there is both a selection aspect and a monetary aspect. We are
saying we are letting you find this and that will entail financial commitment on
Horrell noted that in a few years journals may disappear and individual issues
may become the basis by which information is disseminated. Younger people are
looking for information in new ways and that will have a profound influence on
what we do.
Clark (NYPL) commented that the interface is more important than the records.
Leighton wondered what principles we could articulate that we could all agree
on: Financial commitment? Selection? Quality control? Could we load mass numbers
of records without a concern about quality control?
Wiggins (LC) said that at LC everything added to the catalog database must have
headings compatible to what is already there. That is basic.
Nadler agreed that the question of maintenance is very important. She referred
to the CRL (Center for Research Libraries) records. The University of Chicago
has chosen not to bring those records into their catalog: they can't maintain
them and they don't think it is forward looking to bring more and more into the
catalog. It would be better to work on improving access via search capabilities
across bibliographic resources, including the catalog. Joyce Ogburn agreed.
Tierney commented that public services people really value controlled headings.
Ogburn wondered how much time is spent on things like web pages that could be
used on providing access through catalog?
Hemmasi (Indiana) said she saw a disconnect between this conversation and the
results of the copy cataloging acceptance survey. We are acknowledging that all
these resources exist that people use but yet we are saying that everything we
put in our catalogs must be polished.
Kastner replied that cross-database searches can be confusing to users.
Wolven said the disconnect is a real one but one of the things we try to get
from catalog copy is to identify that "this" record represents that
item rather than providing 50 records for the same item.
Hemmasi (Indiana) said that one of IU libraries had loaded the netLibrary
records in a partnership with one public library. The public library spent all
its acquisitions money in 3 months; the IU library asked not to load any more to
avoid that danger.
Nadler asked if anyone had compared the holdings of netLibrary against its own
collection. The University of Chicago Acquisitions Department had done such a
thing against ISBN numbers and the results had been surprisingly high. Fifty
percent of the netLibrary records matched records in their catalog.
Diedrichs (Ohio State) said that if we make electronic material available use
will greatly increase. That will have great financial implications for the
and long term location options for technical services: principles and best
Horrell reported that Harvard has just relocated its Widener Library technical
services staff; eighty staff members have been relocate a mile and a half away
from the library. They had less than a year to plan for the move which took
place in December 2000. Those who have moved have improved work space. A side
benefit is rethinking of work-flows and procedures. However, psychological
aspects were very important. He had wondered if it would impact recruitment; it
hasn't. But there are obstacles. Interactions between bibliographers and
catalogers need to be worked on.
Leighton said that Berkeley was five years along in a move to a location
one-eighth mile away, connected via a tunnel. There don't seem to be
psychological problems or questions about where committees meet.
Adjacencies and workflows have been improved. There has been a reduction
in the number of forms needed to hand on materials.
Bazirjian said their move had been a temporary one and that, after a three year
absence, they have since returned to the main library. During the period when
they were absent from the library they needed a good delivery system, good
communications facilities (wiring, etc.) in their new site, time for paging
books, etc. Things didn't happen as quickly as they had before the move out of
Horrell echoed the comments on time.
Ogburn said they had had a temporary relocation several months ago. Since some
technical services staff also work in public service area they had to set up a
Diedrichs (Ohio State) asked about the impact of having non-tenured staff
separated from the rest of their colleagues who would have to vote on their
Tierney asked if there were any management changes needed, such as a need for
additional managers. Jeffrey Horrell said that at Harvard they had made changes
and assigned someone to supervise the distant staff.
Tierney followed up with a question about planning for staff adjacencies. Were
components in the space plans driven by movement of collection materials (books,
etc.) versus movements of paperwork or online-only work?
Leighton said they went through that at Berkeley. Their primary concern was the
movement of books; people who dealt with paper were considered more flexible.
Ogburn said that at the University of Washington they didn't move all staff,
e.g., Serials Receipts was not moved as they didn't want to change addresses.
Physical Processing, which is highly student intensive, was not moved either.
Horrell said that Harvard also did not relocate serials check-in.
Bazirjian said that once you have moved a group of people you have them locked
in as "the" technical services staff; you lose the flexibility to add
other groups to technical services.
Calhoun said that Cornell has been experimenting with electronic materials; it
is much more collaborative process than dealing with print materials. She asked
if those who have moved staff have considered that people's jobs have become
Ogburn said that at Washington both professional and classified technical
services staff interact with faculty and that maintaining that interaction had
been a problem while the staff were relocated.
Nadler said the University of Chicago has not faced the problem of moving
technical services staff out of the central area. She wanted to know, If I were
asked whether we could move technical services out of the central area, should I
argue against it and what should those arguments be? She noted that their recent
reorganization has brought some functions closer together. Some improvements are
based on proximity.
Horrell said the old Widener operation was on 3 floors in 7 different areas and
the staff had doubled since the building was opened in 1915. If you believe you
can end up with a much better working environment even at a distance, moving to
a more distant location can be an advantage.
Wolven said that at Columbia they had reorganized within the main library
building and got many advantages of consolidation. However there are some
technical services units outside of the main library. Would they be better off
with the main technical services operation?
Horrell said that while perhaps copy cataloging might be done centrally,
specialized technical services staff work closely with staff and faculty in
their areas of expertise and need to be where they are.
Clark said that at a previous institution where she had worked they had built a
new science library with same physical area as the main library. Three subject
areas had been merged and re-located there. The Bio-medical staff had problems
being further from patrons they served but work was done more efficiently.
Farrell (Princeton) asked about opportunities for meetings, for staff to
interact with each other, etc.
Horrell said there was a conference room at their new site.
Tierney wondered if anyone had made a point of putting the responsibility on
remaining central staff (public services, collections, etc.) for helping a
remote Technical Services operation feel part of the whole? She was considering
requesting that it be a specific charge to all central units to figure ways to
mitigate the sense of disenfranchisement that TS staff might feel being far
Leighton said that after their move the book budget went up while adjacencies
and work-flows improved. Technical services got more staff.
Arenales asked about telecommuting. Joyce Ogburn said they allowed both
librarians and classified staff to telecommute. It is a privilege, not a right.
Telecommuting was not usually done for a full-time schedule; it usually involved
about one day a week. The staff took materials, invoices, etc. home. To work it
requires close communication with one's supervisor.
Jeffrey Horrell reported that Widener has one person doing database
management at home.
Wiggins (LC) said that LC is negotiating with the professional staff union about
telecommuting. Once they do it for professional staff, they will have to face
the question of doing it for non-professional staff.
Tierney said that Stanford has a policy on telecommuting. One cataloger is doing
it one day a week. There is an unwritten rule that you can't take materials
home, but this cataloger is an electronic resources person.
Stanford might possibly allow NACO work based on Xeroxed copies.
Nadler commented that this is extension of flex-time. She would be interested in
those having such policies sharing them. She wondered how you identify who is
good candidate for it? One criterion might be how quantifiable is your work.
Should people be allowed to take materials home?
Arenales noted that the kind of support you provide for the home commuter is a
question that needs to be answered.
Clark asked how telecommuting is managed in a union environment.
Leighton suggested asking questions such as: How much of a self-starter are
these persons? How good is their judgement in knowing when to ask questions? He
would be more reluctant to let a supervisor do it than staff member who can work
Picknally Camden said that UVA has a policy. The university does not provide a
computer but can provide software and technical support.
Hemmasi (Indiana) noted that questions of integration and recognition are an
issue wherever technical services is located.
meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. without time for item 9 on the agenda.
June 5, 2001, Integrated Library System Program Director Barbara Tillett was
honored with the Arthur S. Flemming Award, given to outstanding men and women in
the federal government. Recognized in the administrative category, she was one
of thirteen recipients. The award recognized Tillett for her "outstanding
leadership and extraordinary commitment to the acquisition and installation of
an Integrated Library System." Associate Librarian for Library Services
Winston Tabb, subsequently quoted in The Gazette, LC's internal newspaper,
commented that "The development and implementation of the Library of
Congress ILS was a remarkable achievement for the Library of Congress--in the
scope of library activities it covered, the massive numbers of staff involved in
the planning and implementation process, and the very ambitious timetable
new ILS allows the Library to provide integrated automated support for core
functions, such as acquisitions, cataloging, serials management and circulation
services, as well as providing the Library's online catalog of more than 12.5
million bibliographic records. Dr.
Tillett was chair of the Library's Shelflist Task Group which recommended
procurement of an ILS and leader of the ILS Project Team which prepared the
Request for Proposal in 1996-97. Serving
as ILS Program Director, Dr. Tillett assembled 76 teams to undertake the massive
task of converting the Library's legacy systems, which were not integrated, to
the state-of-the-art ILS. Prior to full implementation, Dr. Tillett prepared a
two-year timeline detailing each phase of the operation, including alternative
analysis, business case preparation, acquisition, staffing, training of hundreds
of Library employees, and implementation in October 1999.
of CCQ Volume 30
Mei Mah, Cataloging Librarian at Warren-Wilson College in Ashville, North
Carolina, has received the award for the best article in CCQ volume 30.
Her article, "Cataloging Plus: Philosophy and Practice at a Small
College Library," was published in CCQ 30(2/3).
It also appears in Managing Cataloging and the Organization of
Information: Philosophies, Practices and Challenges at the Onset of the 21st
Century published in both hardbound and paperback editions by Haworth Press.
award panel (Martin Joachim, Ling-Yuh (Miko) Pattie, and Alan R. Thomas) stated:
"In a well-written and colorful style, the author describes with lucidity
the role and function of a library in a small liberal arts school and how
librarians, staff, and students must interact to deliver effective service to
its uses. The author does an
excellent job of incorporating local details into a discussion with a broad
outlook. In an article that is
likely to appeal to both catalogers and non-catalogers, the author presents a
delightful account of how a cataloger can be holistic and know what needs to be
done to satisfy library users."
Ruth Carter, Editor
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
Comments to: Jeffrey Beall © Haworth Press, inc.