Cataloguing and Indexing Group

Catalogue and Index Periodical of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) Cataloguing and Indexing Group

Editorial September 2011, Issue 164 Contents

Welcome to issue 164 of Catalogue & Index. 2-4 Special collections access in an independent We hope you enjoyed our RDA-themed issue, and that you have been environment: looking forward to finding out everything you always wanted to know retrospective cataloguing about retrospective cataloguing. We bring you tales from university and at Bishopsgate Library special libraries, full of trials and tribulations, triumph and tragedy, as well Edward Weech as the job cuts and loss of funding that we have (most of us anyway) 5-7 Towards a New Era: become used to in the last few years. We hope we have some answers Collections Preparation and some ideas for you in this issue. at the University of Birmingham We also have an opinion piece on RDA, which is sure to get your Jackie Sumner argumentative juices flowing. 8-11 Slow, slow, quick, Our next issue, for publication at the end of the year (before Christmas, quick, slow – fingers crossed), will be on the theme of indexing. As ever, if you have retrospective conversion anything to share, please contact us. We are always eager to hear from at the University of our readers. Nottingham Janet Wharton

Heather Jardine 12-15 Coming full circle, the London Library ([email protected]) Retrospective Cathy Broad Cataloguing Project Dunia García-Ontiveros ([email protected]) 16-19 Retrospective cataloguing at Gonville and Caius College,

Cambridge: a new(ish) professional’s perspective Jenny Sargent

20-23 Is RDA ReDundAnt? Sue Batley

Special collections access in an independent environment: retrospective cataloguing at Bishopsgate Library Edward Weech, Deputy Library Manager, Bishopsgate Library

Situated between Spitalfields and the City of London, a stone‘s throw from Liverpool Street Station, stands Bishopsgate Library, part of Bishopsgate Institute. Although it was opened as an independent lending library in 1895, Bishopsgate Library‘s lending function was long ago usurped by the Corporation of London lending libraries. In recent years, Bishopsgate has focused on consolidating its status as one of the country‘s leading independent special collections and reference libraries. Bishopsgate has flourished as an independent institution and continues to offer free public access to all its printed and archival collections.

Among Bishopsgate Library‘s extensive holdings are around 100,000 printed items. These comprise the personal libraries of Victorian political figures such as Charles Bradlaugh, George Jacob Holyoake, and George Howell, as well as more recent collections like the Freedom Press and Lesbian and Gay Newsmedia Archive libraries. The overall thematic focus of the collections is the nineteenth and twentieth century history of London, labour, freethought and humanism, co-operation, and protest and campaigning. The library is currently open six days a week and operates two public service desks, including a dedicated Researchers‘ Area. However, it has quite a small staff, which incorporates one qualified librarian and three qualified archivists among a staff of seven (four full time and three part time).

Bishopsgate largely missed out on the retrospective cataloguing campaigns of the 1990s. From 2005, the library embarked on a retrospective cataloguing project, whose aim was to create a single integrated online catalogue to act as a portal for accessing records for all the library‘s holdings. This was a major element of the Library‘s strategic decision to reorient itself as a special collections library that provided some reference services, rather than a reference library that held some special collections. Promoting remote access to the collections, and increasing visibility and use among academic and other user groups was a central component of the new strategy. Various timescales for the project were discussed, but it was generally agreed that an attainable though challenging goal would be to complete the retrospective cataloguing project in ten years (by 2015).

Bishopsgate Library‘s special collections had all been catalogued onto card indexes. At the outset of the project, it was decided to create original records by cataloguing ‗book-in-hand‘, rather than to convert the card catalogues. The aim of this was to ensure that the online catalogue was as accurate as possible. It was also felt to be a manageable task, considering the relatively low number of books (by the standards of retrospective cataloguing projects) to catalogue. A suitable library management system was adopted, which was chosen largely because of the ease with which it could integrate simultaneous searching of the library and archive catalogues: there has been an archival cataloguing project taking place at the same time as the library cataloguing project.

The retrospective cataloguing of the library‘s printed collections was begun by senior library staff in 2005. It was decided to recruit a team of volunteer cataloguers to assist with the cataloguing of certain parts of the collection. It was also decided to adopt a method of cataloguing individual special collections, one at a time. Considering that most collections at Bishopsgate contain between 500 and 7,000 items, this seemed like an appropriate way to proceed: it divided the project into manageable chunks; made complete collections available for researchers to search on the OPAC; and gave a regular sense of achievement.

The cataloguing project got off to a relatively slow start. There were fewer than 2,000 records on the OPAC by the end of 2005, and under 3,500 by the end of 2006. There was some improvement the following year but still only 8,200 records by the end of 2007. Clearly, such a pace was inadequate considering the targets that had

Catalogue and Index 2

been set; the project would take over twenty years at this rate, rather than ten.

Several reasons can be identified for the slow rate of cataloguing. The main cause was that retrospective work was simply added to the existing responsibilities of available staff, rather than viewed as an additional task that required dedicated attention. There was also a relatively low level of expertise which meant that records were often also of a poor quality, and some volunteers lacked the appropriate aptitudes for the work. Accordingly, a dedicated library cataloguer was recruited in 2008 to take responsibility, in the first instance, for cataloguing one of the library‘s most important special collections, the George Howell Library. It was also necessary to review existing cataloguing guidelines and provide extra training for library staff and volunteers.

The volunteers programme has been an important part of the retrospective cataloguing project. It has focused on a discrete part of the collection: the books in the London Collection, which is the library‘s largest single collection. All volunteers are given training in library cataloguing and work under the supervision of a professional member of staff who checks all the records they create. At any one time, we have a team of between three and six cataloguing volunteers who contribute half a day each week. In this way, a larger number of records is added to the catalogue than would otherwise be possible, and it is ensured that the records are of a suitable quality. It should be noted that the use of volunteers in the library is limited to this purpose: volunteers are never asked to provide public services in the library, and they are not used to replace paid staff.

The practice of giving individual cataloguers a collection or part of a collection has been maintained. This provides periodic milestones as collections are completed, which helps keep morale high. It also benefits researchers, who can be more confident that a catalogue search will yield everything the library has on a given subject, rather than covering an incomplete selection of the library‘s holdings.

The changes to the organisation of cataloguing at Bishopsgate led to a significant improvement in the rate of new records generated. The number of library catalogue records almost doubled from 8,200 to 16,300 over the course of 2008, and again to 30,700 by the end of 2009. The rate slowed in 2010, and there were 40,700 by the end of that year. However, progress in 2011 has been good, and the library will pass 50,000 records some time during the autumn.

The library closed for nine months due to building works in 2009-2010. This partly accounts for the high rate of cataloguing in 2009, as library staff spent almost all their time cataloguing rather than attending to public services. Moreover, the library lost its dedicated library cataloguer in early 2010, which largely accounts for the lower rate of cataloguing in that year. Also, the later stages of the project will see a greater number of existing records edited, and a diminishing number of records created anew. Progress, however, continues to be good, and at current rates the library should pass 100,000 catalogue records in 2015-2016. This represents very good progress considering that the library had completed just 8% of the project after the first three years.

As the retrospective cataloguing project continues, the library spends an increasing amount of time considering the best ways to promote the collections. This is especially important as there is no ‗captive audience‘ in the form of students, lecturers, or staff attached to the library. Instead, the library relies on external visitors coming to make use of the collections. As well as building and maintaining relationships with other libraries, universities, and so on, the library is very keen to be involved in external cataloguing projects. As such, we were delighted to upload our catalogue records (over 40,000 at that stage) onto Copac in early 2011. This represents a major step forward for the library in terms of promoting the special collections among the academic community. We have already seen a healthy number of researchers visit us having found our items on Copac. We have also begun adding our holdings information to the (pre-1801) English Short Title

Catalogue. As most of our collections hail from the Victorian era or later, this was not a major priority for the library in the way that joining Copac was. However, it is still a useful way of promoting the library and its holdings.

Other promotional efforts include the use of the library newsletter, Bishopsgate website, and email lists to publicise the progress of the retrospective cataloguing project. We look for ways to promote the project among the professional community—such as by publishing articles, attending and speaking at conferences, and so on. The library also makes a particular effort to bring in tour groups, especially from higher education institutions, as well as family history groups and similar organisations. The library also works closely with Bishopsgate Institute‘s own Schools and Community Learning Department, which brings in a wide variety of groups to engage with library collections.

While the retrospective cataloguing project has been underway, Bishopsgate Institute has undergone a substantial renovation project. Much of this was devoted to the library. For example, a dedicated Researchers‘ Area was created in our rear library; the archive strongroom was expanded to more than twice its original size, and environmental controls were installed. The library also recently reintroduced Saturday opening. We have seen a notable increase in visitor numbers: between 5 and 10% in 2010, followed by a similar increase so far in 2011. The new services have perfectly complemented the improved access to the collections that has been provided as a result of the retrospective cataloguing project.

To find out more about Bishopsgate Library, visit their website at www.bishopsgate.org.uk/library

Catalogue and Index 4

Towards a New Era: Collections Preparation at the University of Birmingham Jackie Sumner, Acquisitions & Metadata Support Team Manager, Library Services

In October 2010 we began a three-year project to complete retrospective cataloguing (hereafter called recon) of all remaining card catalogue monographs and pamphlets in stock within Library Services at the University of Birmingham. At the same time, all monographs are being RFID tagged, and some of our more inconvenient historical classification anomalies addressed. The project forms the Collections Preparation element of the Library Content Programme, a suite of projects leading up to the planned move of our Main Library to a new building. Funding became available on 1st August 2010, fixed within an envelope of £1.8 million for the Library Content Programme, of which £900,000 is allocated for Collections Preparation. We have estimated, generously, I hope, that we may tag up to 1.5 million books, and create MARC records for up to 500,000 books and pamphlets during the course of the project. Background to the project As a founder member of the Birmingham Libraries Cooperative Mechanisation Project (BLCMP) we created our first MARC records in 1972, when our card catalogue was closed to new acquisitions. We no longer have our cards; the card catalogue was scanned about 10 years ago, as a stop-gap while recon continued. The resulting online card catalogue was initially welcomed by catalogue users, since they could access it without coming to the library, but usage has fallen off considerably. It is clunky to use, and now very out of date. The scan process did not involve optical character recognition, ruling out conversion of the data. The limited level of information on the cards had always frustrated any attempt to carry out retrospective conversion in the classic sense. No publishers are given, and the rate of uncertainty when matching against existing records is high. We find it more effective to catalogue from the books themselves, which also prevents the perpetuation of records for books which we may no longer have. We download existing records mainly from the Research Libraries UK (RLUK) database, Talisbase (now Capita Base) or OCLC WorldCat wherever possible, upgrading if necessary. The hit rate so far, on admittedly straightforward material, is over 80%. We have observed the RLUK minimum bibliographic standard since 2000, when it was introduced. Systematic recon began in 1989, when a small team worked exclusively on books returned from loan, regardless of subject. Focussing on active stock was a sensible priority at the time, since it had the benefit of enhancing the information which was visible in our newly automated circulation system for the books which readers were most likely to wish to borrow, and making them more easily accessible via the online catalogue. In the mid-90s the team was expanded, and coverage in some subject areas significantly improved coverage, thanks to external funding. The first of these, at the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon, was our only out-sourced project. We worked in-house on 10,000 items which the supplier deemed too complex for outsourcing, as they were either multi-volume works, or collections requiring analysis, but we sent cards away to them for the remaining 32,000 reasonably straightforward books. This was by far the most painful part of the project. Not only was the data on our cards poor, but we have non-unique barcodes and accession numbers at some sites. 30% of our items either could not be matched or lost their copy details when they were uploaded. These problems can quickly and easily be addressed on the spot by a cataloguer working from the books, but sorting out the queries from the outsourced work went on for several years, long after the in-house project was finished. The specialist nature of the other projects, Russian material in the Baykov Collection, Nineteenth Century music scores and a two-year rare books project, made them more cost effective to carry out in-house.

We gained just over 70,000 more records between 1999 and 2002, via RSLP, the Research Support Libraries

Catalogue and Index 5

Programme. While this was a splendid initiative, its priority was to make research material more visible in specific subject areas nationally, rather than to help individual partners to attain complete online coverage; for example, despite enjoying the maximum benefit that we could from the Nineteenth Century Pamphlets Project, we still had plenty of nineteenth century pamphlets on subjects which the project did not cover, not to mention eighteenth and twentieth century pamphlets which we had to pass over. Between 1989 and the end of 2002, records were created for almost 400,000 books, but – with the exception of theology, thanks to the RSLP Revelation project – we did not have total online coverage in any of our subject areas, and only one of our eight site libraries, the Shakespeare Institute, was completely catalogued online. This led to a very confusing situation for both readers and library staff. There was a significant amount of duplication of stock between the Shakespeare Institute, at Stratford-upon-Avon, and the Main Library and remote Store at Birmingham, but only the Stratford books were visible to online catalogue users. A modest recon team of 3.6 fte staff was retained following the RSLP projects, with English literature and history, the main areas of duplication with Stratford stock, as their first targets. Other subject targets at this time often capitalised on particular language skills held by team members. A further two years were reserved for working on Special Collections material. At that work rate, complete online coverage of library book stock would probably have been achieved in about 30 years. The Collections Preparation project Collections Preparation aims to combine retrospective cataloguing and RFID tagging with a stock review exercise, not necessarily because of a need to dispose of copies, but because the aim is to have an up-to-date, focussed collection in the new Main Library, with lower use material in a new Store building. This has meant that our cataloguing schedule had to be fitted around the review schedule. At the University of Birmingham, it is the academic staff who select material for purchase and have the final decision, through consultation, on whether a low-use book is kept or discarded. Whereas RFID tagging and cataloguing are relatively straightforward to plan, stock reviews depend on interactions with academics and Subject Advisors, our colleagues in the Academic Support Teams, who liaise with academic staff, and have a role in collection development and management. For a variety of reasons, a retrospective cataloguing schedule which suited cataloguing staff would not necessarily work for them. In some subject areas, academics and subject advisors were keen to review stock, but had been unable to do so. The preferred method is to circulate reports from the library management system (LMS), but often the very material which most needed review was invisible to the LMS, because these books did not have online records. In the past, these areas had not been attractive recon targets. With limited resources, there was understandable reluctance to invest cataloguer time in creating records for books which might then be discarded. Collections Preparation needed to find a way around this catch. We solved the problem by introducing quick records. A quick record is not necessarily a poor one; we check our usual record sources for existing good records first. If we cannot find a match, we create a minimal level record, with just enough detail to give the item a meaningful line on a stock review report. Even these records provide enough presence on the library catalogue to arouse interest, and some hitherto neglected items are now in demand from readers. Each quick record includes a 597 $aq field, both to explain its shortcomings, and to aid identification later. The workflow has the following stages: 1. Checking by the Rare Books Librarian who intercepts books which meet criteria for retention within Special Collections. These books are reserved for full cataloguing, and are not RFID tagged.

2. Checking by Book Preparation Assistants (BPAs), using netbooks. They can either scan a barcode or type an accession number into a web form which brings up a catalogue record if we have one. 3. Books without records are sent to one of the three Recon Teams for quick record creation. 4. When we have completed quick record creation for a subclass, the Subject Advisor is informed that the area is ready for review. 5. RFID tagging is carried out, to facilitate stock management after the review process. 6. Following the review, any unwanted items are discarded and their records deleted. 7. Reports listing the remaining records containing 597$aq are used to locate quick records which need to be upgraded to full RLUK standard. RFID tagging aids the recovery of these books where necessary. 8. We carry out reclassification on the area if required. We use Library of Congress classification for most of our collections, but one site library uses Dewey. Our law collections, in the Main Library and Harding Law Library, used completely different, locally devised, versions of K. We have just reclassifed the Harding collection to Moys, with Main Library K to follow shortly. There are other areas where historical local adaptations to LC schedules are no longer helpful. Since 2007 we have aimed only to use the standard modern versions of these schemes, and this project provides a means of eliminating the most serious of the anomalies. We took on staff between 1st October and 6th January. Ed Tavner, our Recon Coordinator, and I recruited internally for two Metadata Specialists. We felt that it was essential for these postholders to be thoroughly familiar with our working practices, despite the tricky gaps that this would leave in our Metadata Team. They, in turn, carried out recruitment with Ed for their teams of Information Assistants and Book Preparation Assistants. The teams are now settled in suitable accommodation, but this was a particular challenge in a building already fully occupied. Few of the site libraries have enough space to accommodate even a small team. Most of our recon from sites and the remote store has to be vanned into the Main Library, although it is possible for people to check and tag in Store during the warmer months. We manage schedules and monitor progress using spreadsheets showing the plan for the various stages of work across the whole stock in all locations, and others listing subjects coming up for review in the next quarter of the project, with estimates of the extent of preparation needed to support that. We monitor statistics of the various tasks involved against our targets, so that we can assess whether enough team resource is going into a particular activity. In some areas which have recently been reviewed, or where it is already acknowledged that there should be no discards, we can start with full level cataloguing; areas which are already fully catalogued are also indicated. There is a fast-track request system for books which have been swept up by the recon machine. Most requests tend to be for Store items which have been given quick records, rather than open-shelves books which are browsable. Our best decision was to fund a part-time driver and van to bring Store and site material to the team. Probably our worst omission was not to include a costing element for cleaning books. Store books often need attention before they can be handled without gloves and dust masks. Finally, an observation: even where regular deliveries of work can be guaranteed, plenty of space is needed to carry out a large scale recon project; office space for people creating and editing records, generous temporary shelf space in non-public areas for the easy circulation of books at various stages of processing, and flexible space for the accumulating Special Collections (Store) books which are now being brought together as a collection. To date the project is progressing well, but we constantly need to review expected work rates and capabilities in the light of experience.

Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow – retrospective conversion at the University of Nottingham Janet Wharton, Cataloguing & Metadata Librarian, The University of Nottingham

The University of Nottingham started to automate its catalogue in 1984 and went live with online circulation and a microfiche catalogue generated from MARC records in 1986. For the first eleven years, the main focus of work was on supporting online circulation, getting as much as possible of the stock which would be borrowed (or retrospectively, which had been presented at issue desks) onto the computerised system.

Throughout this time, the majority of the retroconversion was done without the item in hand. Barcodes were stuck into items, key details noted on sheets, and records subsequently downloaded. As it was not possible to devote much time to checking the accuracy of the records, they were tagged as ―unchecked‖ and the paper records continued to be regarded as the ―true‖ catalogue record. Accordingly, all this material continued to be part of the retroconversion burden.

Systematic, complete retroconversion was scarcely dreamed of. There were certain areas where it was done – notably, if a new edition of a title was bought, all previous editions were added to the computerized catalogue. A principle was also established that we would not amend paper records – so if an item was to be moved to a different location, then it would be recatalogued, the cards removed from the card catalogue and the binder-slip (master paper record) taken out of its binder.

In 1995 about 100 items per month were still being barcoded at issue desks. However, we took the decision to stop working without the items in hand. (The paper records did not include pagination, and in some instances lacked publisher or series information so could not be relied upon as source information, even when the retroconversion work was undertaken by cataloguers.) In future, all ―barcode-on-issue‖ items were to be captured on return from loan and they, along with any other items noted on the binder-slips, would be given full cataloguing. So at last we were stopping adding to the sum of unchecked records on our system and had begun to reduce the existing backlog of records to be checked.

At this point, we quantified the retrospective cataloguing needed for arts, social sciences and special collections (the only areas for which we had the binder-slips at that time) – and it came to roughly 250,000 records. A proposal submitted to the Library Senior Management Team for a retrospective cataloguing project was unsuccessful – but the team took on individual areas which they were interested in to work on systematically in any available time. With time, we developed a system of giving each team member protected time for their project work. We drew up a ―church-roof-fund‖-style chart with a space for each binder and calculated that at the then rate of progress, the work would be completed by 2025!

A great impetus to retrospective cataloguing came from the Follett report and subsequent call for project proposals. The University of Nottingham put in a number of bids to work on printed and archival collections. Two printed special collections were funded: Briggs Collection of Educational Literature and Cambridge Drama Collection. These total about 3,700 volumes – but necessitated significantly more catalogue records because of the number of analytical records involved.

An opportunity had already been taken to devote a member of staff to starting work on retrospective conversion of our East Midlands Collection for a while. Soon after, a second, temporary post was created for retrospective conversion. This was marvellous – but unfortunately the work we chose to undertake, official government publications in our Documents Division, had not been included in our quantification as there were no binder-slips – so this work, although extremely useful and a high priority, did nothing to reduce our target figure.

Catalogue and Index 8

The decision by the University to open a new library for Computer Science, Business and Education on the new campus it was developing (Jubilee Campus) meant that we had an urgent need for retrospective conversion on a significant scale. We seconded a team member to work on the project full time and recruited a library assistant to work with her – and, having completed the work within the available time, also had the satisfaction that for the first time certain areas of library stock were fully catalogued in the online catalogue.

A second national initiative followed in the form of the Research Support Libraries Programme. The resulting projects enabled us to complete the cataloguing or retro-cataloguing of 5,000 music scores (Ensemble), 13,000 theology titles (Revelation), 3,700 mining reports (Mine of Information) and 3,000 Icelandic or Old Norse titles (EGIL). Britain in Print, a Heritage Lottery Fund supported project around the same time, facilitated the retroconversion of the 1,200 earliest British imprints in our holdings. Alongside these projects the team was also involved in a project to retroconvert the catalogue of the University‘s Adult Education Library, which was now to be absorbed into the University Library.

After this period of frenetic activity, progress was slowed by internal upheavals. Whereas hitherto the Cataloguing Team had been responsible only for bibliographic description, and classification and processing were undertaken in the branches, a review of library processes had recommended the centralization of classification and processing. Over the period of a year, we changed the way work is divided up – and gradually took on the classification of each subject area. Shortly after, the section was relocated to the University‘s new King‘s Meadow Campus a mile from University Park. The provision of a cataloguing hot desk in the arts and social sciences library (Hallward Library) made it possible to continue the retroconversion work in an efficient way and team members are able to schedule themselves to work in Hallward as workflows and team priorities allow.

One of the aims of centralizing classification was to standardize the use of Library of Congress classification since hitherto every branch had been free to develop its own adaptations of the schedules and had done so. A proposal for a funded project to undertake the work of standardization was rejected – so we needed to absorb the most urgent areas into our regular work and complete them as and when we could.

As the team settled into its new responsibilities, time started to become available to undertake more systematic retrospective work in other areas again, and this was done focusing on team members‘ strengths and interests. In addition, the transfer of Special Collections to King‘s Meadow placed a large body of important material in need of retroconversion in close proximity. Our Central Stores of less used stock had also been transferred to King‘s Meadow with even more material to retroconvert. By the end of 2010 we had completed the retroconversion of East Midlands Collection and of all material in Central Stores 1 & 2 (i.e. all subject areas).

At present, we can deal with current acquisitions and schedule each team member to spend 5 to 6 days per month in Hallward Library. With so much dedicated time now spent on retroconversion, each cataloguer has quantified the material she or he anticipates completing during the year – and made a plan for doing it. And the combined plans amount to 20,000 records this year.

The chart overleaf shows the retroconversion achieved by the Cataloguing Team (that is, excluding specially funded project work).

The relative amounts of cataloguing from newly downloaded MARC records, original cataloguing and upgrading of existing records fluctuate as we focus on different areas of stock, most notably with the larger amounts of original cataloguing whilst dealing with East Midlands Collection material (2008/09). The particularly lean years of 2000-2002 correspond to the first months with our new library management system and the RSLP and Adult Education Library projects. Some staff had been seconded to the projects and their positions backfilled – and hence the signs of strain!

In 2005 the increased pressure for space for user places made it desirable to remove the card catalogue. The decision was taken to digitize the catalogue as a short-term, temporary solution. The resulting catalogue provides an electronic replica of the author/title sequences of our card catalogues – images of cards with occasional index points. Additionally, the files were OCR‘d so keyword access is also possible. The digitized catalogue can be viewed at: http://nottingham.dilib.info/

Card catalogue digitization was always regarded as a temporary solution and work on full retroconversion has continued as before. Indeed, our progress over the last few years has made it seem that retrospective conversion is perhaps not something that we will always have with us. Recent requantification of the remaining work suggests that the arts, social sciences and special collections material amounts to about 85,000 titles. Science, engineering and agriculture account for a further 29,000. If it were possible to continue at the current rate, it would mean that the work could be finished by the end of 2017.

We have been tackling the problem of retrospective conversion however and whenever we could for many years – so which methodology works best? Nottingham noticeably has not outsourced any retroconversion. As indicated above, we concluded that the cataloguing standard in our card catalogue would be detrimental to the creation of MARC records of an appropriate quality and therefore made it desirable to retroconvert with the items in hand.

National initiatives with special funding provide a highly productive impetus. This is not just the financial input – but also a signal that the work is of national significance, and so makes it more likely that institutions will

prioritize further work. In the case of RSLP they introduced a minimum cataloguing standard which ensured that the funded work was done well – and helped to establish the standard as the norm for all work. Britain in Print provided a week‘s training in rare books cataloguing and use of the tools being made available for the project, which was of lasting benefit.

However, when several institutions are all trying to recruit cataloguers at the same time, then it quickly becomes apparent that there is a skills shortage here – particularly if there is some other specialism involved too, as was the case with Ensemble. Collaborative projects may impose methodologies and accounting regimes which differ from normal institutional practice and increase the management and administration required. The timing may not fit well with the institution‘s other commitments – and the definition of the subject of projects may cut across the way in which material is organised. For example, after the conclusion of Revelation and Britain in Print, Nottingham still had a significant amount of theological material to convert because it was too early for one project – and published in the wrong country for the other.

Making retrospective conversion a task which is undertaken regularly by the team ensures consistency of standards, and in general, it is welcomed by the team as an area where they have greater autonomy to manage their work. From an administrative point of view, it is efficient to manage – and the institution has the flexibility to respond quickly to changing priorities. As a potential negative, one would have to accept that a team is only likely to be funded to be able to carry out a modest level of non-core work each year – so retrospective conversion carried out this way is likely to be a long drawn-out process. And that inevitably carries the risk that priorities may change before the work is completed.

The inevitable conclusion is that every method has its benefits. Completing retroconversion seems to require the engagement of every opportunity – even though some are not without considerable pain!

Reference

Joint Funding Councils‘ Libraries Review Group report, December 1993 : [a report for the] Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1993.

Considering implementing shelf-ready in your library but unsure where to start? Looking to Improve your current process?

CILIP Cataloguing and Indexing Group are holding a one-day event looking at the practical realities of implementing shelf-ready with speakers from both academic and public libraries. The discussions will cover the steps they took in moving to shelf-ready - including cataloguing, classification, EDI invoicing and workflow issues.

Monday 5th December 2011, 10am-4.30pm, CILIP HQ, London. £75 CIG members, £85 non-CIG members

Coming full circle, the London Library Retrospective Cataloguing Project

Dunia García-Ontiveros, Head of Bibliographic Services, The London Library

The London Library is the world‘s largest independent lending library. It was founded in 1841 by Thomas Carlyle at a time when scholars in the capital only had access to the British Museum library, from which books could not be borrowed, and circulating libraries carrying only what Sir Charles Hagberg Wright (Librarian from 1893 to 1940) termed ‗current literature of the lighter sort‘.

The Library proved an instant success and has grown considerably since its foundation. Today it serves some seven thousand members and boasts over one million volumes, written in more than fifty languages and covering some two thousand subjects in the humanities.

The format of the Library‘s catalogues has evolved over time. Between 1841 and 1950 the Library produced many printed catalogues of its holdings. The definitive printed catalogue was published over 1913-14 and was later expanded by three supplements in 1920, 1929 and 1953. The printed catalogue and its supplements list the 550,000 volumes acquired by the Library before 1951. Subsequent acquisitions were listed on cards until the arrival of the Library‘s first computer catalogue in 1984. This fragmented catalogue presented members and staff with considerable difficulties and the Library's Retrospective Conversion Project was established as one of the principal aims of the 150th Anniversary Appeal launched in 1991.

Having secured enough funds to begin the project a great deal of preparation was carried out to establish a methodology. The decision was made to buy and import bibliographic records in bulk from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and with contracts duly signed the work began in earnest in 2000. Project staff photocopied the guard-book catalogue (38 albums with pasted and annotated cuttings of the printed catalogue and supplements) in its entirety and the photocopies, together with duplicate slips for the card catalogue, were shipped to Ohio. There were a few categories of material for which the Library decided not to import OCLC records. These were fiction, learned society publications, periodicals and works in non-Latin scripts as they could be catalogued more cost-effectively and accurately in-house. The OCLC hit-rate was around 80-85% for English titles, being slightly lower for works in foreign languages, and dropped to around 55% for early printed books.

When the project began it was managed by a Retrospective Conversion Manager who reported to the Head of Cataloguing. The work was carried out by both the permanent cataloguing staff, who combined retroconversion duties with the cataloguing of new acquisitions, and a small team of project cataloguers. They were assisted by ‗half-and-halfers‘, four staff who split their time between the cataloguing and circulation teams, and by two ‗bar coding‘ assistants. In those days the project was run mostly as a straightforward retrospective conversion; the OCLC bibliographic records were uploaded in batches onto the Library‘s computer catalogue and cataloguers only had to check them for errors. This was done by producing printouts of the uploaded records, which were given to the bar coding assistants together with a stack of duplicate bar codes. Thus equipped, the assistants would find the books on the shelves by checking their printouts. Once found they would place a bar code inside the book and a duplicate bar code on the corresponding printout. The bar coded printouts were then given to cataloguers who would check the imported records on the computer catalogue, make any necessary corrections and create item records by scanning the bar coded printout. While this approach was speedy it had some important drawbacks:

 cataloguers were editing records and in many cases adding subject headings for books they never got to handle so they couldn‘t be sure of the accuracy of the records they were editing

 in a lending library where it is not rare for books to be lost or damaged and often replaced with a different

Catalogue and Index 12

edition a bar coding assistant could struggle to find a copy on the shelves to match their printout

Separating the cataloguing and bar coding processes left too much room for error. Furthermore, the work of cataloguers was mechanical and repetitive and motivation was a problem. Nevertheless, the team worked very hard and by Spring of 2006 the entire card catalogue had been converted. By this time, the half-and-halfers had moved on from guard-book photocopying and book bar coding to actual cataloguing of works of fiction and later to editing of imported records. In May 2006 work began on converting the printed catalogue using the same methodology that had been used for the card catalogue conversion, but big changes were on the way.

In March 2007 I joined the London Library as Head of Retrospective Cataloguing, reporting directly to the Deputy Librarian. After I arrived the Cataloguing Team split into two, one dedicated solely to cataloguing new acquisitions with the Head of Current Cataloguing in charge, while the project cataloguers, half-and-halfers, bar coding assistants and I became the Retrospective Cataloguing Team. A few months later the split became physical when the current cataloguers moved their office to the Library‘s new extension and the retro cataloguers moved to offices at the top of the old building.

Before I took up the post I already felt that editing imported records without handling books to make sure the bibliographic descriptions were accurate was far from ideal but I thought I would give it a try before making any changes. After a month of editing ‗blind‘ I was convinced that our methodology needed to change if we were going to improve the quality of our records. I decided that retro cataloguers should only edit records with the relevant book in hand and in order to ferry the books from the shelves to the cataloguers‘ desks the first thing we had to do was to buy a small book trolley for every member of the team. This was the moment when the retro-conversion project became a retro-cataloguing project. I also felt that we should work thematically rather than alphabetically: working systematically through one subject at a time would help us be more consistent in our approach, especially when it came to assigning subject headings. But, with over two thousand subjects to choose from where should we begin? Three factors would determine for us which subjects we were to prioritise:

 Demand. A circulation report showed us which collections were more heavily borrowed by Library members: art, biography, fiction, history and literature. This, of course did not account for use within the Library, which is much harder to measure, but it was a start.

 Team knowledge. To help me decide which subdivisions within those collections we should tackle first I looked to the language skills and subject expertise of my team.

 Donations. On occasion we have been fortunate enough to receive sponsorship towards the retro conversion of a particular subject and this has taken precedence over the first two factors.

The change in methodology had other advantages that I had not anticipated. Working with the book in hand makes it possible to assess its condition and pass it on to our conservation team for repairs if necessary. The thematic approach gives us an overview of the sections of our collection we work on so we can easily identify missing items and gaps in the collection as we go along. This working method has changed the nature of the project: it is no longer just about cataloguing and has now become the most comprehensive collection audit we have had since Hagberg Wright re-catalogued the Library‘s holdings in the 1890s. Finally, by working thematically and taking cataloguers‘ inclination into account when allocating the work, the team members get a sense of ownership of the work they do and a great deal of satisfaction every time they complete a shelf-mark, whether it is just a small one like our 24 books on the circus or a major milestone in the project like our vast collection of English literature. The effect this greater motivation has had on productivity is dramatic. Despite switching to a much more labour intensive methodology our throughput increased by 30% in the first year and

remained at the same level the following year.

Part of the role of the newly-created post of Head of Retrospective Cataloguing was to try and raise funds to help accelerate the project. This was something new and exciting for me, but also quite challenging. Although the Library is a registered charity and is a not-for-profit organisation, its independent status makes it ineligible for most government grants. Without the expertise of our Development team I would not have known where to look for potential donors. Luckily, the team that was set up in 2004 to raise funds for the Library‘s Development Project was also able to find organisations, trusts and foundations to support the Retrospective Cataloguing Project. Once they made contact with a potential donor and established their area of interest I would prepare a formal funding application. In this way we were able to secure large donations towards the retro-cataloguing of some our 16th century books, as well as our Jewish and Christian collections. Flyers prepared with the Development team‘s help and displayed around the Library as well as information on our website on how our members could support the project also brought in a number of smaller donations from individuals.

Still, while the Development Project helped enormously to raise the profile of the Retrospective Cataloguing Project and helped find sponsors, when the building work began it had an inevitable impact on our progress. Many parts of the building became inaccessible and the main passenger lift was out of service for nine months, leaving retro cataloguers marooned on the top floor. Our criteria for prioritising certain subjects changed accordingly; retro cataloguers were including accessibility as one of the factors in choosing a subject. Even so, in the absence of a passenger lift, books had to be ferried using book lifts and when these were not available we had to resort to carrying them in crates up and down the stairs. Another complication was that during this period some the Library‘s collections had to be stored off-site and this included a collection of 664 pamphlet volumes that we were in the process of retro-cataloguing, having received sponsorship to do so. Batches of the volumes had to be brought back to the Library by van and then returned to the store after they were catalogued. It is hardly surprising that during this period productivity dropped by 35% although part of the drop can be attributed to the natural slowdown resulting from having completed parts of the collection such as our fiction section (fully retro-catalogued by May 2009) that required only basic cataloguing.

Keeping detailed monthly cataloguing figures is essential in order to monitor these fluctuations in the rate of progress of the project and without them it would not be possible to make realistic forecasts for a date of completion. The estimated completion date changes depending on this rate of progress but it is safe to say that at current staffing levels we still have another ten years to go. Statistics are also important for keeping both staff and members of the Library informed of how the project is advancing but no amount of record-keeping and forecasting could have prepared us for the next challenge we had to face.

In November 2009 the Library lost the right to claim Gift Aid on its members‘ subscription fees. This left us with a shortfall of about £300,000, around 10% of the Library‘s annual budget. Although we were able to get an extension so that we could continue to claim Gift Aid until September 2010, permanent cuts in our expenditure had to be made. This could only be achieved through staff restructuring and a salary cut across the board. Several senior posts were made redundant, two of them in the Current Cataloguing team, which was then reunited with the Retrospective Cataloguing team (where a post had already been frozen) to form a new Bibliographic Services department in March 2011.

In the new team all cataloguers undertake both current and retrospective cataloguing, giving priority to the cataloguing of new acquisitions. This means that new books are catalogued more quickly as we have a larger number of staff in the combined team and it also allows us to maximise our resources: during periods when fewer new books arrive in the Library cataloguers can continue to work at the same rate by concentrating on the retro project. Having a greater pool of expertise to draw from for the retrospective cataloguing is

undoubtedly a bonus but with a smaller combined team dedicated to cataloguing new books first, the retro work has to take second place. Early indications are promising. Two months after the merger, combined cataloguing figures began to exceed pre-merger levels, while the figures for retrospective cataloguing alone are still lower than those of last year.

It is still early days and it is hard to predict how the project will progress over the next few years. Given the challenges that both the Library and the Retrospective Cataloguing Project have had to face it is more important than ever to monitor progress very closely, to keep the team motivated and to remind everyone constantly of why the project is so important and how vital it is that we keep going. There is one important fact to bear in mind: every single day the Retrospective Cataloguing Project uncovers more of the Library‘s riches.

Membership of CIG widened

Joining CIG just got more accessible. It will no longer be necessary to be a CILIP member in order to join CIG. At its Annual General Meeting on 20th September 2011, CIG voted in favour of allowing non-CILIP members to join CIG. This new type of member will be known as ‗subscribing member‘ and will be available from 2012.

Of course, we would ideally like all members of CIG to also be members of CILIP. However, we recognise that this is not always going to be the case and still want CIG to be accessible to the widest membership possible.

Thank you to everyone who joined in the discussions and made comments on this new membership status.

Please watch for future announcements about joining CIG as a subscribing member.

Stuart Hunt

Chair CIG

Retrospective cataloguing at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge: a new(ish) professional’s perspective Jenny Sargent, Assistant Librarian (Cataloguing)

In the winter of 2006, shortly after graduating with a master‘s degree in Library and Information Studies from UCL, I had the good fortune to be appointed to one of three posts of Assistant Librarian at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. The college library serves the needs of around 750 students and the fellowship (a body of over one hundred senior academics which governs the college) by maintaining and developing an extensive collection of modern books and journals (over 90,000 volumes) and other appropriate resources. The rigorous and extensive training provided by the ―cat. and class.‖ modules for which UCL is widely renowned (notorious even?) had well prepared me for the demands of cataloguing this kind of material. However, shortly after taking up the post, the library team embarked on a long-term cataloguing project of a very different nature: the online retrospective cataloguing of the library‘s collection of 26,000 early printed books.

History of the collection

The accumulation of books and their manuscript predecessors (of which the library possesses over seven hundred) began in the very earliest days of the college‘s history. There has been a collection since its foundation by Edmund Gonville in 1348, and a collection housed in purpose-built accommodation since 1441. Five hundred and seventy years later, the first 350 of which saw the collection much augmented and consolidated (mainly) through the gifts and bequests of successive members and masters of the college, the collection resides in the magnificent Lower Library (pictured), the ground floor of the nineteenth century Cockerell Building (named after its architect C.R. Cockerell, who also designed Oxford‘s Ashmolean Museum), which the library has occupied since 1996.

In terms of subject matter, the collection reflects the interests of those who formed and contributed to it. Theological works account for a large portion, and there are many legal texts. Under the influence of Dr. John Caius (pronounced ―keys‖), who rescued the college from a period of decline by re-founding it in 1557, the

Catalogue and Index 16

collection swelled with works appropriate to humanist studies (for example, editions of classical authors) and the natural and medical sciences.

The guardbook catalogue

Prior to the inception of the retrospective cataloguing project, specific volumes in the collection could be located by searching in the library‘s guardbook catalogue, the rough equivalent of a card catalogue. The guardbooks are loose-leaf binders (numbering thirty nine in total) in which cards, containing the basic bibliographic information about a work – author, title, and imprint – were pasted, ordered alphabetically by author. For those readers with physical access to the library (the fellowship at will; current students of the college and visiting scholars by appointment) and having in mind a particular work or author, such a catalogue was adequate; however, for all other enquiries there was no option but to browse the shelves, an activity complicated by their arrangement, which follows historical precedent rather than active classification. Each of the twelve bays in the Lower Library contains a number of broad subject groupings, but some subjects appear in more than one bay, and related subjects are often separated. The shelving is arranged such that volumes of similar height are brought together, maximising efficiency in terms of space, but separating volumes which might otherwise, by virtue of their content, have stood together. Another impediment for the subject browser is the existence in the collection of many works which are bound with others in a single volume. Although it is often the case that the works united in a single volume share a common subject, this is by no means a rule; sometimes disparate works were bound together simply for the convenience of their owner, or, after incorporation into the library, to unite them with other items which belonged to a particular donor.

Clearly then, even those lucky enough to enjoy the use of the guardbooks and the freedom to browse the shelves faced a considerable challenge if they proposed anything beyond retrieving a particular title by author. For the remote enquirer, the presence of a particular volume in the collection could be discovered from a number of printed catalogues (for example, Adams‘ Catalogue of Books Printed on the Continent of Europe in Cambridge Libraries or Pollard and Redgrave‘s Short-title Catalogue), but the wealth and scope of the collection were all but hidden.

A long awaited start

The library staff began the process of automating the catalogue of the working stock (i.e. the modern, student-oriented collection, now housed on the first floor of the Cockerell Building and known as the Upper Library) in 1987. It was always expected that at some point the early printed collection would be catalogued online as the natural sequel to this. However, the large number of volumes in the working collection and the small number of staff combined to make its cataloguing a long and difficult process, which left little time for anything but the slightest of attempts to catalogue the early printed stock. With no possibility of creating a post or posts specifically for the task, the cataloguing of the early printed collection took a back seat to the more pressing needs of the working library and its catalogue and users, an unsatisfactory situation. The size and scope of the Lower Library collection make it a rich resource, deserving of attention from the academic community. This community increasingly expects a record of all collections online and, with the danger that those collections not represented in OPACs will be overlooked, the lack of progress in the cataloguing of the collection became a growing concern.

Finally, in 2003, the online catalogue of the working stock was considered to be of sufficient quality throughout and the staffing levels such that there was the time and energy to consider embarking on the retrospective cataloguing of the early printed collection. After undertaking training in rare books cataloguing, and with a copy of DCRB (the guidelines which served as a supplement to AACR2 for the purpose of rare books cataloguing) to

hand, staff began working, as and when time could be spared, on creating records for the works in one particular, arbitrarily selected, bay of the Lower Library. This served as a rather informal pilot project, and was a time of discovering and overcoming the challenges and demands of cataloguing materials of this kind, of learning, and of experimenting with workflows. Two years later, coinciding as it happened with my arrival in post, it was agreed that the project should proceed on a more systematic footing, and staff were allocated regular time slots in which to work on it. The plan was to proceed in chronological stages: first, to catalogue all books printed between the years 1501 and 1550, a task which was completed last year; next, those printed between 1551 and 1600; then between 1601 and 1650, and so on. At any given time each member of staff would be responsible for one letter of the alphabet, working their way through the guardbook entries for authors whose surnames begin with that letter, cataloguing any work which was printed within the appropriate date range. It was always going to be a long-term project, but it was hoped that progress would be steady.

Creating records, reaping benefits

The records are created in the cataloguing module of the Voyager library management system, using MARC21 and AACR2, supplemented by the standards set out by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee in collaboration with the Library of Congress in their Descriptive Cataloguing of Rare Materials (Books) (DCRM (B)). Copy specific information is an important part of each record. Notes are made detailing provenance, imperfections, binding, autographs, annotations, inscriptions and any other feature unique to the copy in hand. Library of Congress Subject Headings are also assigned. The resulting records have a far higher level of description than that which appeared on the card entries in the guardbooks. The catalogue user can exploit this richness of data, drawing on the search capabilities of the OPAC to retrieve records in a wide variety of ways. Another useful consequence of the large amount of information available in the online catalogue is that the researcher is able to formulate precise and focused enquiries remotely, saving staff time and effort, streamlining the process of enquiry and response, and maximising the efficient use of time spent both researching and visiting the collection.

The potential for an online catalogue to greatly enhance and improve the process by which items in a collection are discovered and accessed by library staff and the community of current and potential users is an obvious driving force behind any retrospective cataloguing project and the most obviously discernible benefit. However, there are also important indirect benefits to the library and its parent organisation, in this case the college.

The benefits of high level description extend beyond their use to the academic/research community; a detailed and accurate record of the contents of the library is invaluable from an administrator‘s perspective, equally able to serve as an inventory as a research resource.

The profiles of the library and the college are enhanced by the online presence of the collection. The records can be retrieved not only via Newton (the online catalogue for the libraries of Cambridge University) but also by searching COPAC. Increased access to information about the collection via its catalogue records is likely to lead to increased interest. The more the collection is discussed and written about, the greater its profile within the college and beyond, hopefully resulting in an increased likelihood of long-term security. A library collection of recognised importance, held in high regard, is undoubtedly a major asset to the college.

Staff have benefitted enormously from their involvement in the project. I believe that participating has enhanced my ability to do my job. There‘s no better way to get to know a collection than to catalogue it! Each book that passes through my hands adds to the depth of my knowledge of the collection in all its aspects (intellectual, physical, historical) and better equips me to respond to its needs and those of its users. In order to be able to describe the binding of each volume I have learned the anatomy of the book; to identify the type of illustrations I

have got to grips with the history and development of printing processes; I have acquired skills in palaeography, enabling me to read and transcribe autographs and inscriptions; and each time I record the name of a donor or owner or some other person associated with the provenance of an item I increase my knowledge of the history of the collection and the college. As well as expanding the range of my skill set and ensuring my continuing professional development, there is the knock-on effect of an increase in the quality of the service I am able to provide to users of the collection.

Five years later...

In nearly five years, myself and three colleagues, each contributing to the project between one half and one whole day per week, have created records for just under 2,500 works. This is a small proportion of the entire number to be catalogued, but it is a solid and much needed start, and an impressive achievement given the relatively small amount of staff time allocated to the project. Certainly, had a temporary post or posts been created specifically for the purpose of the project, the catalogue would have been completed sooner. However, this was and continues to be impossible and in fact I believe, as outlined above, that the library and its users benefit from the continually increasing knowledge and understanding of the collection acquired by the permanent staff as they proceed with the project. Progress may be relatively slow, but in the meantime we are seizing every opportunity to learn about and document the nature of the collection, ensuring that the increased access which the growing catalogue provides is underpinned and facilitated by capable and knowledgeable staff. In this way the project is ensuring that the library and the college are enhanced by making the most of not just one, but two, assets: the remarkable collection of the Lower Library, and the team of staff responsible for it.

This article has presented a narrative account of a retrospective cataloguing project from a somewhat personal perspective, but I hope that it has provided one or two interesting insights for readers. Anybody interested in learning more about Gonville and Caius College and its library can visit the college‘s website at http:// www.cai.cam.ac.uk/. The records for those works catalogued so far (any work with a publication date of between 1501 and 1550, and many printed during the years between 1551 and 1600) can be retrieved by searching the ―Colleges A-N‖ database in the University of Cambridge‘s Newton Catalogue, which can be found here: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/newton/. I am always happy to discuss my work, the college, the library and its collections, and many other things besides. I can be reached by email at [email protected], or by telephone on 01223 332419.

The photograph of the Lower Library was reproduced by permission of the Master and Fellows of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge.

References

1. Adams, Herbert M. Catalogue of Books Printed on the Continent of Europe, 1501-1600, in Cambridge Libraries. Lon- don: Cambridge University Press, 1967. 2. Pollard, Alfred and Redgrave, Gilbert. A Short-title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, & Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475-1640. 2nd ed. London: Bibliographical Society, 1976-1991. 3. Library of Congress Office for Descriptive Cataloging Policy. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books. Washington, D.C.: Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, 1991. 4. Bibliographic Standards Committee, Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and Research Li- braries, and the Cataloging Policy and Support Office of the Library of Congress. Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Mate- rials (Books). Washington, D.C.: Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, 2007.

Is RDA ReDundAnt?

Sue Batley, Senior Lecturer in Information Management, London Metropolitan University

The title of this article and its tone are intentionally inflammatory; this is an opinion piece and I‘m allowed, even expected, to be controversial. I don‘t even necessarily agree with all the points I‘m making, but I think they‘re valid points, and my aim is to encourage debate about RDA. Some issues I raise are quite trivial; others are of profound importance to the future of cataloguing. I think that some readers will agree with my comments in this piece; I hope that some will passionately disagree.

I read the articles in the last issue of Catalogue and Index with great interest and couldn‘t find much to argue with. Clearly there is a lot of ambivalence about RDA; most of us think it‘s fine in theory but aren‘t sure if it‘s workable in practice. It was initially quite heartening to read that the mood among delegates to the CILIP Executive Briefing was more upbeat this year, but on reflection I was rather depressed that our mood can be positively affected by so little progress. All that‘s happened is that we have the text and the Toolkit at long last but that doesn‘t alter the fact that after years of development RDA is still terribly flawed and virtually unusable in its current form.

In June we saw the publication of the results of the first extensive practical testing of RDA and the outcome is that there‘s been a further delay to its (even partial) implementation. We‘ve also seen the British Library being very reticent about making any definitive statements about RDA‘s introduction in the UK. Certainly the UK library community‘s ‗wait and see‘ attitude is reflected in the British Library‘s stance – if the Library of Congress fully commits, then we probably will too, seems to sum up the prevailing thinking.

This lack of enthusiasm and commitment is astonishing, and appears to be indicative of a widespread belief that RDA isn‘t going to work. What‘s deeply worrying about this is that we all know that AACR2 has outlived its usefulness but after years of planning we still don‘t have a viable alternative. I wrote an article for Managing Information over 10 years ago about how annoying it was that librarianship‘s expertise in indexing, cataloguing and classification was being largely ignored in developing tools for describing and organising digital resources. Now I think if it had been left up to us we wouldn‘t have seen any progress in digital information management. We‘d have wasted years discussing issues, writing virtually unreadable documents for further discussion, and never actually agreeing upon or implementing anything. You‘ll be able to gather from this that I wasn‘t surprised when news came that the time line for RDA‘s introduction had been extended (none of the various deadlines has been met so far).

I think that such pessimism is, if not wholly justified (I admit to exaggerating somewhat in this piece), at least understandable. The latest RDA Test Coordinating Committee report doesn‘t fill me with optimism. The report makes it clear that a lot of the goals of RDA have not been met: many have only been partially met, and many have not been met at all. This comes after years of development and a massive expenditure of time and resources. I can‘t help wondering whether the whole exercise has been a waste of time. It certainly doesn‘t reflect well on the library community.

I want to remind you of some of the report‘s findings. This is not a full list but highlights points that particularly struck me. First let me remind you of the basic goals of RDA. It was agreed that it should:

 Provide a consistent, flexible and extensible framework for all types of resources and all types of content.

This goal was met. I‘d have been extremely worried if this goal had not been met as we already had the framework. We had MARC 21 and we had the FRBR entities, attributes and relationships.

Catalogue and Index 20

• Be compatible with internationally established principles and standards.

This goal was partially met. ―The Coordinating Committee looks forward to increased harmonization efforts among JSC, ISBD, and ISSN communities‖ . It‘s making me feel quite nostalgic to see the word ‗harmonization‘ again. MARC 21 was the culmination of years of efforts to achieve harmonization and now it seems that MARC 21 will have only a brief mention in the history of cataloguing.

• Be usable primarily within the library community, but able to be used by other communities.

The test did not cover this goal. I always thought it was an error to try to accommodate the needs of other communities. This was never going to be achievable – if it hasn‘t been possible to persuade people to use the much simpler Dublin Core metadata element set then you certainly can‘t expect them to use the much longer and much more complex RDA to describe their resources. If it was ever a realistic hope that RDA would be used outside of our own professional community then simplicity, not increased complexity should have been the aim. If the hope was for a universal standard for resource description then work could arguably have been better focussed upon modifying the existing Dublin Core elements to better meet library needs.

Now, let‘s bear in mind that the whole rationale behind RDA is to put the needs of the user at the centre of the cataloguing process. Let‘s see how well RDA is doing in this respect.

• Enable users to find, identify, select, and obtain resources appropriate to their information needs.

This goal was partially met. ―User comments on RDA records indicate mixed reviews on how well new elements met user needs‖. Given that user needs underpin the whole development of RDA, it‘s remarkable that the test ―did not fully verify all the user tasks above‖. So we don‘t know if RDA meets user needs; we do, however, have a better indication of whether it meets the needs of the cataloguer. The goals were that RDA:

• Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other language communities.

• Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training purposes.

Neither of these goals was met. I‘m anticipating that the text of RDA will win a Golden Bull award from the Plain English Campaign. In fact I‘m considering nominating some sections of the text for the next set of awards (closing date for nominations is 31st October by the way) – it‘s not difficult to find examples of gobbledegook. RDA is basically a cut and paste job using the FRBR Report and AACR2, I particularly can‘t understand why RDA has used the same language as FRBR. It‘s usually not a good idea to use language from a conceptual analysis in a practical application. I know from experience that students find FRBR difficult to grasp, they‘re not immediately comfortable with the concept of an entity and they get confused in trying to distinguish between works, expressions, manifestations and items. This confusion is, I think, understandable. Even experienced cataloguers may find the following extract from RDA difficult to interpret:

The term resource▼ is used in chapters 2–4 to refer to a manifestation or item

(see 1.1.5 ). When used in the context of the descriptive elements covered in chapters 2–4 , the term resource normally refers to a manifestation. However, for certain elements covered in those chapters (e.g., custodial history of item, immediate source

of acquisition of item), the resource referred to is an item.

Am I the only person who finds the RDA Toolkit awkward to use? As I am possibly one of the few people in the UK with a subscription to the RDA Toolkit, you probably can‘t answer that question. The problem is in the size – once you start expanding sections in the menu of contents, that menu becomes huge. OK once we‘re familiar with the rules we won‘t have to keep checking them, but the sheer scale of the thing is frightening. The hardcopy version is no better. The library at London Metropolitan University acquired a hardcopy edition of RDA so that students have access to a reference copy when they aren‘t timetabled for training (more on this under subscription models below) – it‘s shockingly big. The library had to take it apart and rebind it in several volumes otherwise it would have fallen apart after a few uses. It saddens me that simple, practical considerations (like decent, durable binding) have been ignored, especially as the costs are so high. I have multiple copies of AACR2 that I lend to students for as long as they‘re studying cataloguing, I certainly won‘t be buying multiple copies of the huge, unwieldy and poorly bound RDA instructions at around £100 per copy to lend to students. Beyond teaching students the underpinning theory (and I was already covering FRBR and FRAD anyway), I‘ve stopped planning my teaching around RDA. Practical sessions will continue to focus on AACR2 and MARC 21 in the next academic year at least.

Having mentioned costs, I really do have a problem with the subscription models. At my instigation London Met has taken out the cheapest (one concurrent user) site subscription for teaching purposes. Predictably, and sensibly, the library service at the University has adopted the ‗wait and see‘ approach to using RDA for cataloguing so I can‘t share costs – my faculty is footing the whole bill. This means that I have access to the Toolkit online and if I want to train students I can request additional training use for pre-arranged times and dates. Outside of these pre-arranged training sessions students won‘t be able to access the Toolkit – the University certainly won‘t foot the bill for a multiple user subscription at around £40 per additional user per year. I‘m doubtful of the quality of the training I can provide for beginner cataloguers if they can‘t practise their skills outside of three-hour teaching slots.

Now I want to move on to a more general issue; one which, if pessimists are correct in their assessment of RDA, is almost beyond belief. I‘m referring to the assumption that implementation of RDA will result in the creation of poor cataloguing records. We, of course, don‘t know if this will be the result, but if this does come to pass then any whingeing we may do about the quality of metadata on websites seems pretty hypocritical. I‘m certainly worried that individual cataloguers or individual library services are basically instructed to do what they like when recording details of items to be catalogued. This seems to be a retrograde step. We spent years striving for standardisation to facilitate record sharing; in the future if we import records from other agencies or libraries there‘ll probably be all sorts of inconsistencies in how elements of the catalogue entry are expressed. I sincerely hope that cataloguers continue to follow the conventions laid out in the ISBDs. Call me old fashioned, and I wouldn‘t have argued for this a few years ago, but I think that RDA should focus on good cataloguing practices and let other communities develop the Semantic Web. Let those other communities learn from us when their metadata fails, but let us not sacrifice quality and consistency to accommodate sloppy description and lack of attention to detail.

A recurring bugbear has been the Rule of three, so I couldn‘t write this piece without mentioning it. We are seeing some concessions as a result of the outcry in favour of the Rule‘s retention but again at the expense of consistency – another example of ―you should really do this but we don‘t mind if you decide to do something different‖. Here‘s an argument for retention of the Rule: apparently the record for most number of authors is held by an article on Z-Boson Production published in Physical Review Letters which listed 406 authors. I couldn‘t find the original article to substantiate the claim but quickly found another article on Z-Bosons in the same journal with 212 authors. Seriously, did no-one consider the trend in scientific publishing for articles to have multiple authors? OK, so we don‘t usually catalogue individual journal articles but if RDA is to be used

across all formats we will be increasingly using it to catalogue web-based materials and e-documents, many of which will have multiple authors.

To conclude, I don‘t think anyone doubted that new cataloguing standards were needed – AACR2 was in desperate need of re-working to catch up with new publication formats and new publication practices. But what we‘ve got is a mess – a set of rules so long, so complicated, and so difficult to use that there is understandable reluctance to implement them. I wouldn‘t be surprised if in ten years‘ time someone, maybe even me, is writing an article asking if RDA is ever going to be fully implemented. On the other hand we‘ve spent so much time developing and testing RDA that we‘re almost certainly stuck with it now – there‘s probably no turning back. If that‘s the case then work should begin immediately on RDA2.

References i. Library of Congress (2011) Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. http:// www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ ii. Batley, S. (2000) ‗Cataloguing and Classification of Electronic Resources: Old Skills in a New Environment‘, Managing Information, 7(8). iii. For previous winners see: www.plainenglish.co.uk/awards/golden-bull-awards.html iv. RDA 1.1.2 v. RDA 2.4.1.5 vi. See: www.answers.com/topic/what-scientific-article-has-the-most-authors vii. Abe, K. et al. (1994) ‗Precise Measurement of the Left-right Cross Section Asymmetry in Z Boson Production by e+ e- Collisions‘, Phys. Rev. Lett., 73, 25-29.

Do you agree with Sue or disagree?

Why not use the blog to tell us all what you think—contact any member of the CIG Committee, or the Blog Manager ([email protected]) to post your comment so everyone can join in the discussion.

Book reviews

E-books in libraries: a practical guide edited by Kate Price and Virginia Havergal

London: Facet Publishing, 2011. ISBN: 9781856045728

Reviewed by Elly Cope, Information Librarian (Chartered) – Cataloguing University of Bath

At the start of the book the editors make the point that the field of e-books is developing so quickly that there has been some reluctance to publish a book about them for fear of it swiftly going out of date. They decided to go ahead anyway and I, for one, am glad they did. The contributors are all people with experience in the field and they are writing about issues that keep coming up for those working with e-books. It provides perspective as well as advice and the promise that there isn‘t just one approach to managing e-books.

The book is separated into six sections and Parts 1-4 have a summary overview at the start: Part 1: The production and distribution of e-books Part 2: Planning and developing an e-book collection Part 3: Delivering e-books to library users Part 4: Engaging readers with e-books Part 5: The future of e-books Part 6: Useful information

This means that the main subjects and issues are covered while the overview gives an idea of which chapter will be of most interest.

I particularly liked and appreciated Part 6 and the useful information. Along with an index there is a glossary, top tips from the contributors, a checklist for e-book acquisition, advice on accessible e-books and a list of selected suppliers. This section demonstrates the very practical approach that the editors and writers have adopted throughout. It is very much a guide for practitioners rather than a theoretical treatise.

The most relevant section to cataloguers will be Part 3: ‗Delivering e-books to users‘ and probably most specifically Anna Grigson‘s chapter on ‗Making e-book collections visible to readers‘. She sets out the need for a cataloguing policy, how to manage the workflow, issues surrounding MARC records, managing links and provides a case study from her own institution.

This book would benefit anyone working with e-books as it has a very practical, rather than theoretical, approach. There is information on business models and suppliers, different approaches for different sectors, cataloguing and otherwise making e-books visible to users, engaging users once they are visible and then a summary of what the future might hold for e-books. Well worth a read, and, even if the e-books sector does move on quickly this will give a good basis for going further with e-books and understanding any changes that do occur.

Catalogue and Index 24

Book reviews

Preparing collections for digitization

Anna Bulow and Jess Ahmon

London: Facet Publishing, 2011. ISBN: 9781856047111

Reviewed by Lesa Ng, Freelance cataloguer

Preparing collections for digitization aims to address the practical aspects of digitisation projects focusing particularly on those areas surrounding preservation and conservation of the original documents.

Following an introduction to the benefits of digitisation projects in general as well as in relation to preservation, the authors then detail the issues that need to be addressed before embarking on the actual image capturing process. This covers strategic issues, outsourcing, the digital image, the selection process, collection surveys, and imaging equipment. As the main focus is on the preservation issues of digitisation, metadata capture, delivery systems and project management are not covered.

However, I would have welcomed much more emphasis put on the importance of good metadata and file naming mentioned in Chapter 3 – The digital image. As the author himself put it ―The maintenance of digital images is made much easier over time by keeping good matadata. [sic]‖. Numerous problems can result from poor file naming and metadata application and this being highlighted would have been a benefit.

We all know the importance of good cataloguing/cataloguers and what this text does well is champion the role of the conservator in the successful running of a digitalisation project in relation to the safe handling and preservation of original materials. This is shown particularly in the later chapters, which act as a ―how to‖ reference manual on preparing document formats and fastenings, preparing damaged documents, and setting up an imaging operation - describing workflows and suitable work environments.

Case studies illustrating the processes previously discussed are provided. A few of these however provided a real life description of the process rather than giving any real insight as to why a certain workflow or process was chosen or was beneficial for the materials involved. Other case studies, however, did flag up instances of problems and issues already discussed, therefore reinforcing the importance of these issues, for example, good communication between conservation and imaging teams, conducting collection surveys, and documentation.

There is a certain amount of repetition and self-referencing between the chapters. However, this book does provide a useful text for collection managers in understanding the preservation issues arising from digitisation projects and when used in conjunction with more comprehensive texts on digitisation would help in running a successful digitisation programme.

Catalogue and Index 25

Catalogue & Index is electronically published by the Cataloguing and Indexing Group of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) (Charity No. 313014)

Subscription rates: free to members of CIG; GBP 15.00 for non-members & institutions

Advertising rates: GBP 70.00 full-page; GBP 40.00 half-page. Prices quoted without VAT.

Submissions: In the first instance, please contact the Editors.

For book reviews, please contact the Book Reviews Editor: Neil T. Nicholson, Cataloguing & Metadata Services Team Leader, National Library of Scotland, e: [email protected]

ISSN 0008-7629

CIG website: http://www.cilip.org.uk/specialinterestgroups/bysubject/cataloguingindexing

CIG blog: http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/catalogueandindex/default.aspx

Tags from the CIG blog on specific areas of interest: authority control book reviews Catalogue and Index cataloguing CIG activities CIGS classification committees and working groups conferences Dewey digitised material Dublin Core events folksonomies linkblog MARC metadata news RDA Semantic Web social software standards taxonomies UDC

Catalogue and Index 26