DOCUMENT RESUME ED 038 153 52 LI 001 903 AUTHOR Cady, Glee; And Others TITL System Scope for librar: Automationand Generalized Information Storaue and Retrieval atStanford University. INSTITUTION Stanford Univ., Calif. SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.Bureau of Research. BUREAU NO BR-7-1145 PUB DATE Feb 70 GRANT 0EG-1-7-071145-4428(099 NOTE 152p. EDRS PPICE EDRS Price MF-$0.75 EC -$7.70 DESCRIPTORS *Automation, Decentralized Library Systems, *Electronic Data Processing, *InformationRetrieval, *Information Science, *Information Storage, Information Systems, Time Sharing,University Libraries IDENTIFIERS BALLOTS, *Bibliographic Automation LargeLibrary Operations, SPIRES, Stanford PhysicsInformation Retrieval System ABSTRACT The scope of a manual-automated systemserving the 40 libraries and the teaching andresearch community of Stanford University is defined. Also defined arethe library operations to be supported and the bibliographic informationstorage and retrieval capabilities to be provided in the system. Twomajor projects have been working jointly on libraryautomation and information retrieval since 1968. One is the BibliographicAutomation of Large Library Operations on a Time-sharing System (BALLOTS)funded by the Office of Education and the other is the StanfordPhysics Information Retrieval System (SPIPES), funded by theNational Science Foundation. The creation of a Froduction system forlibrary automation (BALLOTS II) and generalized information storageand retrieval (SPIRES II) requires the continuation of acomprehensive system development process. This process hassix phases: (1) preliminary analysis, (2) detailed analysis,(3) general design,(4) detailed design, (5) implementation and (6) installation. Thedocument represents the main output of the preliminaryanalysis phase encompassing thedefinition of goals, description of the userenvironment, analysis of the existing system, selection of the system scopeand establishment of gross technicalfeasib:litv of the selected firstimplementation scope. Included is a2u-page glossary of informationscience terminology. (MF) re% ill1 -52-- r-4 Pg U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION CO A WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION Pr% THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCED LI 001903 EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF (:) VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- C:3 CATION POSITION OR POLICY Li' SYSTEM SCOPE for LIBRARY AUTOMATION and GENERALIZED INFORMATION STORAGE ANn RETRIEVAL at STANFORD UNIVERSITY CO CD CM ..4 February, 1970 CD Stanford University CD Stanford, California 94305 I.\ JH i ACKNOWLEDGMENT The research reported herein was performed pursuant to: Grant No. OEG-1-7-071145-4428 (095) with the Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (BALLOTS -- Bibliographic Automation of Large Library Operations Using a Time-Sharing System), and Grant Nos, GN 600, GM 742 and GN 830 with the National Science Foundation (SPIRES -- Stanford Physics Information Retrieval System). Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgement in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official agency position or policy. it CONRIBUTORS This Scope Document was written by theSPIRES/ BALLOTS project staff: Glee Cady, Jesse Caton, Clark Crane, Wayne Davison, HankEpstein, Douglas Ferguson, Carol Kayser, Cheryl Kerr,James Narsheck, Donn Martin, Thomas Martin, EleanorNontaue, William Riddle, John Schroeder, and Jerrold est. It is the result of work by manyindividuals. We cannot mention all who havecontributed but it is a pleasure for us to express our specialappreciation to the following: Professor William F. Miller, VicePresident for Research and Chairman of the SPIRES/BALLOTSExecutive Committee has been a constant source ofencouragement. We have also been aided in many waysby his Special Assistant, Flicholas Fortis. Much of our work has requiredthe support of the Stanford Computation Center. Paul Amer, Director of the Stanford Computation Center, hasbeen extremely helpful with ideas and suggestions. Rod Frederickson, Associate Director of the CampusFacility, has given extensive technical support. We particularly acknowledgethe critical comments and ideas of Mr. Allen B. Veaner,Assistant Director for Bibliographic Operations,Stanford University Libraries, Principal Investigatorfor the Office of Education BALLOTS project, andProfessor Edwin S. Parker, Institute for CommunicationResearch, Principal Investigator for the National ScienceFoundation SPIRES project. The staff of the variouslibraries of Stanford University made major contributions tothis Document. David C. Weber, Director of Libraries,has given concrete and continuous support for the contributionswhich library automation can make to improvedlibrary management. The Analysis of the current library systemand the scope definition could not have beencompleted without the active support of Robert Goiter,Assistant Director for Undergraduate and Branch Services,and of the following department heads: Judy Fair, GovernmentDocuments; Ralph Hansen, Acquisition; JennetteHitchcock, Catalog; Jack Plotkin, Central Circulation;and B. Jack Pooler, Science Libraries. iii The staff members of each of these departments contributed their time and detailed knowleJge of operations to the Systems Analysis. We particularly acknowledge the efforts of William Allan, Guy DeBall, Kay Cutler, Pamela Dempsey, Ann Dietz, Charles Gorham, Peter Johnson, Fred Lynden, Maria Nikonenko, Frances Peters, Richard Pollard, and Gertrude White. 3ernard J. Denham, Assistant to to the Director of Libraries, made extensive statistical data available to us. At the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) Library, George Owens and Robert Gex gave whole-hearted support to the initiation fo the prototype system. Louise Addis did much of the background work in setting up the system and is primarily responsible for its effective use. In addition, she wrote Appendix F which records the SLAC experience with the prototype automated system. A Preliminary Version of the Scope Document was comprehensively criticized by many individuals previously mentioned. In addition, we acknowledge pertinent comments from the following: Professor J. Myron Jacobstein, Librarian, Stanford Law Library; Karen dendorf, Catalog Department; and John Heyeck, Assistant to the Director of Libraries. Diana DeLanoy and Hilma Mortell, who are no longer with the project, contributed to several sections of a preliminary version of the Scope Document. The flowcharts in the text were skillfully drawn by Sandra Beattie and many of the details of reproduction and distribution were handled expertly by uaomi Schwartz. Finally, we wish to thank the secretarial staff who contributed in many ways, each day, as the document was being prepared: Marlene Amiot, Libby Jenkins and Charla Meyer. + iv TABLEOF CONTENTS i Acknowledgement ii Contributors CHAPTER PAGE PART I Preface To the System Scope 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Project Rationale 2 1.2 Purpose and Audience 3 1.3 Document Organization 3 1.4 Suggestions to the Reader 4 2.0 BACKGROUND 4 2.1 BALLOTS I and SPIRES I 4 2.2 A Perspective on Development--BALLOTS II and SPIRES II 6 3.0 GOALS 8 3.1 Library Automation--BALLOTS 8 3.2 Generalized Information Storage and Retrieval--SPIRES 9 3.3 Common Facilities--BALLOTS and SPIRES 10 PART II Library Automation 4.0 CURRENT LIBRARY SYSTEMS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS 4.1 Users and User Characteristics 12 4.2 Summary of Library Operations 13 4.21 Technical Processing 14 4.22 User Services 19 4.23 Summary of Limitations 23 5.0 LONG RANGE SCOPE FOR LIBRARY AUTOMATION 25 5.1 General Considerations 25 5.11 Technical Processing 25 5.12 User Services 25 6.0 FIRST IMPLEMENTATION SCOPE 23 6.1 Technical Processing 28 6.2 User Services 35 v PART III Generalized Information Storage and Retrieval 7.0 CURRENT STATUS, GENERALIZED INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL 38 7.1 Representative User Profiles 38 7.2 Summary of User Requirements 40 7.3 Summary of Current Facilities and Limitations 41 8.0 LONG RANGE SCOPE FOR GENERALIZED INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL 45 8.1 Retrieval 45 8.2 File Management 54 9.0 FIRST IMPLEMENTATION SCOPE 60 9.1 Retrieval 60 9.2 File Management 62 PART IV Shared Facilities 10.0 SUMMARY OF CURRENT SHARED FACILITIES G6 11.0 LONG RANGE SCOPE, SHARED FACILITIES 69 12.0 FIRST IMPLEMENTATION SCOPE, SHARED FACILITIES 69 APPENDICES APPENDIX AGlossary 74 APPENDIX B Preliminary Analysis PhaseMethodology 95 APPENDIX CDocumentation of the Current Library System 99 APPENDIX DThe Libraries of Stanford University 113 APPENDIX E The Stanford Law Library--A Potential BALLOTS and SPIRES User 116 APPENDIX F Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Participation in SPIRES 122 APPENDIX GTutorial: Information Storage and Retrieval141 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Acquisition First Implementation Scope 30 Figure 2: Cataloging First !mpiementation Scope 33 PART I PREFACE TO THE SYSTEM SCOPE 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE SCOPE DOCUMENT 1.1 Project Rationale Library automation requires a major systemdevelopment effort and sizeable expenditures for computerequipment. Computerized information storage and retrievalrequires an equally large investment in hardware and software. Both efforts have common conceptual problems in such areas as bibliographic file organization and on-line searching. Each effort derives benefits from the other. Bibliographic files created in the process