emerging from the bibliographic wilderness: catalogue automation in the bodleian library, university...

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 01:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cataloging & ClassificationQuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

Emerging from the BibliographicWilderness: Catalogue Automationin the Bodleian Library, Universityof OxfordPeter P. Burnett BA and MA aa Bodleian Library , Oxford University , Broad Street,Oxford, OX1 3BG, EnglandPublished online: 23 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Peter P. Burnett BA and MA (2000) Emerging from the BibliographicWilderness: Catalogue Automation in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Cataloging &Classification Quarterly, 30:1, 51-72, DOI: 10.1300/J104v30n01_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v30n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J104v30n01_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v30n01_04

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Emerging from the Bibliographic Wilderness:Catalogue Automationin the Bodleian Library,

University of OxfordPeter P. Burnett

SUMMARY. This article provides a history of cataloguing and cata-logue automation at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University and in-cludes a description of the Catalogue Support Services within the Cata-loguing Division of the Bodleian Technical Services Department. The1995 decision to migrate to Geac and some subsequent developmentand implementation is described along with staff training for the cata-loguing module. The article includes an assessment of the impact ofautomation and challenges for the future. [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>]

KEYWORDS. Cataloguing, catalog automation, Bodleian Library,Oxford University, Geac, staff training

INTRODUCTION

The Bodleian Library in the University of Oxford is one of theoldest libraries in Europe, and in England is second in size only to the

Peter P. Burnett, BA, MA, is Head of Technical Services, Bodleian Library,Oxford University, Broad Street, Oxford OX1 3BG, England.

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: ‘‘Emerging from the Bibliographic Wilderness: Catalogue Automa-tion in the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford.’’ Burnett, Peter P. Co-published simultaneously inCataloging & Classification Quarterly (The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press,Inc.) Vol. 30, No. 1, 2000, pp. 51-72; and: Managing Cataloging and the Organization of Information:Philosophies, Practices and Challenges at the Onset of the 21st Century (ed: Ruth C. Carter) The HaworthPress, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2000, pp. 51-72. Single or multiple copies of this article areavailable for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-342-9678, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.(EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].

� 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MANAGING CATALOGING AND THE ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION52

British Library. It has a continuous history from 1602, the date of its‘‘restoration’’ by Sir Thomas Bodley, but even then this was a re-foundation on the site of an earlier library. In fact, the first Universitylibrary of Oxford dates back to circa 1320. In 1610 Bodley enteredinto an agreement with the Stationers Company, whereby the Statio-ners undertook to send to the Library every new book that they pub-lished. This agreement made the Bodleian Library virtually a depositlibrary 150 years before the British Museum was founded. The Li-brary has continued to enjoy the privilege of legal deposit since thatdate, and now contains over 7 million volumes (including 6,500 incu-nabula), 1.2 million maps, and over 1 million music scores. Thecollections may be accessed through 29 reading rooms in 12 separatebuildings.

The University of Oxford has an even longer history, dating back tothe end of the 11th century. The first recorded overseas student wasEmo of Friesland in 1190, and in 1214 the title of Chancellor wasformally conferred to the magister scolarum Oxonie. The earliest col-leges date back to the late 13th century and began as medieval halls ofresidence. The relationship between the colleges and the Universityhas evolved over 800 years and is not a simple one. The University (inthe narrower sense of the central institution) provides the curricularframework, sets examinations and awards degrees, while the collegesessentially provide the teaching.

This complex legacy is apparent today within the library environ-ment. In addition to the Bodleian, the University of Oxford hasapproximately 100 other libraries. These include two further ‘‘cen-tral’’ libraries (the Taylor Institution Library and the library of theAshmolean Museum), 39 college libraries (some of which predate theBodleian Library itself), and 62 undergraduate lending libraries in thehumanities and social sciences (faculty libraries) and in science andtechnology (departmental libraries). Despite the large number, onlyfive or six of these libraries have more than 5 staff.

Traditionally, these libraries have been either entirely autonomous(as in the case of college libraries) or partially independent (in the caseof departmental libraries). Only the central libraries and the facultylibraries have been under the fiscal oversight of a central UniversityLibraries Committee. Since 1997 this situation has been undergoingorganisational change following the appointment of the University’sfirst Director of University Library Services and Bodley’s Librarian,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Libraries Around the World 53

whose remit is to introduce structural integration within the Universi-ty. Nevertheless it is true to state that developments in library automa-tion have largely taken place in a decentralised environment, charac-terised by relative library autonomy and a poorly co-ordinatedmanagement structure.

Prior to automation, Oxford libraries maintained manual cataloguesof variable standards and in different formats. They were often out-of-date and inaccurate, and inevitably dispersed geographically through-out the city of Oxford. The level of cataloguing duplication throughoutthe system was inevitably wasteful and expensive, and bibliographicaccess to the wealth of library holdings was laborious and time-con-suming.

CATALOGUE AUTOMATION IN OXFORD

The history of catalogue automation in Oxford dates back essential-ly to the mid-1960s. Indeed the very first Anglo-American conferenceon library automation took place at Brasenose College, Oxford in1966. Attended by over 65 British and American University LibraryDirectors, the stated intention of this conference was not only to formthe basis of Anglo-American cooperation in the field of library au-tomation, but also to serve a springboard for the development ofcommon practices and policies.1

Throughout the latter part of the 1960s and the following decade,the Bodleian Library concentrated on the retrospective conversion ofits catalogue of pre-1920 holdings. The history of this project has beendescribed elsewhere, and need not be repeated here.2 Although essen-tially a keyboarding project, it was in many ways ahead of its time,having experimented with Optical Character Recognition processesand automatic formatting software, together with techniques of onlineediting–at a time when batch processing was still the norm. While itwould be wrong to give the impression that no developments in au-tomation occurred during the 1970s, it would not be unfair to suggestthat little progress on other aspects of automation was made duringthis period, and AACR and MARC were allowed to pass us by.

During this period the Library did not adopt the MARC format thathad been developed at the Library of Congress, and adopted else-where. The reason for this is quite illuminating. Between 1969-1971 theBodleian Library conducted a MARC evaluation project, the purpose

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of which was to investigate the possibility of automatically producinglocal catalogue entries from MARC records, (i.e., to extract and ma-nipulate the contents of MARC records to form catalogue entriesbased on the then-existing and somewhat idiosyncratic Bodleian prac-tices). The final report concluded ‘‘it is unlikely that . . . the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules which underlay MARC would provetractable to the needs of large machine-readable catalogues,’’ and that‘‘the utility of MARC records in the production and maintenance ofworking catalogues for large academic libraries was, and is likely toremain, unconfirmed.’’3 How wrong that conclusion was! It lost theLibrary nearly 15 years of automation development.

By 1981 there was a general recognition that Oxford was laggingwell behind other libraries in the automation field. Computer sciencehad advanced, costs were coming down, libraries were joining co-op-eratives and entering programs of shared cataloguing, and national andinternational standards (including a 2nd edition of AACR) were bythis time widely accepted. In 1981 a Working Party was appointed toinvestigate library computerisation in Oxford, fearing that unlesssomething was done soon the Oxford library service would becomeincreasingly inefficient and old-fashioned. The Report of the WorkingParty, which appeared in 1983, marks the true beginning of automa-tion in Oxford.4

Following the recommendations of the report, three undergraduatefaculty libraries, with a total lending stock of c. 150,000 volumes, weresubsequently automated between 1985-1987 (using OCLC’s LS2000system), their holdings converted, online cataloguing introduced, andan OPAC mounted. This was considered to be something in the natureof a pilot project, both to ascertain the various implications of automa-tion on services and procedures, and to convince sceptical Oxfordminds of the benefits.

As far as the Bodleian Library was concerned, a feasibility studywas undertaken between June 1985 and May 1986. It recommendedthat automation could be phased in, at considerably less expense thanhad been earlier suggested and that automation would actually becost-effective, as well as facilitating the provision of an immeasurablyimproved catalogue.

Stimulated by the success of the Faculty Libraries Pilot Project andthe positive and encouraging recommendations of the Bodleian Re-port, the University decided that we should strive towards the imple-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


mentation of automated cataloguing in Bodleian in early 1988. By thistime, the vision was not simply that of an automated Bodleian Library,but of a University-wide totally automated integrated system, capable ofexpansion over time to accommodate eventually the cataloguing outputfrom all of the University and college libraries. An Oxford Universityunion catalogue would come, at last, within the bounds of possibility.

In December 1986, a request for proposals (RFP) was sent to tender.After the usual evaluation process, the contract was given in August1987 to IBM for DOBIS/LIBIS.

Four basic bibliographical principles were to underpin the newunion catalogue: (1) any record created by one Oxford library shouldbe usable by another, (2) that records created by libraries outsideOxford should be equally usable, (3) there should be the minimumamount of editing, and (4) there should be a systematic and consistentmeans of providing subject access to the collection, hitherto generallyunavailable in Oxford.

Before online cataloguing could commence in the Bodleian, severalpreparatory tasks had to be undertaken in advance. At that time, theCataloguing Division could not boast a single power point, its lightingwas wholly inadequate for the introduction of computer terminals andthe furniture, while sympathetic with its environment, was totallyimpractical for the coils of cables about to be introduced. In the spaceof one year the Bodleian Library (a building complex spanning 4centuries of architectural styles) was rewired for data transmission,power points were installed, furniture upgraded, and new non-glareuplighting put in place. During the first half of 1988, Bodleian cata-loguing staff also had to be trained in AACR2, MARC and LCSH–asignificant task when one remembers that Bodleian cataloguers werestill applying the rules first drawn up in 1882 (revised 1923) forproducing manual catalogue entries, and had very little expertise inany of the standards which had been adopted. Despite the many prob-lems of that period, the result was that on the 13th September 1988 thefirst Bodleian catalogue entry was created online in the new OxfordLibrary Information System database (known locally as OLIS).

FROM MANUAL TO AUTOMATED PROCESSING

The implementation of automated cataloguing introduced the com-pletely new concept of ‘‘copy cataloguing’’ in the Bodleian, which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


inevitably had serious implications for the organisation of cataloguingworkflow. Initially, the Bodleian Cataloguing Division was reorga-nised into the conventional copy cataloguing and original cataloguingunits, with clerical staff responsible for the former, and academic-re-lated professional staff undertaking the latter task. We quickly foundthis to be somewhat inefficient, as this approach necessitated bothmultiple searching, and double handling of the material. It is common-ly accepted that the more times a book is handled for cataloguingpurposes, the more inefficient and costly the process. Thus, shortlyafter the introduction of our Dobis/Libis system in 1988, current cata-loguing operations were restructured into English-language and for-eign-language units. The English cataloguers undertook both copy andoriginal cataloguing, and were graded at one common (clerical) grade.The distinction between foreign-language copy and original catalogu-ing was nevertheless maintained, due primarily to the larger differen-tials in salary then existing between clerical and professional staff.

AACR2, USMARC and LCSH were adopted as the standards forthe creation of bibliographic records in Oxford’s new Library andInformation System. Having decided that the standards should beinternational ones, the next step was to define and establish a Mini-mum Cataloguing Level that would be acceptable to the many variedOxford libraries. A Working Party on Cataloguing Standards wasestablished and an OLIS Minimum Standard was determined, al-though a Fuller Standard was formulated for the Bodleian and thelarger local libraries. Standards and union cataloguing policies arecurrently maintained through the mechanism of a Cataloguers’ Forum,attended by cataloguers from each of the member libraries, and aSteering Committee, chaired by Bodley’s Head of Technical Services,which monitors developments locally, nationally and internationallyand progresses the decisions of the Forum. The implementation ofUniversity-wide AACR2 and MARC standards introduced an extradegree of difficulty for cataloguers, superimposing the complexities ofdata processing requirements upon the already challenging difficultiesof bibliography itself. Training thus became, and continues to be acrucial factor.

Perhaps more significant is the change of mindset that occurred as aresult of the introduction of copy cataloguing. An institution thathitherto had maintained total control over its cataloguing rules andstandards, now found itself utilising the work of other institutions, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


necessarily accepting rule interpretations and conventions no longerunder its sole control. Initially it was difficult to convince some cata-loguers, and indeed individual librarians, of the need for this change.Exclamations of ‘‘Why should we change our practises?’’ or ‘‘We’venever done it this way before’’ were commonplace. Today, we hearfew complaints. Staff recognise that common standards do not meanrigidity or inflexibility, or compulsory enforcement of change toachieve bureaucratic uniformity, but rather help us to question thevalidity of older procedures and help us accept responsibility for andownership of the system as a whole. Copy cataloguing has now be-come accepted as the norm, and today cataloguers take for grantedaccess not only a local ‘‘bibliographic pool’’ that holds the weeklyfiles of UKMARC records (converted to USMARC), but also theconvenient accessibility of four major external databases (CURL, LO-CIS, OCLC and RLIN).

The professional literature has never been slow to characterise thecataloguing fraternity, and labels such as legalistic, perfectionist, dec-adent, stern mechanic, and pious, though quite unfair, are familiarstereotypes encountered by most cataloguers.5 Our guiding principleover this last decade has been Access and our philosophy has been tomake the computer do as much of the work as possible.

We have adopted a pragmatic approach to copy cataloguing, cor-recting first and foremost only those parts of the record affectingaccess rather than tweaking or tinkering for the sake of creating per-fect records. Considerations of access have determined our work-flows, including the analysis of copyright intake into different prioritystreams with immediate processing of high-priority materials, and theprovision of Minimal Level Records (MLRs) for all non-priority seri-ous, scholarly and academic materials, thereby preserving access toand control of the backlogs (‘‘full access integrity’’).

In order to enable cataloguers to concentrate on these service as-pects, we have adamantly demanded that our online system takes fulladvantage of the rule-based nature of the MARC format. Not onlydoes our new system (see below) present the USMARC tables withaccompanying guidelines for tag and subfield usage, but it also bothvalidates MARC tagging and performs appropriate cross-checking ofMARC tags. The system not only indicates MARC tagging errors, butalso checks to ensure that non-repeatable tags are not repeated; alertsthe cataloguer of the presence of illegal combinations of tags, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


reminds the cataloguer if the presence of one tag demands (or forbids)another. This functionality makes the cataloguing process easier andgenerates greater confidence in the cataloguers.

CATALOGUE SUPPORT SERVICES

From the start of the Union Catalogue project, there were two issuesthat dominated discussion. The first was training and documentation.It was obvious that the preparation of clear documentation and theprovision of timely and appropriate training would be vital to thesuccessful implementation of the system. The situation outside theBodleian Library was not dissimilar to that inside, where few profes-sional staff were in post, and even fewer were familiar with the mod-ern cataloguing standards. For these reasons training in the catalogu-ing module of OLIS would have to be rapidly organised and launchedon a grand scale (given that it had to reach right across the Oxfordlibrary system).

The second aspect that provoked considerable argument within thehitherto autonomous library sector was the issue of whether thereshould be a central unit responsible for monitoring the bibliographicalintegrity of the database, and the consistent application of the stan-dards.

After considerable debate, it was decided that these functionsshould be centralised within the Cataloguing Division of the BodleianTechnical Services Department. This necessitated a further reorganisa-tion of the Cataloguing Division, not only to cope with the new pro-cesses of automation but also to accommodate its new University-wide role.

Catalogue Support Services (CSS) was created in 1989 to fulfil 4main functions or responsibilities: (1) University-wide training and provi-sion of documentation for the cataloguing module of OLIS; (2) Universi-ty wide database maintenance of OLIS and maintenance of Bodleian’smanual catalogues; (3) system-wide authority control; and (4) retrospec-tive conversion within the Bodleian Library, and relevant training andadvice to libraries outside the Bodleian in retrospective conversionwork.

Since the inception of automated cataloguing, CSS has been centralto the success of our cataloguing endeavours in Oxford. In the tenyears that have since elapsed the number of cataloguers that have been

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


trained by CSS staff exceeds 500 (if one takes into account staffturnover during this period), and the number of libraries contributingtheir records to the Oxford Union Catalogue has grown to 88. TheOLIS bibliographic database has reached over 3.7 million records(representing over 5.5 million copy or holdings records). The period1992-1998 has witnessed the retrospective conversion of over 2 mil-lion records from the Bodleian Library’s post-1920 (non-oriental lan-guage) holdings, and significant conversion activity in many of theUniversity’s other libraries. CSS staff have played a significant role inthese activities also.

One of the great advantages of automated cataloguing is that itenables the process to be broken down into discrete operations: ajunior or clerical staff member might add copy or local holdings infor-mation; a higher clerical or paraprofessional might perform copy cata-loguing; a professional (or in UK terms) an academic-related librarianmight be responsible for original cataloguing. Our training was struc-tured at the outset so as to reflect this discrimination of tasks, enablingthe cataloguing operation to be performed more cost-effectively.

Given the federal library structure in Oxford and the desire to dif-ferentiate training as described above, cataloguing training was highlyorganised from its inception. Over the period 1989-1994, an averageof 10-12 libraries per year joined the system, requiring the appropriatetraining. In the early days, all trainees were expected to attend generalcourses offered by our Computing Services Department in DOS, basichard disc management and general microcomputer usage. In morerecent years, this has been replaced by Windows training (though inpractice, there are few new staff today lacking this basic prerequisite).This was followed by a detailed classroom-based course on AACR2and USMARC, consisting of 8 three-hour sessions.

Next came a course on the application of LCSH (2 three hourssessions), covering the use of the Red Books and the structure andapplication of LC’s Subject Cataloging Manual. Only after thesecourses, were the trainees given a hands-on course on the process ofcataloguing using Dobis/Libis. This was in fact a further course ofeight 3-hour sessions. In other words, before being allowed to cata-logue on the LIVE system, a cataloguer would have to undergo a totalof approximately 56-57 hours of quite intensive training. This wouldtake place over a 10-week period.

No distinction was made between libraries during the training. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


is because even the smallest library, where copy cataloguing mightaccount for almost all the cataloguing output, would occasionally needto create an original record for some of its intake. While some mightargue that greater centralisation of processing would reduce the train-ing need, the collegiate structure of the University makes this some-what difficult, and the political will to restructure the system, to bestexploit automated procedures, was not evident.

For those who require some cataloguing knowledge, but not the fulllevel of detail expected of a cataloguer, a separate course entitledBibliographic Building Blocks was created. Again, developed at theoperational level and delivered by practitioners, this course provides abasic introduction to MARC, and the OLIS database. It also covers theprocess of identifying a bibliographic match and adding a holdingsrecord, the creation of Order Level Records (for Acquisitions staff),and the process of accessing external databases and downloading intoa separate Potential Requirements File, in readiness for a trained cata-loguer to upgrade the item, or use it to replace an existing lower graderecord. Modular in nature, staff can pick and mix the modules depend-ing upon the precise nature of their work. And since the modules arerun 5 or 6 times per annum, one can attend module 1 of the firstcourse, module 2-3 of the next, and module 4 at a later date. Thisextension to the basic training programme, with its accompanyingdocumentation, represents a major investment in time and energy. It is,however, as an essential training component within the union environ-ment, which takes the trainee painlessly through the whole process atthe appropriate level of expertise.

SYSTEM MIGRATION

In early 1995 the decision was taken to migrate systems. After aselection process lasting approximately 6 months, Oxford selectedGeac’s standard character-based Advance software for Acquisitions,Circulation, OPAC and Serials registration, but for cataloguing wetook the gamble on Geac’s Windows-based GeoCAT client software,which, according to the vendor, was scheduled for implementation atMIT in the Summer of 1995. In the event, this did not happen, and webecame the development site.

It is not my intention to describe here the fraught and traumaticperiod of migration that engulfed the Library between April 1995 and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


April 1997 (the date when GeoCat/GeoPac was formally released toour cataloguers). However, I do think it informative to discuss in somedetail certain aspects of that period, notably the training implicationsof migrating to new client/server technology.

The first issue to be addressed was Windows 95, since many ofGeoCAT’s features draw upon standard Windows functions (dropdown menus, cut and paste, etc.). At that time, the majority of staffwas not familiar with Windows, and had never used a mouse before.Since this period coincided with the then recent much-heraldedintroduction of Windows 95, we faced an additional problem in thatour Computer Services Department (responsible for University-widecomputer training) had not yet developed a Windows 95 course andwere still Windows 3.1 users. In collaboration with librarians, a coursewas put together, rather hurriedly, for library staff in March 1996. Inretrospect, this half-day course was not adequate, and probably did notprepare library staff well enough for what was to come. The Windowscourse was delivered in the first quarter of 1996 on the assumption thattraining in GeoCAT would start shortly thereafter.

In Oxford there were over 250 staff needing training in the use ofthe cataloguing module, either for full copy and/or original catalogu-ing, or for adding piece records, or creating bibliographic order rec-ords. All would need to be trained in a relatively short, intensiveperiod. The implementation schedule originally assumed that wewould take delivery of the new GeoCAT software in January 1996,and after 3 months of testing, enhancing where necessary to accom-modate Oxford’s federal requirements, and modifying Geac’s docu-mentation to fit our requirements, we planned to train staff betweenApril-June 1996, with a view to going Live on July 1st. Of course, weshould have known better. Now is not the time or place to detail all theproblems we encountered over this period, but I will summarise someof the difficulties: (a) the software was delivered 3 months late, ren-dering out initial schedule totally redundant and irrelevant; (b) Geacprovided virtually no user documentation for their new GeoCAT cata-loguing client; and (c) the software was poorly developed, and neededmuch work to get it to achieve pretty basic functionality. Indeed, thisprocess of software improvement, testing, and revising continuedthrough all of 1996 and well into the first quarter of 1997. We finallywent Live on April 2nd 1997. By then, some 85 builds of the GeoCATsoftware, and 49 builds of the GeoPAC software had been delivered,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


tested, documented, re-tested and re-documented–by professional Cat-aloguing staff. This is probably a familiar story to many who haveundergone similar migrations during the last few years.

A decision had been taken early on regarding who would do thetraining. A training team was set up, and a broad division of the workslowly emerged. In practice, the training team, headed by the Head ofCatalogue Support, served simultaneously as the group responsible forthe Z39.50 cataloguing and authorities module enhancement testingand development. The trainers all came from the Cataloguing Divi-sion’s operational staff, and were staff who were very much responsi-ble for integrating the technology into ongoing workflow and opera-tions. It was not training organised by committee. This team wouldtrain all cataloguers. There was to be no ‘‘cascade’’ training.

During the second quarter of 1996, we made productive use of thedelay in receiving the software. We knew that the new system wouldallow us, for the first time, to make full use of LC authority records(which we planned to load into the system). Since the AuthoritiesFormat was virtually unknown to the majority of cataloguers, a train-ing seminar on Authorities (lasting approximately 3 hours) was de-vised and delivered. MARC refresher courses, reminding staff aboutrecent and ongoing developments in MARC format integration werealso written and offered to staff.

It is axiomatic when implementing a new automated system that theselected vendor should be able to deliver good initial training to thecustomer. We should have satisfied ourselves, and indeed insisted, thatthe quality of the vendor training met our expectations, and clearly thiswas a significant omission on our part–since the lack of a structuredtraining package from our vendor was one of the factors contributingto the long period of system implementation.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that the client software was in astate of constant functional development throughout this period, mak-ing structured training difficult. It would also be fair to acknowledgethat we probably pushed the software harder and further than theaverage library site.

Nevertheless, we should have ensured that the vendor’s trainer wasfamiliar with the problems and scale of operation of a large researchlibrary, using US rather than UK MARC, and we should also haveinsisted that the vendor tailored the training far more to our localfederalised environment. All these deficiencies meant that the ‘‘train-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ing the trainer’’ model usually adopted when implementing a newsystem was not as successful as it should have been. Our local trainingto Oxford cataloguers was, in the event, very successful and well-re-ceived, but it was due to the high level of commitment and dedicationof our own local training team in assimilating the system subsequentto the initial vendor training.

Planning and scheduling our training was therefore problematic.Having missed our first Live deadline of July 1st, we aimed for arevised deadline of October 1st for starting Live cataloguing–for threereasons: (a) this was the date by which all the bibliographic and otherdata (e.g., circulation patron records, vendor files, etc.) were sched-uled to have been migrated; (b) this was the deadline for the imple-mentation of the Geac Advance character-based modules (Acquisi-tions, Circulation, and OPAC) to coincide with the beginning of thenew academic year; and (c) we had been told by our Systems Depart-ment that Dobis would probably not survive beyond the Fall of 1996.

Formal and structured training courses, totalling some 352 contacthours, took place between August and October. Training included notsimply the basics of creating original records on GeoCAT, but alsoaccessing the RLIN and OCLC databases–no longer through PRISMor Windows terminal emulation software, but via our Z39.50 catalogu-ing client, and downloading the records interactively. It meant cata-loguers had to learn new procedures for moving in and out of varioussystems and search windows, familiarising themselves with the differ-ences in each of the external servers and different searches availableon each database. Because the trainers had been so closely involvedwith the evolution of the system functionality over the period theywere able to meld their functions into a working environment that fitthe larger picture.

October came, and still GeoCAT was nowhere near ready. Ourcontingency plan was to continue cataloguing on our old Dobis/Libissystem, migrate the records overnight to the Geac server, and add theholdings data in Advance the following day. In fact, this procedurewas implemented, as GeoCAT only reached full and acceptable func-tionality some six months later, on April 2nd 1997. It meant, however,that the trainers had to learn and then train cataloguers in holdings-re-lated aspects of the character-based Advance cataloguing module. Theuse of the classic system for this purpose had certainly never beenanticipated.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Following the courses, a training database was made available tostaff on which to practise. Cataloguers were encouraged to spend atleast one half-hour to one hour per day practising, to ensure they didnot lose their newly found skills. Unfortunately, it became evidentquite quickly that the software was nowhere near ready to implementon a live production basis, and as new enhancements were introduced,and functionality improved, we realised that formal refresher trainingwas going to be required. This took place in November 1996.

Some statistics might be of interest. Five training manuals totalling730 pages were written by Catalogue Support Services staff. The firstdealt with copy records/pieces; the second on Copy cataloguing/exter-nal database searching using Z39.50; the third on original cataloguing;the fourth on ancillary functions, diacritics, spacing and punctuation,and other tools; the fifth on local database maintenance. We have sincewritten documentation for various aspects of authority control anddatabase maintenance.

The first distribution, which took place during the training, totalled118,730 printed pages. Following numerous rebuilds of the software,and new functional modifications and enhancements introduced be-tween November 1996 and March 1997, new sections were added tothe manuals and existing ones expanded. A second distribution of themanuals took place in December, and a third partial distribution againin March-April 1997. These subsequent distributions totalled a further126,028 pages. This excludes what we termed ‘‘CatKits’’ (foldeddouble-sided handouts on specific topics) and other smaller documen-tation. In all, a total of approximately 300,000 pages were distributed.

Working in the new Windows 95 environment we recognised earlyon that one of the great advantages was the ability to run multiplesessions, and to be able to move in and out of diverse applications(multitasking). Although the LC Name and Subject Authority fileswere available online via GeoCAT, which also effectively containedthe complete USMARC formats, with significant amounts of Help, wenevertheless took the opportunity of networking LC’s Cataloger’sDesktop. This allowed us to make available additionally the LC RuleInterpretations, the Subject Cataloging Manual, and (again) theMARC formats with the extra benefit of actual examples of MARCusage. However, this too necessitated more training, both to familia-rise staff about the product itself, and also to provide suggestionsabout how best to integrate the usage of the product with the GeoCAT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


software. Other Windows-based, resource discovery tools were alsomade available on the cataloguers’ workstations (e.g., OED, Bodley’sPre-1920 Catalogue, BL catalogue, BNB).

When the new client-server GeoCat/GeoPac system was finallyintroduced, it was greeted with almost universal acclaim. Despite theproblems described above the functionality of the new software was,and still remains outstanding. The work had proven worthwhile. Theperiod of assimilation was relatively smooth and short, and catalogu-ing productivity for the calendar year 1998 was, in fact, the highestever recorded in the Bodleian Library.

IMPACT OF AUTOMATION

The period 1990-1995 witnessed a steady growth in cataloguingproductivity. In 1987, the last full year of manual cataloguing, outputhad peaked at 53,753 items. By 1995, the annual output under DOBIS/LIBIS was averaging 77,000. After a short dip in output during thesystem migration period, output from the Central Cataloguing Divi-sion in 1998 exceeded 87,000 current items. It should be stated thatwithin the Bodleian Library as a whole there are several other catalo-guing ‘‘nodes.’’ These include the specialist sections (e.g., Music andMap Divisions, Special Collections, Oriental Department) and theseparate dependent libraries (e.g., Bodleian Law Library, RhodesHouse Library, Indian Institute, and the Radcliffe Science Library).The total Bodleian cataloguing output for 1998 exceeded 110,000items.

This increase can be explained, at least in part, by the Library’sparticipation in the Copyright Libraries Shared Cataloguing Pro-gramme (CLSCP), which started in November 1990. Prior to automa-tion, Bodley’s participation in any national co-operative cataloguingprogramme had not been possible. The advent of automation, coupledwith the inexorable growth in copyright intake, made this develop-ment both feasible and attractive. The goal of the CLSCP was ‘‘to setup and operate a mechanism and agreement for a comprehensiveprogramme of shared cataloguing, for the purpose of maximising theutility to all libraries of the British Library’s national bibliographicservice and of minimising cataloguing costs in the participating li-braries.’’6 Under this Programme, the British Library retains responsi-bility for cataloguing 70% of the national output, while the other 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Copyright Libraries (Cambridge University Library, Trinity CollegeDublin, the National libraries of Scotland and Wales, and the BodleianLibrary) undertake to catalogue the remaining 30%, or 6% each. Orig-inally the cataloguing responsibility of each participating library wasbased on the selection of items by publisher. The British Libraryundertook to upgrade all CIP records, while the non-CIP publisherswere divided among all six libraries. From September 1993, the basison which quotas were allocated changed from publisher’s name totitle. Bodley’s allocation is simply all those titles beginning with theletter M, which amounts to approximately 4,500 titles per annum. Thequota includes all printed monographs published in Great Britain,regardless of the language of the text, and all English language itemspublished abroad but received by legal deposit. The scheme currentlyexcludes periodical publications, although discussions are in progressto extend the co-operative process further.

Other factors have contributed to the dramatic increase in produc-tivity over the last decade: in particular, the growth in availability ofhigh-quality external records from both American and British utilities,and the dramatic improvements in mode of access to these records thathave occurred in recent years–from a time-consuming and labour-in-tensive batch process, often involving ancillary software and editingprocesses to a streamlined, efficient and interactive Z39.50 compliantprocedure.

Continuous improvements in cataloguing workflow, the introduc-tion of high specification workstations, the availability of well-de-signed and functional cataloguing software, and the local loading ofthe LC authority files are further contributory factors to the dramaticimprovements. As a USMARC user, the Oxford libraries follow theUS Name Authority file, and have recently started to contribute pro-posals within the Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO).

Cataloguers of specialised formats or languages (e.g., Slavic, San-skrit and music) are, additionally, taking advantage of the easy accessvia Z39.50 to the catalogues of major institutions, and downloadingrecords from those libraries known to hold major collections in therelevant fields. In this way, the cataloguer can potentially bring togeth-er the most productive sources to form his/her own virtual utility. Thisis an exciting development that should contribute further to increasedproductivity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ISSUES AND FUTURE CONCERNS

Although the last decade has been a success story, in cataloguingterms, for the Bodleian Library, there are still many challenges facingus as we enter the new millennium.

As the libraries in Oxford move towards a more integrated manage-ment structure, under the new Director of Library Services andBodley’s Librarian, the issue of greater rationalisation of technicalservice operations will need to be addressed. Rationalisation in theOxford context need not necessarily mean the creation of one large,monolithic technical services operation, but probably the creation ofseveral larger technical service nodes, or divisional centres, each re-sponsible for logical groups or clusters of departments, so that theoperations become more cost-effective and bring together technicaland linguistic expertise appropriate to each of the subject clusters.

In times of declining resources and escalating costs, one must notdownplay or underestimate the value or importance of efficiency. It isno surprise that decentralisation tends to be in the ascendancy whentimes are good, but the drive to centralisation is strong when fundingis weak. Times are unlikely to improve dramatically in the future, andindeed may worsen as we respond to new demands and expectationswithin the electronic cataloguing arena. The solution may therefore beto centralise/rationalise certain operations for efficiency and econo-mies of time and money, and to decentralise other operations forservice. Larger technical services units will combine staff, use themmore efficiently, or reduce staff where necessary. They will allow areduction in the duplication of reference tools in each unit, the pur-chase of fewer bibliographic tools such as AACR2, LC Rule Inter-pretations, (or the elimination of networking overheads and complexIT support costs), far less documentation would need to be distributed,there would be less need for time-consuming training programmes (soenabling other activities to proceed), and less handling of materialsoverall. With fewer, better trained cataloguers, the internal quality andconsistency of the OLIS database would also be improved.

However, in the Oxford environment, such changes are unlikely tobe introduced rapidly. Nevertheless, it is heartening to report thatwithin the proposed new Oxford integrated library structure (effectivefrom March 2000) a co-ordinating Director of Technical Services isenvisaged.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


A further challenge facing the Bodleian Library is that of legaldeposit of electronic resources. The next century will see a dramaticincrease in the output of exciting and innovative British digital publi-cations in all subject areas. It is vital that legal deposit legislation isextended to include such publications. At the present time we areworking with the British Library, the other Copyright Libraries and theBritish Government to design and build a system that will handle,store, provide access to, and preserve deposited legal publicationswithin a secure networking environment. It is anticipated that not onlywill such a system protect the publishers’ intellectual property rights,but will at the same time result in economies to the legal depositlibraries by avoiding multiple digital deposit arrangements. Planningis still in the early stages, and there still remains the vexed question oflong-term preservation of such materials, the precise number of copiesto be deposited, and criteria for distribution if more than one copy is tobe deposited. Responsibility for the processing and cataloguing ofdeposited items will depend on the arrangements reached. In anyevent, methods of loading records into our local system, regardless oftheir source of origin, will need to be determined.

Other challenges for cataloguers are essentially intertwined withthose facing the Library generally. How do we move from an institu-tion that has concentrated, necessarily, on the automation of its inter-nal processes, to one that is more user-oriented and innovative. Inrecent years Oxford, like other institutions, has witnessed the explo-sion of electronic information resources. Library users typically haveaccess not only to Web-based OPACs, but networked and standaloneaccess to CD-ROMs, online databases, institutional subject gatewaysto Internet resources, electronic journals (from a diversity of suppli-ers), and electronic current content services. The challenge associatedwith the management of this environment where electronic and paper-based information sources are used alongside each other, is how tointegrate access using evolving technologies from the digital libraryworld, in ways which will provide a seamless and transparent serviceto the user.

In the United Kingdom several projects, under the umbrella of theElectronic Libraries programme (eLib), are investigating different as-pects of what has become known as the hybrid library: operatingpractices, possible working models, user issues, impacts on organisa-tional structures, and authentication issues, to name but a few.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Oxford is involved in some of the above projects and has, addition-ally, developed several local institutional services. Like other libraries,we have developed our Web pages, which serve as a primary gatewayto our services, offer links to other library catalogues, local and remoteinformation resources, subject gateways, electronic journals, local di-gitisation projects, and other sources of information.

Several commentators have identified the traditional skills of thecataloguer as precisely those required for structuring Web sites andmanaging the metadata required for the organisation of electronicresources. Michael Gorman suggests that ‘‘librarians and, especially,catalogers are uniquely qualified to tame the electronic wilderness,’’8

while Vellucci argues ‘‘if the goal of libraries is to provide access toinformation, it is the organisational tools created by catalogers thathelp the library meet this goal. These tools become even more crucialin the chaotic Internet environment.’’9 Brisson wryly observes that themyriad of articles in popular computer magazines that outline thechallenges of organising the Web fail to recognise that ‘‘what theycharacterise in these articles is nothing more than what cataloginglibrarians have methodically practised for decades.’’ He continues:‘‘The authors of these articles don’t call it cataloging of course. In-creasingly, however, the architects of the Internet–telecommunicationsspecialists, information and computer scientists, and business systemsmanagers–are discovering that cataloging librarians possess a wealthof knowledge and experience in taming the chaotic information do-mains like those found on the World Wide Web.’’10

This is perhaps the major challenge facing the cataloguing commu-nity in Oxford. Although there are numerous digitisation projectsunderway or completed in Oxford, cataloguers have played a relative-ly minor part in these activities, not even in the development andmaintenance of the metadata standards employed. Vellucci wrote inAmerican libraries (1992) that ‘‘Future catalogers must extend theirview of the organizing process beyond one particular cataloging codeor record structure, and beyond the ‘item in hand’ as the object ofbibliographic control.’’11 Few catalogue managers would disagreewith this sentiment, and would welcome the opportunity to expandtheir horizon in this way. However, this has been difficult to achieve inOxford. The reasons for this are several: intake of printed materialshas risen inexorably over the last decade, and continues to do so. Thishas been accompanied by a steady rise in the number of non-print

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


materials, but with no corresponding increase in the numbers of cata-loguers. Coupled with the recent migration from DOBIS/LIBIS toGeac, there has been little or no real opportunity for cataloguers tobecome more involved in the various digital projects taking placewithin the Library. We have concentrated on what might be termed theless glamorous and more traditional technical services operations,with the result that expertise in imaging, digitization, metadata cre-ation and management have fallen to Systems departments, New Me-dia Librarians, or Web-page experts. Very often exciting projects havebeen undertaken by staff on short-term contracts. At the conclusion ofthe project expertise is lost to the Library as the researchers move onelsewhere to their next project-based short-term contract.

Our first and growing priority is the cataloguing of electronic jour-nals. The number available to our users is expanding rapidly as theLibrary enters into various licensing arrangements with individualaggregators, or subscribes to services brokered by the national nego-tiating agency, CHEST. Although available titles are listed on a Webpage, this is no replacement for access via the OPAC. Our most press-ing priority at this time is (a) to develop appropriate guidelines for thecataloguing of electronic resources, and (b) to find adequate staffresources for this to be implemented on a routine and systematic basis.

Associated with this, is the need for us to develop a University-widepolicy on cataloguing and making accessible remote Internet re-sources. The advent of Web-based catalogues not only allows users toretrieve records for Internet resources, but also facilitates retrieval ofthe actual electronic resource by clicking on a hypertext link. Manylibraries have already developed institutional policies for the selectionof resources to be catalogued, and the standards to be adopted. Al-though we have kept abreast vicariously of experiments in this area(e.g., OCLC’s Intercat and CORC projects), we have been slow inaddressing the problems of electronic resources and the bibliographicimplications of recording information about resources that are not heldin the collections of the cataloguing library.

CONCLUSION

Ours was a sluggish start at library automation. Some might arguethat our entry into the arena was perfectly timed, the delay allowing usto watch from the sidelines as others made all the mistakes. While we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


might have become involved with MARC, AACR, and integratedlibrary systems somewhat earlier, it is probably true to state that theinternal political environment, with its multitude of separate compo-nents, would have made it difficult to launch a co-ordinated plan muchearlier. However, when things finally did get started, they did so withgreat speed and efficiency in a way that has been to the credit of thestaff involved. They were, and are still, required to learn a lot of newtricks, and do so with great skill and dedication. Much has beenachieved in the 12 years since OLIS first became available, and doubt-less much more will be accomplished in the new millennium.

NOTES

1. The Brasenose Conference on the Automation of Libraries: Proceedings of theAnglo-American conference on the mechanization of library services held at Oxfordunder the chairmanship of Sir Frank Francis and sponsored by the Old DominionFoundation of New York, 30 June-3 July 1966/edited by John Harrison & PeterLaslett. London: Mansell, 1967.

2. Michael Heaney, ‘‘Publication of the Bodleian Library’s Pre-1920 catalogue ofprinted books on compact disc,’’ Program, 28 (2), 1994: 141-153.

3. The Bodleian experiment in the use of MARC tapes: Report to OSTI on grantno. SI/51/16. Oxford, Bodleian Library, 1972, p. 20.

4. Report on the Working Party on Automation in University Libraries. Oxford,1983.

5. See for example:Michael Gorman, ‘‘Osborn revisited; or The catalog in crisis; or, Four catalogers,

only one of whom shall save us,’’ American libraries, 6 (November, 1975), p. 599,601.

A.D. Osborn, ‘‘The crisis in cataloging,’’ The Library Quarterly, 11, 1941,393-411

6. Shared cataloguing: Report to the principals of the six copyright libraries of theCopyright Libraries Shared Cataloguing Project Steering Group. (NBS occasionalpublications,1). Boston Spa, British Library, 1993.

7. See for example:J.M.N. Hey and A. Wissenberg, ‘‘Modelling the hybrid library: Project MAL-

IBU,’’ New review of information and library research, 1998, 103-110.P. Dalton [et al.], ‘‘The hybrid library and university strategy: A consultation

exercise with senior library managers,’’ New review of information and libraryresearch, 1998, 43-52.

Chris Rusbridge, ‘‘Towards the hybrid library,’’ D-Lib Magazine, July/August 1998.Available via <http://mirrored.ukoln.ac.uk/lisjournals/dlib/dlib/dlib/july98/rusbridge/07rusbridge.html>.

Also see the eLib projects home page at http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/projects/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


8. Michael Gorman, ‘‘The future of cataloguing and cataloguers,’’ Internationalcataloguing and bibliographic control, 27 (4), Oct./Dec. 1998, 68-71.

9. Roger Brisson, ‘‘The world discovers cataloging: A conceptual introduction todigital libraries, metadata and the implications for library administration.’’ Availablevia: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/o/rob1/publications/publications.html

10. ibid.11. S. Vellucci, ‘‘Future catalogers: Essential colleagues or anachronisms?’’

American libraries, 23 (Sept.), 1992, p. 693-694.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:05

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

emerging from the bibliographic wilderness: catalogue automation in the bodleian library, university...

Documents