92Networking
Networking and Issues of Retroconversion
By Derek Law
Retrospective catalogue conversion is an issue which is measurable, finite and capable of resolution, if only the funds were available to libraries. A great deal of information already exists on the scale of the problem; for example, using the European Commission’s LIB-2 Study for the United Kingdom1, it is possible to calculate that perhaps thirty million items remain to be converted in British universities alone. In a European context it can be seen even more narrowly as a problem of larger and older libraries. The historic richness of their collections, built up over many centuries and from many countries, has created in such libraries a dense tapestry recording the continuum of recorded knowledge. In some cases this has led to a tension between the retroconversion of the material which library users want and the recording of the national patrimony. Put crudely, there is a tendency amongst national libraries to see retroconversion in terms of the cultural patrimony of the nation. Against this, large research and university libraries are more often concerned with the local universe of knowledge contained in their collections. This debate also opens up issues of whether we should even be attempting to convert all of our catalogue records to machine-readable form. If we do, the task will cost enormous sums and will take many years to complete. A famous verse from Lewis Carroll’s Alice through the Looking Glass describes the situation perfectly:
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking hand in hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
’If this were only cleared away’,
They said, ’it would be grand!’
’If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose.’ the Walrus said,
’That they could get it clear’?’
’I doubt it,’ said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.
But if we do restrict the scope of our retroconversions, how are we to determine the criteria for what is to be excluded’? And once excluded, how are users to gain access to such material? One solution might possibly be to consider concentrating efforts on the major collections of the major libraries, but how are these to be identified?
As catalogue data has been created in recent years, with files around the world now containing tens of millions of records, it has become possible to consider two quite different activities:
- sharing the data between libraries
- giving libraries and their users look-up access to the data.
Until recently, where it was possible at all, both of these activities relied on closed common systems organized by co-operatives. The advent of OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) standards now offers the prospect of linking any combination or variety of computer systems as and when needed. In theory both the UAP and UBC programmes of IFLA at last appear attainable goals rather than visionary ideals.
Despite the creation of OSI standards the sharing of data remains infuriatingly complicated. Different cataloguing codes and different MARC formats make cooperation difficult to realize. Two futures then open up. One is a convergence of standards. Certainly UNIMARC already exists and has been applied with notable success in several parts of the world. Nevertheless, any library which has attempted MARC conversions will be aware of the number of iterations required to perform even this theoretically simple process. The standardization of cataloguing codes seems, if anything, to be even more intractable. More research is required in this area to review the compatibility of data created under different codes and whether the differences are significant to users as distinct from librarians. Some work on analyzing catalogue codes has been done as a supporting study for the Council of Europe Working Party on Retrospective Cataloguing2.
The second option is for retrospective conversion to be undertaken within national boundaries and to use the growing telecommunications networks to allow look-up access across national boundaries. On the assumption that the problems of cataloguing standards can be overcome, work has already begun on how networks can best be exploited. Interesting experiments are being undertaken, for example between OCLC and PICA in the Netherlands, examining on-line file transfer of records. This, rather than batch processing has to be the way ahead. It is difficult to overstress the importance of standards. Some libraries have in the past chosen local computer systems which dictate both data style and content and in many such cases we now discover that such systems are unable or unwilling to provide the capacity to link to telecommunications networks, thus cutting off the library from cooperation in automated activities. There is also a need for the further development of telecommunications networks and networking standards throughout the world. Even in the most advanced areas such as the United States and Europe, the linking of networks is only just beginning. RARE and INTERNET demonstrate the way ahead, but they remain signposts rather than highways. It becomes increasingly difficult to chart the possible future needs and structures of libraries as the boundaries within which they operate become more and more blurred 3. As many libraries move from a holdings to an access strategy, whether from belief or from financial pressures, it becomes evident why there is a need to have common standards which will allow document identification and delivery and it is precisely this promise which is held out by the various OSI standards. As the technology of document delivery improves, readers will be more concerned with speed of access than with item location. It is an irony that the more material we retroconvert, and the more comprehensive our own automated catalogues become, the less important they will often become to our users. A journal held in a remote library store which cannot be retrieved for three days will be less accessible than a photocopy or fax of an article from the same journal, held in a library in a different country, but available in half the time.
It is interesting to look at the British experience. There has been a feeling that while members of the library community and the computing community have worked well together on an individual and personal level, there was no higher authority which “owned” the problem of linking library needs into the planning of computer networks. The JANET (Joint Academic Network) User Group for Libraries (JUGL) had an excellent relationship with the network managers and from this has sprung one initiative and one proposal. The initiative is an Office for Library Networking in the UK, based at the existing Centre for Bibliographic Management at the University of Bath and funded by the British Library Research and Development Department for three years. It is hoped that this Office will provide a national focus which will have the credibility to deal with political and funding, as much as technical issues, both at the national and international level.
The related proposal is for a European network user group analogous to the JANET User Group, but perhaps working within the framework of COSINE, which will manage the networks slowly spreading across Europe. Networks already exist and the pioneers are beginning to mark the paths for the settlers to follow. Names such as BITNET, INTERNET, IRIS, SABINET and ZIMNET will soon become as familiar as the jargon of MARC. These networks from Europe, North America and Africa have the capacity already to meet some of the needs of libraries and their users. Large databases of converted catalogue records also exist throughout the world. It takes little imagination, but will require much detailed work by the library community, to bring open networks and databases together.
References
1. Library Technology Centre/Library Association. State of the Art of the Applications of New Information Technologies in Libraries and Their Impact on Library Functions in the United Kingdom. London, 1987
2 Sule. Gisela. Minimum Requirements for Retrospective Cataloguing. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1988
3 For an excellent discussion of this topic see: Woodsworth. Anne et al. "The Model Research Library: Planning for the Future". Journal of Academic Librarianship. 15: 132-138 (1989)
About the author
Derek Law is Librarian, Kings College London, Strand, London WC2R2LS, UK.