Proposal for the Digitization of the Shelflist
May 2007
Authors
Melanie McGurr
Assistant Professor and Acting Coordinator, Authority Control and Database Maintenance
The Ohio State University Libraries
610 Ackerman Road
Columbus, OH 43202
Mcgurr.2@osu.edu
614-247-4689
Barbara Dunham
Assistant Professor and Electronic Resources Librarian
The Ohio State University Libraries
610 Ackerman Road
Columbus, OH 43202
Dunham.51@osu.edu
614-688-8487
Sherab Chen
Assistant Professor and Coordinator, Non-Roman Cataloging
The Ohio State University Libraries
610 Ackerman Road
Columbus, OH 43202
Chen.1140@osu.edu
614-247-7460
Introduction
In January 2007 a team consisting of Sherab Chen, Barbara Dunham, and Melanie McGurr was formed to investigate the digitizing of The Ohio State University Library shelflist used primarily by staff in Technical Services (primarily by Cataloging, SRI cataloging, and Special Collections). The shelflist is the cards housed in several cases along the walls of the open work area in the Ackerman Library. The shelflist serves not only as an inventory of materials held by the library at an earlier time but also specific information about those materials.
With retrospective conversion, OSUL moved from our public card catalog to our online catalog, OSCAR. The public card catalog was eventually disposed of leaving the only historical information on the shelflist cards. Even though the growth of shelflist ended in 1995, the use of the shelflist behind the scenes has continued.
Many of the cards in the shelflist have the same information as the main entry cards including the subject and added entries. Other cards have all of the information through the collation (300 field) and the series field, if needed (4xx field). Even the short cards have the call number and some version of the author and title. Some cards even have the accession number (instead of copy 1), which can be matched with the numbers found in some of the books themselves.
The shelflist cards give holdings and indicate which copies have been withdrawn (up until the time that the paper shelflist was closed). For monographic sets, these cards also contain penciled-on information about the holdings, the titles of added volumes and the dates or volumes that have been added later. For serials and analytics, the cards have penciled-on labeling information, including whether or not a serial should be analyzed and some serial shelflist cards have the phrase "see serial record" stamped on them.
Other very useful information found in the shelflist includes the cards that have specific classification directions on them. For example: PZ3 is a class number not to be used. Books which LC puts in PZ3 are to be classed in PR, PS, etc. In the case of JF1351 O4, book number O4 is reserved for Policy paper (Ohio State University. School of Public Administration) location: Business Library. The shelflist also has cards for the AH and El classifications, tracing files for analyzed serials and msets, and full sets of cards for some withdrawn titles.
Because the cards are rich in historical data, they are used by staff to resolve reinstatements, series and analytic problems, retrocon activities, and reclassification issues. The shelflist also serves as a research source and as an historical document. It reflects acquisitions made in earlier years, local cataloging decisions, rules and regulations of Technical Services over several decades, as well as changes in cataloging standards.
Background
The first institution credited with digitizing their card catalog (consisting of five million cards) was Princeton University in 1992. Many European libraries digitized their card catalogs during the 1990s. They are referred to as Card-Image Public Access Catalogues (CIPACs).
Digitizing the public card catalog was done to provide online access of the public card catalog to users instead of completing a retrospective conversion of the entire catalog, which was often done later. Digitizing the public card catalog or shelflist was a quick and relatively in expensive method of making materials available online. Examples of a digitized CIPAC in England are the University of Birmingham and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The process for most of the CIPAC projects consisted of creating an image of each card usually in the .tiff or a .pdf format; the tiff format was often used as the storage medium and other formats derived from it for the online version of the catalogue. Once that was done, the university developed an interface for browsing or searching the database. This was a means of getting the catalogue online quickly with minimal expense. While each of these libraries eventually did a conversion of their card catalog, many still maintain access to the earlier CIPACs.
Columbia University Library digitized their shelflist in 1990s and their process was similar to the process used to form CIPACs. They hired a vendor, which is now part of Backstage Library Works, to scan and index their cards. Columbia developed an interface and indexing algorithm for searching the shelflist. Their shelflist is arranged by call number, which is the only means of searching the catalog. Their shelflist is no longer available to the public as a link from the library site.
Options
There are two options for preserving the contents of the shelflist discussed in this proposal: Microfilm or fiche and digitization.
Microfilm
This option would be less costly than digitization, but also would be less convenient and would still take up some amount of space. Fiche would be easier to store than film, and a fiche reader is available in the Cataloging Department. A microform of some sort would also mean that searching would be cumbersome, depending on how the shelflist was filmed. The readability of the cards would also be hindered, and printing a copy to take back to a workstation could pose problems.
Digitization Process
The digitization of the shelflist is the best possible option. A digital scan of each card, front and back, would enable users to access the shelflist from their desks. This digitization could be done in two ways, by vendor or in-house. A number of vendors are active in this sort of scanning activity, including Backstage Library Works (BSLW). They have provided a quote with some options (see attachment). This quote includes all scanning (front and back) and quality control. The cost of scanning would be .03 cents if the cards were shipped to BSLW or .05 cents if the cards were scanned at OSUL. A cost of .20 cents a card would be added for every card where the call number was indexed.
In-house scanning could take place by utilizing the tools of Trisha Davis' Closed Reserve Team and/or student employees throughout the library. The costs in hiring, training, and quality control is harder to predict than the price from the vendor. Scanning the cards in house would also mean the cards would be distributed throughout the library and organization and careful training would be crucial. For example, those cards with information on the back would need to be scanned on both sides and those scans would need to remain together for the information to be useful. Concise and clear documentation would need to be created (covering information about how to scan, naming conventions, and so on). Unlike Trisha's team who have experience with digitization, other students from the library would need extra attention, especially when dealing with the quality control of the indexing and naming conventions.
Regardless of how the shelflist is scanned, a search interface and search algorithm would need to either be purchased, adapted from open source software, or created in house. Creating something within Ohio State University Libraries would be time consuming and expensive also according to Beth Black, so outside sources at the University might have to be utilized.
Equipment
The microfilm option would mean utilizing tools already available at the library.
If a vendor is hired for the scanning and indexing, they would supply their own equipment. A student staffed scanning initiative would mean scanners (and service) would need to be supplied to the students working on the project.
Server space would also need to be provided, either through a purchase of space or as a part of another existing project, such as the Knowledge Bank.
Sources
Resources Consulted
| Scott Foster | Information Technology Division, OSUL |
|---|---|
| Beth Black | Information Technology Division, OSUL |
| Amy McCrory | Digital Imaging/Preservation, OSUL |
| Trisha Davis | Head, Serials/Electronic Resources Department |
| Robert Wolven | Director, Bibliographic Control, Columbia University |
| Lara Henry | Backstage Library Works |
| Beverly McDonald | Cataloging |
| Inge Van Nieuwerbugh | University of Gent |
Bragg, Jane and Lihong Zhu. "Shelflist in an Online Environment: Experience at Washington State University Libraries" Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 83-97 2006 42(2).
Coyle, Karen. "Managing Technology: Catalogs, Card--and Other Anachronisms" Journal of Academic Librarianship 31(1) : 60-62. 2005
Oberhauser, O.C. Card-Image Public Access Catalogues (CIPACs): a critical consideration of a cost-effective alternative to full retrospective catalogue conversion. (M.Sc. dissertation (2002), University of Central England).< http://www.ub.tuwien.ac.at/cipacs/d-i.html > (viewed Jan 30, 2007)
Valero, Walter E., Claudia A. Perry, and Thomas T. Suprenant. "History on a Postcard." Library Journal Winter 2007 132 6-9
Digitized Projects Discussed
University of Birmingham Card Catalogue Online: http://www.cardcat.bham.ac.uk/main/
Princeton University: http://libweb.princeton.edu/catalogs/supplementary.php
Columbia University: https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/shelflist/LC1.search.html
Backstage Quote
A copy is available upon request
Last Updated: 2 February 2009