The reproduction of library materials in 1990.

The Reproduction of Library Materials in 1990

Last year's review article on the reproduction of library materials aptly pointed out that establishing the boundaries for a survey relevant to the reproduction of library materials has become an increasingly difficult task. [1] Traditional practices for the reproduction of library materials, such as photocopying and preservation microfilming, are unchallenged anew by those who advocate the necessity of original documents for scholarly research. [2] Preservation microfilming is being carried on to a greater extent than ever before but receiving more criticism from those who favor electronic imaging. [3] In addition, preservation photocopying and deacidification are increasingly being touted as alternatives to preservation microfilming and perhaps even to electronic imaging. Differences of opinion surround not just technical issues but also criteria for selection of library materials for preservation microfilming, preservation photocopying, electronic imaging, and physical conservation Some controversy has arisen concerning guidelines from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) that stipulate that NEH funds used only for single-copy preservation microfilming. Support is growing for a comprehensive approach to preservation programs. This would mean that preservation programs. This would mean that preservation measures such as repair, deacidification, rebinding, replacement, and preservation photocopying also should be funded as alternatives and complements to preservation microfilming. This controversy is sometimes couched in terms of a national approach and a local approach. The national approach favors using preservation microfilming, whereby an item is "republished" and made widely available upon demand either on interlibrary loan or by generating an additional service copy from either the camera or printing master negative. The local approach favors physical restoration and retention, whereby originals are preserved in local repositories. This might yield an original more suitable for interlibrary loan, but it does not create a reproduction made directly from the original that might be used to generate additional copies without rehandling the original.

The debate continues to rage over selection criteria for preservation microfilming. Strategies advocated include the clean sweep of all items in a subject collection, condition at the shelf based on the degree of embrittlement, and condition and based on embrittlement and actual or anticipated use. This latter strategy of selection, advocated most strongly by Barclay Ogden, University of California, Berkeley, aims at making immediate maximum use of available funds for preserving material in imminent danger of irreparable loss while awaiting the arrival of affordable and practical newer technologies, such as mass deacidification and electronic storage.

An article appearing in late 1989, shortly after the release of the new American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for silver, vesicular, and diazo film, summarized technical issues such as comparative image stability, technical compatibility of micrographic and electronic factors surrounding both preservation microfilming and electronic imaging. [4] Many of the issues raised in this article were discussed in the literature of 1990.

Reproduction of Library

Materials Section (RLMS)

Activities

The chair prepared the 1989-90 annual report of the Reproduction of Library Materials Section (Borck). RLMS and the Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) cosponsored a preconference, "Bibliographic Control of Microforms," at the 1990 annual conference of the American Library Association (ALA), held in Chicago. RLMS %wso participated in planning for the 1990 Association for

Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) president's program, entitled "Preservation, the Common Ground." Planning continued for the 1991 Atlanta Annual Conference, where RLMS will sponsor the program "Managing Library Photocopying in a Digital Age."

Bibliographic Control

Several important issues were discussed at the 1990 "Bibliographic Control of Microforms" preconference. Topics included full- versus minimal-level cataloging of microforms, and the possibility that full-level cataloging might divert money from increased preservation efforts, and also the two-tiered multiple-versions approach to describing different physical manifestations of the same item using the USMARC Format for Holdings Data. By this approach the description of the original appears in the based record, while subsidiary records contain only information that varies from this record. A full report on the preconference prepared by Robert P. Holley and Jill Parchuck was scheduled to appear in the first 1991 issue of Microform Review. A brief report by Holley (A) has already been published.

The Research Libraries Group (RLG) has implemented a change to the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data field 553 (Reproduction note) for records indicating microfilmed serials or monographic sets or series. This is the addition of subfield m, which should be used to describe the dates of publication or sequential designation of issues reproduced. RLG began the loading of bibliographic records from the National Register of Microform Masters (NRMM) into the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN) bibliographic database.

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in cooperation with the Library of Congress (LC) is administering the conversion of approximately 460,000 bibliographic records for monographs in the NRMM into a machine-readable format master file. ARL received the necessary funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. ARL is currently using the services of the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) to produce the records. OCLC began production in June 1990. Over the first seven months conversion of records was increased gradually. By the end of January 1991, OCLC had converted 32,585 records, and it plans to convert another 200,000 by the end of 1991. Approximately 61,400 records from an initial conversion by the Computer Company between 1987 and 1989 are also available. The goal is to complete the conversion of the NRMM monographic records by the end of 1992. [5]

The OCLC Preservation Task Force has developed guidelines for recording preservation data in OCLC's Online Union Catalog (OLUC). This facilitates the avoidance of duplication of effort for those preservation projects funded by the NEH, whose guidelines stipulate that such preservation information be widely disseminated. OCLC continued to expand the database for the OCLC Major Microforms Project. RLG implemented the set processing capability, which will allow bibliographic records from the OCLC Major Microforms Project to display in RLIN with the addition of local data, such as local holdings statements indicating RLIN users who hold specific items. Bibliographic records for newspapers microfilmed as part of the United States Newspaper Program continue to be entered into OCLC's database. Holley (B) has prepared an updated report on this program. Vitiello has described progress on the European Register of Microfilm Masters. RLG and Chadwyck-Healey finalized their deal to have Chadwyck-Healey issue a CD-ROM version of the RLG database of preservation master negatives created over the past eight years by RLG's collaborative preservation efforts. This new tool is entitled RLIN Preservation Masterfile. The first edition of the Guide to Microforms in Print was issued by its new publisher, K. G. Saur Verlag, a German publishing concern and a subsidiary of Bowker.

The Commission on Preservation and Access awarded a …