Comparative Costs of Converting Shelf List Records to Machine Readable Form

Richard E Chapin,Dale H Pretzer

doi:10.6017/ital.v1i1.2925

Richard E Chapin, Dale H Pretzer

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v1i1.2925

Copy DOI

Abstract

A study at Michigan State University Library compared the costs of three different methods of conversion: keypunching, paper-tape typewriting, and optical scanning by a service bureau. The record converted included call number, copy number, first 39 letters of the author's name, first 43 letters of the title, and date of publication. Source documents were all of the shelf list cards at the Library. The end products were a master book tape of the library collections and a machine readable book card for each volume to be used in an automated circulation system.

Highlights

A study at Michigan State University Library compared costs of three different methods of conversion: keypunching, paper-tape typeW1·iting, and optical scanning by a service bureau
Automated circulation systems require at least partial conversion of the accumulated bibliographic record
Studies at Michigan State University led to the conclusion that acquisition, serials, circulation, and card production contained certain routines that might well be automated

Summary

METHODS

The shelf list records of the Michigan State University Library were divided into three sections by numbering catalog drawers in sequence: 1,2,3; [2,3,1]; [3,1,2]. A sample of the shelf list shows that 74 per cent of the cards are Library of Congress cards or copies of Library of Congress proof slips Of those cards produced in the library, only 12 per cent of the total were abbreviated records. Author 2) was typed through 39 spaces, including dates, if possible. The master book tape includes the call number, which occupies 32 spaces; 3 spaces are allowed for copy number, 39 for author, 43 for title, and 4 for date of publication.

I Ill Ill

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS