Summary Results of the Retrospective Conversion Survey of Rare Materials
During the 1998 Mid-Winter American Library Association meetings in New Orleans, the Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) agreed that Robert Maxwell (Brigham Young University) and Sandra Sider (Pierpont Morgan Library) should create a questionnaire for an in-depth survey concerning retrospective conversion (RECON) projects involving rare materials. The main purpose of this survey was to gather information in order to allow us to suggest minimal standards and procedures for future projects.
Libraries responding:
|
|
Sections:
- I. Library & Collection Information
- II. Past/Ongoing Recon Projects
- III. Future Recon Projects
- Criticism
- Optional
I. Library & Collection Information
1. How would you categorize your library (e.g. University, Independent, Public)?
| Universities | 12 |
| Independent | 5 |
| Government | 1 |
2. Title Statistics
3. Staffing Statisticsa. Approximately how many titles are in your rare/special collections?
less than 100,000 6 between 100,001-250,000 6 greater than 250,001 5 no answer 1 b. How many titles in your library's collections as a whole?
less than 250,000 4 250,001-3,000,000 9 greater than 3,000,000 4 no answer 1 Note: Several university special collections provided only the number of titles in the special collections.
4. Cataloging informationa. How many part-time/full-time catalogers perform rare/special collections cataloging?
2 or less 7 between 2 and 5 7 greater than 5 3 no answer 1 b. What is the overall size of your cataloging staff?
5 or less 6 between 5 and 15 5 greater than 15 4 no answer 3 Note: Several university special collections provided only the number of titles in the special collections.
c. Do you have designated rare/special collections catalogers (by title and/or position description) or units?
yes 14 no 3 no answer 1
a. What percentage of your rare materials is at least minimally cataloged?
75% or less 6 between 76% and 89% 1 90% or more 11 b. What percentage is in an automated system?
75% or less 11 between 76% and 89% 1 90% or more 5 no answer 1 c. What automated system do you currently use (e.g. NOTIS, Innopac, Horizon, SIRSI, etc.)?
Notis 4 Endeavor 2 Sirsi 1 Innovative Interfaces 5 Horizon 1 DRA 1 Local 2 Other 1 Note: This is of 1998. Several institutions have changed since the survey was first compiled.
d. To which national/international utilities do you contribute (e.g. OCLC, RLIN)?
OCLC 9 RLIN 2 Both RLIN & OCLC 7 e. Which utilities do you search/use for cataloging copy?
OCLC 9 RLIN 4 Both RLIN & OCLC 5
II. Past/Ongoing Recon Projects
1. What were the starting and ending dates of the project(s) (projected end date if ongoing)?
The earliest reported recon was completed between 1981-1984. Several libraries were in process of recon as of 1998.
2. RECON Statistics
3. RECON Personnel/Profilinga. Approximately how many rare titles were involved in your RECON?
Between 25,001-150,000 6 Between 25,0001-150,000 6 Greater than 150,001 4 no answer 2 b. In how many languages? Which ones?
Most libraries reported converting a variety of languages. The most common were English, Spanish, French, German, Latin, Italian, and Greek. Several libraries reported converting JACKPHY language materials, but gave no indication whether they included vernacular characters.
4. Rare RECON/General RECONa. Who was involved in your RECON (vendor, in-house paraprofessionals, regular cataloging staff, or others)? Performing which functions?
b. If you used a vendor, were special collections librarians involved in profiling of the project (i.e specifying what the vendor was to do, and to what standards) and/or monitoring vendor compliance?
Yes 7 No 3 No answer or not applicable 8 c. How was your profile drawn up?
d. Would you change your profile if you had it to do again? How?
No 6 Yes 5 No answer or not applicable 7 e. Can you attach a copy or summary of your profile?
No 7 Yes 5 No answer or not applicable 6
5. Treatment levelsa. Was your rare RECON done in conjunction with that of non-rare materials?
Yes 11 No 6 No answer or not applicable 1 c. If so, approximately what percentage of the total RECON was rare?
25% or less 6 between 26% and 90% 2 90% or more 4 Not applicable or no answer 6 b. Were rare and non-rare materials treated differently? (This can also be noted in answer to some of the questions below.)
Yes 7 No 7 No answer or not applicable 4 Note: Several libraries reported adding local notes or tracings locally after the records were converted by a vendor.
6. Enhancement of Recordsa. Did all rare collections RECONned receive the same level of treatment? (if not, please describe)
Yes 13 No 4 Not applicable 1 Note: Several libraries noted that some rare material, often depending on date of publication received additional attention. Also several special collections received different attention.
b. Were any categories of materials excluded from your RECON project? (Please describe)
No 6 Yes 12 Note: Among the categories of material excluded were non-book material, manuscripts, sheet music, broadsides, some pamphlet collections. Also several libraries reported that the recon completed thus far were only portions of their collections, and that as money became available the remainder would be converted.
c. If so, were any of these eventually recataloged and made accessible online, locally in your OPAC and/or through a bibliographic utility?
Yes 10 Not applicable or no answer 8 Note: All institutions that excluded material planned to covert the excluded material at some point in the future.
d. If not, what is your plan for making these records accessible online?
Several had 10 year plans in place, often using in-house cataloging staff. Other libraries noted that if they found the money they would make these records accessible.
a. Were non-AACR2 records for your rare materials upgraded to AACR2 standards at the time of RECON?
No 10 Yes 8 Note: Several libraries noted that they upgraded if an record in AACR2 was available from one of the utilities.
b. Did your RECON involve any reclassfication?
No 10 Yes 3 Other 3 No answer or not applicable 2 Note: Other includes libraries that did not do any recon in their current project, but did so in previous projects, or expect to do so in the future.
c. In addition to the basic descriptive fields, did your RECON include provision for:
1. Subject headings
Yes 16 No 2 Note: Several libraries indicated that they added subject headings only if they were available either on the card or in the record.
2. Genre headings
Yes 10 No 7 No answer 1
3. Personal name added entries
Yes 17 No 1
4. Tracings for special files (e.g. associations, place of printing/publication, chronological, etc.)?
Yes 12 No 6
7. Authority Controld. Was it necessary to omit any information or special files? If so, is the information still maintained in some other way?
Yes 8 No 7 No answer 3 Note: If information was omitted, libraries will usually continue to maintain a card file, or make arrangements to add the tracings or notes locally.
e. Was any information added to RECON records that was absent from original records (e.g., the items in question 6c)?
Yes 14 No 3 No answer 1 Note: Several libraries gained subject headings, added entries and various notes that were not available on the source record.
8. Mechanical Problemsa. Was authority control considered in your project?
Yes 13 No 5 b. How was authority control handled (simultaneously with RECON, in-house, sent to a different vendor, ignored, etc.)?
In-house 4 Vendor 11 In-house & vendor 2 No answer 1 Note: Most libraries that used a vendor used either OCLC or BNA. Although one library responded that authority control was largely ignored.
c. Did your RECON create any problems with your normal authority work?
No 13 Yes 3 Not applicable or no answer 2
9. Quality of Recordsa. Were there any problems in uploading your RECON records into your OPAC?
No 11 Yes 6 Not applicable 1 Note: One library noted that it lost all its note fields that had to be added manually.
b. If so, were any problems specific to rare materials?
No 6 Yes 3 Not applicable 9 Note: As one respondent stated only to the degree that special collections material have more unusual features.
10. Cleanupa. In your opinion, were the rare RECON records satisfactory?
Yes 17 No 1 Note: Most libraries were pleased with the results, especially considering the quality of the source file.
b. If not, why not?
The one library stated that the error rate was too high, instructions were not followed, and inability to handle certain languages.
11. Disposal of Old (Paper) Recordsa. Was/is there any clean-up of records involved?
Not surprisingly every library library said yes.
b. If so, of what kind?
Adding local notes and tracings, resolving holdings problems, resolving discrepancies between cards and online records, general quality control activities.
c. How long did clean-up take, or how long will it take? Is it being done ad hoc or on a project basis?
Anywhere from 20 hours to over 10 years. The majority of the clean-up was being done on an ad-hoc basis by cataloging and/or special collections staff.d. Was clean-up anticipated and planned for?
Yes 15 No 3 Note: Several libraries noted that the clean-up was taking significantly longer than anticipated.
f. Can you estimate a dollar expense for clean up? If not, can you express the cost in some other way (e.g. as a percentage of the total RECON budget, number of distinct projects, time taken to complete them, etc.)?
Yes 4 No 12 No answer 2 Note: For libraries that could answer, clean-up costs ranged from $200, 10% of time; $1,754 for 5000 records, and 40% of a paraprofessional's time.
12. In your opinion, was the financial expenditure of your RECON reasonable? Did you receive value for money?a. Have you discarded, or do you plan to discard, all or part of your paper records upon completion of RECON (e.g., shelflist, card catalog, acquisition records)?
Yes 7 No 10 No answer 1 Note: Most libraries that answered yes indicated that they are retaining only the shelflist or certain special files.
b. Do you miss any that you discarded? Do you get any use out of those retained?
Not applicable or no answer 13 No 4 Yes 1 Note: Most libraries have not or will not discarded their catalogs until cleanup is completed.
| Yes | 14 |
| Don't know | 3 |
| No answer | 1 |
Note: Most libraries thought that recon was worth the cost. A couple noted that the money could have been spent better elsewhere, perhaps on acquisitions.
III. Future Recon Projects:
1. Is your library planning a rare RECON project within the next five years?
a. If so, do you plan to use a vendor or do the work in-house?
| No | 10 |
| Yes | 6 |
| No answer | 2 |
Note: Several institutions noted that they were in the process of recon. Several noted that they would be converting collections that were skipped.
2. Would a web-based resource center concerning rare RECON be helpful to you?
| Yes | 11 |
| No | 2 |
| Maybe | 3 |
| No answer | 2 |
3. Would published guidelines concerning rare RECON be helpful to you?
| Yes | 11 |
| No | 4 |
| Maybe | 1 |
| Not applicable | 2 |
Note: Especially for odd formats such as manuscripts.
4. Are you planning any HTML or SGML work in conjunction with rare RECON?
a. If so, how would those files relate to your rare catalog?
Most libraries answered no. Four libraries noted that they are using html/sgml for their finding aids.
5. Do you have any suggestions or advice to libraries contemplating rare RECON?
Criticism:
We would appreciate your suggestions about how we might improve this survey, especially concerning important questions we may have neglected to ask.
Include a question regarding how recon was financed.
Optional:
Who was the vendor for your RECON project?
| OCLC | 5 |
| Retro Link | 2 |
| No answer or not applicable | 11 |
What was your experience working with them? (ease of communication, clarity of contract, etc.)
Most libraries had a positive experience.
Created by E.C. Schroeder
Comments: edwin.schroeder@yale.edu
Last updated: 6/27/2000