Volume 41, No. 2

ARTICLESAllyson Carlyle

Tina E. Chrzastowski andBrian M. Olesko

Steven Ellis

Elsa M. L6pez-Mertz

NOTES ON OPERATIONSCynthia Gozzi

Douglas Duchin

Peter Kingsley

Christian M. Boissonnas

f. Randolph Call

FEAIURESGregoryr H. Leazer, EclitorEvelyn Frangakis

April 1997

Fulltulling the Second Objectivein the Online Catalog: Schemesfor Organizing Author and WorkRecords into Usable Displays

Chemistry journal Use and Cost:Results of a Longitudinal StudyData Entryr and the Economy ofOffuhore Information Production

The Adequaqy of the Structure otthe National Library of MedicineClassification Scheme forOrganizing Pharmaqy Literature

Managing Acquisitions in aChanging Environment:From Coping to Comfort

Moving Right Along: Changes inStaffing, Functions, WorkstationSetup, and Personnel

Change and Decay

Managing Technical Services in aChanging Environment: TheCornell Experience

Changing Acquisitions atDetroit Public Library

Book Reviews

In Memoriam: Susan GarretsonSwartzburg (193V1996)

Erratum

Letters

Technic ervlces

ResourcesLibrary

136

139

143147

1 5 5

1 5 81 6 7

1691 7 2

&al s

1 0 1

t 1 2

l23

4l(2):73-172 ISSNOO2+2527American Libraryl Association

Association for Libraryr Collections & Technical Services

EDITORIALBOARDEditor and Chair of the Editorial Board . . . . . . fnurulrnR YouNGEREditorialAssista.nt... .. DevrpH.THoMASAssistant Editors:

SeLLy SoMsns . . . for Acquisitions Section

JAY I,^MBREcHT . . . . {br Cataloging and Classification SectionBoNNIT MecEwnr . . . . . for Collection Management and Development SectionRectNa SINCLAIR. for Preservation and Reformatting Section

I o H N I . R I E M E R . . . . . . . { b r S e r i a l s S e c t i o nRoBEnr Hor,lry . Special EditorC l n o l M l n o n l . . . . . . . . . . S p e c i a l E d i t o rGRrcony H. LsAzrn Book Review EditorTauan lWnr r rRAuB Fnou lN . . . . . . I n t e rn

Ex-Oficio Members:KarHLrsN ScHwErrzBERcEn, Chair, Council of Regional GroupsKanrN MuLr,sn, Executive Director, ALCTSDeLn SwsNseN, Editor, ALCTS Nerosletter

Library Resources b Technical Seruicas (ISSN 0024-2527), is published quarterly by the AmericanLibrary Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 6061I. lt is the oflicial publcation of theAssociation for Ubrary Collections & Technical Services, a &vision of the American UbraryAssociation. Subscription Price: to members of the Association for Library Collections & Technical

younger.6@osu.edu. Adnertising: Todd Goldman, do The Goldman Group,3418 Handy Rd., Suite201, Tampa, FL 33618. ALA Pro&utian Sercires: David Epstein, Bruce Frausto, Gwen lhnat,Christine Squires, kslie Stella, and Donavan Vicha. Mentben: Address changes and inquiries shouldbe sent to Membership Department-Library Resources & Technical Services, 50 E. Huron St.,Chicago, IL 60611. Nonmember subscribers: Subscriptions, orders, changes ofaddress, and inquiriesshoulil be sent to Library Resources & Technical Services, S & S Computer Services, Inc., 434 W.Downer, Aurora, IL 60506.

Library Resources G Technical Seroices is indexed in Libranl Litarature, Libranl b lnformationScience Abstracts, Current lndzx to Joumak in Education, Science Citation Indzx, and Informa-tion Science Abstrdcts. Contents are listed in CA LL (Cunent Arwrican-Library Literature). ltsreviews are included in Book Reoieu Digest, Book Reoieu Index, and.Reoieo of Reoieos.

Instr,'ctions for authors appear on p. 7l-72 of the fanuary 1997 issue. Copies ofbooks for reviewshould be addressed to Book Review Editor, Gregory H. Leazer, Assistant Professor, UCLADept. of Library and Information Science, 226 GSE&IS Building, Mailbox 95150, Los Angeles,CA 90095- f 520; Internet gleazer@ucla.edu.

@ American Library Association 1997

AII materials in this journal subject to copyright by the American Library Association may bephotocopied for the noncommercial purpose of scienti{ic or educational advancement grantedby Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act ol 1976. For other reprinting, photo-copying, or translating, address requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions, 50 E.Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard{br Inlbrmation Sciences-Permanenc.e of Paper Ibr Printed Library Materials, ANSI239.4&1992. -

Publication in Library Resources b Technical Sentices does not imply official endorsement bythe Association for Library Collections & Technical Services nor by ALA, and the assumptionof editorial responsibilitv is not to be construed as endorsement oi the ooinion,

""or"rr6d bv

the editor or in&vidual contributors.

A comprehensive, internolionol directoryo[ microform componies, individuols,supporl services ond equipmenl suppliers,Microform lVlqrket Plqce is ihe onlyresource you need to moke housonds of keycontocts. This completely updoted editionhelps you find microform publishers bynome, country, ond subiect oreos, os wellos publishers thot recently discontinuedmicropublishing progroms, were ocquired,or chonged nomes.

December 1996r 3.598.1 l3 l l -0. so'fibound .228 pp.. $85.00First-Time Stonding Order Price:$76.s0

ALTVE WTTH

BOWKER

lssued six months ofter the Guide ondSubiect Guide, this supplementolupdote provides timely informotion onnew tides issued since the publicotion oflhe two moin volumes.

November 1997 . 3.598-1 1338'2. c. t30 pp. o $185.00Firsi-Time Stonding OrderPrice: S166.50

Print 1997, Coveroqe includes micro-film reels, micro-opoqJe cords, text-fiche,ond microfiche, both domestic ond inter-

price, publisher, type of microform, ondcomplete ordering informotion

tune 1997. 3-598-1 1325-0 .2-vol. set r c. 1,850 pp. r$430.00 o First-Time SfondingOrder Price: 3387.00

This completely revised ond updoteddirectory offers convenienf subiecl occessto oll the microform publicotions listed inthe Guide fo Microforms in Print,with oll titles coteoorized under subiectheoding, bosed o"n the Dewey DecimolSystem. A helpful Person-os-Subiect Indexlets you locote microforms deoling withsoecific individuols.

lvly 1997c 3-598-t 1326-9 .2-vol. set . c. 1,650 pp. r$430.00 r Firsl-Time SfondingOrder Price: 5387.00

/79

Fulfilling the Second Obieclivein lhe Online Cotolog: Schemesfor Orgonizing Author ond WorkRecords into Usoble Disploys

Allyson Corlyle

80/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

Ulysses are retrieved for each search catalog displays has the potential to in-crease a user's understanding of the na-ture of the items retrieved in an author orwork search and to shorten long displays.

To begin, the second objective is re-viewed in an effort to clarily its require-ments. Next, the catalog filing rulescheme is investigated in a historicalanalysis to determine particular ar-rangements that have been used in cata-Iogs to collocate work and author rec-ords. In this analysis, attention is paid totypes of items Irequently neglected indiscussions of the second objective:works about a particular work or author,re{'erred to in this paper as "worksabout," and works related to a particularwork. Tillett's bibliographic relationshiptaxonomy (199Ia) is then examined forits contribution to the construction ofdisplays that meet the second objective.Following the investigation of these twoschemes, a new, relationship-based

the same set of records, they are not ar-ranged together, nor are they arranged ina useful or organized manner. lnstead,they are scattered among records forother items, some of which are related andsome not. Displays such as those shown inIigures I and 2 obscure the presence o{records for particular authors and worksand, further, may confuse users, leadingthem to abandon searches under the misltaken assumption that the library does notown the work or works they seek.

This paper identi{ies 'schemes

thatmight be used in the online catalog fororganizing author and work records toachieve the second obiective ofthe cata-log. These schemes have in common theuse of groups, or classes, based on rela-tionships among items to organize catalogdisplays. The terms group andclass will beused slmonymously here. The use of rela-tionship-based organization of records in

l. After Joyce: studies in hction after Ulysses / Robert Martin Adams.2. Blooms of Dublin / Anthony Burgess ... A musical play based on

James Joyce's Ulysses.3. The English in the West Indies, or, The bow of Ulysses / by James Anthony

Froude.4. Flower of the mountain : for soprano solo and orchestra (1986) / Stephen

Albert ... text from Joyce's Ulysses.5. A handlist to James Joyce's Ulysses : a complete alphabetical index to the

critical readirg text6. James Joyce y la epica modema : introduccion a la lectura de {.Ilysses /

Manual Almagro Jimenez.7. Jarnes Joyce's Ulysses / edited and with an introduction by Harold Bloom.8. Joyce's nbtes andearly drafts for Ulysses : selections from the Buffalo

collection / edited by Phillip F. Hening.9. Narrative situations in the novel; Tom Jones, Moby-Dick, The ambassadors,

Ulysses.10. Odysseus / James Joyce [Swedish translation]I 1. The personal memoirs of Julia Dent Grant (Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant)...12. Songs to texts by James Joyce ... [includes song for Ulysses]13. Ulysses / by James Joyce ; with a foreword by Morris L. Ernst ...14. Ulysses. [by James Joyce]15. Ulysses/ James Joyce. [videorecording]16. Ulysses : a review of three texts : proposals for alterations to the texts

of 1922, 1961 and 1984 / Philip Gaskell and Clive Hart.I7 - Ulysses, Kansas : l:1fi) 0ffi-scale planimetric map ...18. Ulysses pagefinder/ compiled by Ian Gunn & Alistair McCleery19. Ulysses, soliloquies of Molly and Leopold Bloom [sound recording]20. Ulysses. Spanish.

Figure l. WORK DISPLAY Hypothetical Tide Keyword Search for James foyce's Ulyssas

scheme for author "".:::.#:?proposed that combines features of the{iling rule scheme and the bibliographicrelationships taxonomy to show the na-ture of items retrieved and the relation-ships among them more clearly thaneither of the other two schemes alone.

REQUIREMENTS oF THESEcoND On;rcrrvn

As formulated in the Paris Principles, therequirements of a catalog stipulated bythe second objective are somewhat vague:"The catalogue should be an efffcient in-strument for ascertaining . . . (a) whichworks by a particular author and (b) whicheditions of a particular work are in thelibrary" (International Federation of Li-brary Associations 1971, xiii). What ex-actly is required of a catalog that it "be aneflicient instrument for ascertaining" the

. Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /8L

works of an author and the editions of awork? Lubetzky, who greatly influencedthis statement of the objectives, stated itmore clearly: "The objectives which thecatalog is to sewe are two: . . . to relateand dlsplay together [emphasis added]the editions which a library has of a givenwork and the works which it has of a givenauthor" (Lubetzky 1960, ix). Lubetzky'swording clarifies the task of the catalog;for the catalog to "be an ellicient instru-ment," it must relate and display togetherwork and author records. His wording alsomakes apparent why the second objectiveis called the "collocating objective."

In the manual environment, the collo-cating objective involves liling work andauthor records together, one after an-other. Here an alphabetical arrangementof records provides for the retrieval anddisplay of work and author records simul-taneously. In the electronic environment,

Allen. Walter Emest. 19l l-Six great novelists: Defoe, Fielding, Scott, Dickens, Stevenson ...

Almar, George.Oliver Twist. A serio-comic burletta, in three acts

Archaeology of urban America : the search for pattem and process / edited byRoy S. Dickens, Jr.

Canoll, John R.A carol for Tiny Tim : the sequel to ... Dickens' "A Christmas carol"

Cronin, James Gerald, 1904-Ground water in Dickens and Kent Counties, Texas ...

Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870.Best thoughs of Charles Dickens irranged in alphabetical order...

Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870.A Christmas carol.

Dickens. Charles. 18l2-1870.Linle Dorrit.

Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870.Oliver Twist.

Johnson, Charles Plumptre, 1853- 1938.Hints to collectors of original editions of the works of Charles Dickens

Korg, Jacob, ed.London in Dickens'day.

Lewis, Bernard, 1908-About "The Old Curiosity Shop"

Linle Dorrit : frlm two: Little Dorrit's story / Sand Films [videorecording]McKnight, Natalie.

Idiots, madmen, and other prisoners in DickensStructure and process in southeastern archaeology / edited by Roy S. Dickens

Figure 2. AUTHOR DISPLAY Hlpothetical Author Kelvord Search on Dickens for works byCharles Dickens.

82/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carl\le

however, the retrieval and display {unc-tions are separated. In an online catalog itis possible fbr all the editions of a work tobe retrieved at the same time but notarranged together one a{ter another ordisplayed together. Thus, the second ob-jective may now be more accurately inter-preted as having two requirements, a re-trieval requirement and a displayrequirement. This paper fbcuses on thedisplay requirement.

In the electronic environment, theword display can be used in a variety ofways. Discussions of online catalog dis-plays have frequently focused on issuesrelated to screen layout, consistency, high-lighting, and other fbrmatting issues (e.g.,Online Catalog Screen Displays 1986).This paper emphasizes the organizationaland intellectual aspects of display, specifi-cally, the organization and arrangement ofbibliographic records presented as a re-sult of a search.

In {brmulating the requirements of thesecond objective precisely, another issuethat must be addressed is stipulating whatit is that must be collocated. The wordingof the second objective does not speci{ywhat is to be treated as "the works of anauthor" or "the editions of a work." Is asingle person or coryorate bodyto be con-sidered an author, regardless ofthe narnethat person or body uses in its works? Ordoes a dif{'erent, albeit related, "author"

exist when that person or corporate bodyuses a diflerent name? In practice, thecataloging rules have sometimes called {brcreating diff'erent "authors" if they usedi{Ierent names and sometimes not. Forexample, dif{'erences in treatment ofpseudonyms can be found between theAnglo-Amzrican C atalo guing Rules, Znded. (AACR2) (1978;22.2C2) and the An-glo- Am.eric an C atalo guing Rules, 2nd ed.1988 revision (AACR2R) (rule 22.282).However, even when di{I'erent authorshave been created by the use ofdif{'erentnames {br the same person or body, prac-tice has required the relating ofthe worksofa single person or corporate body by theuse of cross ref'erences. This practice maybe interpreted as fulfilling the require-ments of the second obiective in that theworks of an author are-related, although

all the works of that author have not,strictly speaking, been collocated.

Forworks, the picture is more compli-cated. More controversy has been arousedover what is to be considered to be anedition of a work than perhaps any otheraspect ofthe second objective (fbr a sum-mary of this controversy, see Yee 1994b,1994c, 1995a, and tg95b). Seldom men-tioned in discussions of this issue is thatrelated items not considered to be edi-tions are almost always filed together im-mediately fbllowing the editions of aworkin an author display. Thus even relateditems that have not been treated as "edi-

tions ofawork" per se have been includedwithin the scope of the second objectiveby virtue of filing practice.

The inclusion of related works withinthe scope of the second objective is sup-ported by cataloging theorists. Lubetzlcy,in his discussion of entrv lbr works. in-cludes the class of "dependent works,"which he defines as those that are "writtennot {br their own sake, but to accompanyother works upon which they depend {brtheir interest. Such are indexes, glossa-ries, supplements, appendices, cadenzas,librettos, etc." (Lubetzky 1953,48). Oneassumes that he also had in mind a broadinterpretation ol' the second objectivewhen he made the assertion that: "[a cata-loq must call the readers] attention torelated [emphasis in text] materials in thelibrary which might be pertinent to hisinterest and thus help him to utilize morefully and adequately the library's re-sources" (Lubetzky f969, I0). Doma-novszlcy'.s inter?retation of the scope ofthe second objective with respect to works(Domanovszky i975, 98) is also broad:

the elemental objects to be broughttogether by the second lunction must beconnected with one another by the identityof a nucleus of their contents; which nec-essarily implies that they must have incommon, at least pardy, also the intellec-tual source oftheir contents. . . . The rela-tionship constituted by the commonintellectual nucleus of their respectivecontents may vary, {br instance, between acomplete identity of these contents and anabsolute lack of any litaral [emphasis intext] identity.

wirson (re8ea) --":::

'*::';

the concept of "work" should be delinednarrowly, to include only those items thatcontain the same text, the scope of thesecond objective requires the catalog toassemble not only the editions of a par-ticular work, but all the works related tothat work. The term he applies to thisassemblage is "literary unit," a term {irstused by Pettee (1936). Wilson states( I989a, 345):

. . . if we wanted to claim that the texts ofitems assembled by the second functionshould be nothing but texts of the samework, itwould be awkward if the elementalobjects we assemble as editions oI Hamlet,fbr instance, include commentaries, intro-ductions, prefaces, appen&ces by others,in otherwords, much text not plausibly iden-tified as part of the textof Hamlet . . . ButIbr literary units this is no problem. Theycan com{brtably be seen as assembling{amilies of texts with related though notidentical content and di{I'erent miscellane-ous attachments that mav or mav nor con-stitute separate works by other authors.This broader class of items consisting

o{'sets of related works has also beeicalled "superwork," a term lirst coined byEdward T. O'Neill and Elaine Svenonius.

Lubetzky includes a f'urther class ofitems within the scope of the second ob-jective: works about an author or work. Ina paperwritten {br the International Con-fbrence on Cataloguing Principles heidentilies "entries indel Bible where allthe editions, translations, and,works about[emphasis added] the Bible are found"(Lubetzlcy 1963, 142). It is probable thatworks about have seldom been mentioned

about a particular author or work file im-mediately lbllowing records fbr theauthors and works themselves.

In summary, the second obiective maybe intelpreted as requiring catalogs to re-trieve as well as relate and display together(a) the works of an audror-regardlessof the

. Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /83

name used by that author-and the worksabout that author and (b) the editions of awork, the works related to it, and worksabout it. In the {bllowing sections, twoschemes, the filing rule scheme and thebibliographic relationship scheme, are in-vestigated lbr their potential to help {br-mulate displays that meet this objective.

Tnn Frr.ruc RurB Scnnup

The oldest scheme for meetingthe secondobjective in display is {bund in catalog{iling rules. Filing rules represent themost precise formulations of the secondobjective in that they spell out explicitlywhat is to be collocated in the catalog andhow it is to be done. Analysis of these rulesreveal.s the classe.s and subclasses of mate-rials frequently identified for orderingwork and author displays. For example,filing rules often include provisions fbrgrouping items representing translationsof a particular work and {iling them a{terthe group of items representing editionsin the original language. Thus, filing rulesextend the collocation requirement be-yond the mere "displaying together" ofwork and author records to the displayingofthese records in an organized and help-ful manner. This is especially true Ibrworks existing in many editions and {brproli{ic authors. In the sections on workand author {iling below, the classes cre-ated byfiling rules that comprise work and

;:*:l displays are identi{ied and re-

In many respects, the manner in whichrecords are arranged depends on theircontent. The content ofrecords dependson cataloging practice, which is deter-mined by the set of cataloging rules usedat a given time. Because of this, any lilingrules scheme must be regarded as drawingupon sets ofcataloging rules as well as setsof {iling rules. Although {iling rules are theIbcus of the analysis that {bllows, catalog-ing practice is re('erred to when necessaryto explain how speci{ic classes are fbrmed.

Eight filing rule codes were analyzed:o Panizzi's rules {br the Catalogue of

Printed Books in the British Museum,r84l

o jewettt rules lbr the Smithsonian Re-

84 LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

port on the Construction of Cata-logues of Libranas, 1853 (fewett)Cutter's Rules for a Dictionary Cata-log,4rh ed. rewritten, 1904 (Cutter)A.L.A. Rules for Filing Catalog Cards ,1942 (ALA L942)

. Filing Rules for the Dictionary Cata-logs ofthe Library of Congress, 1956(LC 1956)

o A.L.A. Rules for Filing C atalog C ards,2nd ed., 1968 (ALA 1968)

t ALA FilinsRules, 1980 (ALA f980). Librery of Congress Filing Rules,

1980 (LC 1980)Each code is followed by the abbrevia-

tion that will be used in the analpis below.Although rules are often provided in thesecodes for subarrangement of recordswithin each class or subclass, subarrange-ment rules are not addressed here. Furtherdiscussion on subarrangement issues maybe found in Svenonius (1988), O'Neill andVrzine-Goetz (1989), andAvres et al. (1995).

WoRK FILING

Work displays created by codes of {ilingrules have, for the most part, been highlyorganized. Under the provisions of manycodes, work records are arranged inclasses and subclasses based on their rela-tionship to the original publication of thework or their publication status; that is,whether they are published alone or withother works, or whether they are publish-ed in parts.

The class of records most frequentlyidentifted in the filing nrles, and the classthat almost alwap appears lirst in work dis-plays, is edltlons of tlw uork in the orighnllanguage (Parjzzi rule DOil/, Jewett nrle>OOilV, Cutter rules 326-332, ALA 1942rules 26(b) and 26(c), LC 1956, and ALA1968 rule 27). The most recent codes offfling rules (ALA 1980 rule 2.2 and LC 1980rule 6) do not make use of classes such as"editions in the original language" but relyinstead on provisions of AACR2 andAACR2R for the use of unilbrm authornames and uniform titles to collocate edi-tions of awork in the original language auto-maticallv. Uniform tides. as constructed bvAACM: rrr prrtpor"ly designed to provideelaborate groupings or classilications based

on various characteristics of the itemsdiscusses theuniform tide

cataloged. Vellucci (1990)classiftcatory function of thein some depth.

Because the use of unilbrm title is op-tional (AACft2R, rule 25.1), editions of awork published under varying titles willnot necessarily be displayed together. Inactual practice, the use of uniform title isinconsistent and unless extraordinary eI'-forts are made by indMdual libraries'onlysome editions of a work in its originallanguage will be displayed together, whileothers will be scattered alphabetically bytheir titles proper among records for com-pletely diflerent works (Carlyle 1996).

Provisions for arwlqtics, that is, records{br e&tions of works cbntained within col-lections, sometimes require that andpicalrecords be interfiled with other e&tionrecords (Cutter rule 335, LC 1956 Aut.rule IE). An example of an analytical rec-ord would be a record for an e&tion ofOlioer Twist that is published as a volumein a set of Dickens' collected works. Filinganalytics with records {br editions pub-lished separately makes sense, since anedition published within a collection usu-ally contains text identical to the text in anedition published separately. However, insome codes analytics are interliled withunlike materials such as related works(At-A, 1968 rules 26, 27) or are filed to-gether as a separate class ofmaterial (ALA1942 rule 25(7b)). One assumes that incodes that do not provide {br analytics, thefiling ofthese records is le{t to the discre-tion of the liler or the policy ol'the indi-vidual institution. In ALA 1980 and LC1980, analytics lile as is; that is, the {ilingofthese records depends on the presenceand construction of analytical entries,which, in tum, allow lbr the interliling ofeditions and related works in the samedisplay.

A group ol records representing frcns-lntions of the original edition often followsthe group of records for editions in theoriginal language (Parizzi rule I)O(V,fewett rule )OfiIV Cutter rule 331, ALAigaz .ule 25(7b),26(b) and 26(c), LC1956 Aut. rule IG, ALA 1968 nlle 27).Occasionally provisions are made fortranslations to be liled under their titles

LRTS . 41(2)

proper, treating them as if they were com-pletely separate works unrelated to anyother of the author's works (ALA 1942rule 25, ALA 1968 rule 26). Using ALA1980 or LC 1980, translations would ffleafter e&tions in the original language onlyif appropriately constructed uniform titleswere used. If no unifbrm title were used,they would file as if'they were separateand unrelated works.

In early codes, rules were created forspecial classes of mnteriah closely relatedto the original work. Panizzi (rule IJO(V)and fewett (rule )OO(IV) make arrange-ments for items containing the work bothin the original language and in translationto be ftled following editions in the origi-nal language. Many of the codes containprovisions for liling records for selectionsor portions of a work published separately(Panizzi rule I)O(V; Jewett rule )OfiIVCutter rule 326; ALA 1968 rule 27, foot-note 37; and ALA 1980 and LC 1980 ifappropriate uniform titles are used). ALA1942 (rule 26(b)) speciffes that records fbrmanuscripts of a work Iile before recordsfor editions in the original language.

Criticisms and other works about awork-called here roorks about-havealso been grouped together as an integralpart of the work display, Ibllowing recordsmore closely related to the original work.In P anizzi (rule DOff), cross-referenceswere filed at the beginning of a file, before

about lile before editions of the work.Jewett (rule XXXVI) filed cross-refer-ences after all other pertinent recordshad been {iled. In all other codes, in-cluding ALA 1980 and LC 1980, worksabout file together in a group lbllowingall the other records in a work display(Cutter rule 334, ALA 1942 rules 25,26(a) and 26(b), LC 1956 Aut. rule lII,ALA 1968 rules 26 and 27, ALA 1980rule 2.2 and LC 1980 rule 6). ALA 1942(rules 25 and 26(b)) and ALA 1968 (rule27) make provisions lbr a critici.sm of aparticular edition, translation, or part to

. Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /85

file imme&ately after that particular e&-tion, translation, or part.

Treatment of relnted uorks inthe ftlingrules is somewhat difficult to discover.The related work category contains itemsthat have many different relationships tothe original e&tion. Examples of relatedworks include sequels, supplements, in-dexes, concordances, screenplays, libret-tos, and subseries (AACRZR, rule21.28A1.). Related works often have amain entry different from the main entryof the work to which they are related, butare given an added entryto show the rela-tionship to the original. Related workshave only within the last 50 years beenidentified and named as a particular classof materials in cataloging (American Li-brary Association 1949). However, worksof this type have, in practice, almost al-ways been incorporated into work dis-plays, often interftled with works about.Some of the difliculties of ascertaining thetreatment of related works in the codesare that they have either not been men-tioned at all, thev have been treated asequivalent to editions, or they have notbeen treated as a class of materials per sebut rel'erred to in the context ofan addedentry. For example, LC 1956 states: "If abook has some connection with anotherauthor's work, but is not a criticism of itand does not include the original text, anadded entry is o{ten made under thatauthor. In t[at case the title ofthe work inquestion is included as part ofthe addedently heading. As an added entry the cardis filed after the texts of the work andbe{bre the criticism (or subject) cards forthatwork" (LC 1956, 19).

In AI-A 1968, related work added entriesare lbrmally identiffed as "author-tide addedentries" and provisions for ftling them statethat they are to interfile with analytic entries,which have the same form, and follow edi-tion re

86/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

work displays are even more confusingbecause related work records interfileamong edition records and analytical e&-tion records.

Special treatment is accorded worksrepresented byverylarge numbers of rec-ords in several ofthe codes, providing tbreven more classes of materials, thus cre-ating even more highly organized displays.Panizzi (rule DOflX), and lewett lbllow-ing him (rule )O(XVII), specify rules solelyIbr arranging records for the Bible. By thetime AI-A 1942 was published, specialrules were included foi "anonymoui clas-sics" as well as the Bible (rules 28-30). LC1956 (anonymous classics rule) and ALA1968 (rules 29-30) also contained specialprovisions fbr filing anonymous classicsand the Bible. Agarli', ALA 1980 and LC1980 provide for organized arrangementsfor all works only insofar as the correctunifbrm title headings are used in individ-ual records.

AurHoR Fnrnc

Author &splays, like work displays, haveusually been composed ofvarious classes ofauthor records. All liling codes provide Ibrgroupingworks by an author together. How-ever, prior to 1968, the major codes dividedthe works of an author into various sub-classes, particularly{br classic orvoluminousauthors. lnParizi (rule Dil), ]ewett (mle)OfiIV), Cutter (rule 326), ALA 1942 (rules26(a),26(b), and 26(c) {br classic and volu-minou^s authors), and LC 1956 (Aut. mleIA), the lirst class of works by an authorconsists oI compLete uorlcs of an utthorSome of the codes further subdivide thisclass into complete works in the originallanguage, complete works in the originalIanguage and in translation, and completeworks in translation onlv (Panizzi rulesDO(-LO(II, Jewett rde fufv), althoughmle 26(a) in AI-A 1942 stipulates two cate-gories only: complete works in the originallanguage and complete works in translation.

Following complete works is a classcontaining selected uorks of an author(Panizzi rule DOOII; fewett mle )OOilVCutter rule 326; ALA 1942 rules 26(a),26(b), and 26(c)). LC 1956 (Aut. rule I)combines complete and selected works

into a single class. As with completeworks, selected works might be subar-ranged into various groups based on lan-guage of text. Catalogs fbllowing ALA1968 (rule 27 for organized author ar-rangement), ALA 1980, or LC 1980 wouldcreate author displays that grouped com-plete works and selected works only ifuni{brm titles were used. Unilbrm titlescreate groups containing complete worksas well as groups containing specific tlpesof works, Ibr example, plays, essays, po-ems. etc. bv use of collective uni{brm ti-tles, for eiample, "Works" or "Essays"(Anglo-American C atab guing tu lps (1967)rule 107; AACR2R rules 25.8 and 25.10).Actual catalog displays from early catalogsalso reveal classes containing specilic typesof works in displays for various prolilicauthors. For example, the Shakespeare dis-play in the Catalogue of the Library of theBos'ton Athenaun features the specialclasses "separate Plap" and "Poems" *hich{ile alter "selections" (Boston Athenreum1874-1 880, 27 07 -27 08).

In ALA 1942. selected works are com-bined with selections frorn a single workor from ourians u.,orks (rule ZO(a)). Inother codes, selections lrom a single workor various works are grouped togetherseparately and filed either be{bre singleworks of the author (Panizzi rule IXXIV,

Jewett rule X)O(IV) or after (ALA 1942rule 26(b) and 26(c)). Again, the filing ofselections fiom a single work or fiom vari-ous works in ALA 1968, ALA 1980, andLC 1980 depends on whether or not uni-{brm titles containing the collective title"Selections" were used in the record.

Single uorks by an author are treatedas discussed in the section on work filingabove. However, an early practice noimentioned above distinguished works byan author as main entry and the author asjoint author, illustrator, editor, etc. (seediscussion in Cutter 1904, 119). LC 1956required the interliling ol author as mainentry and author as joint entry but createda separate group lbr the author as com-piler, joint compiler, editor, etc. (Aut. ruleIIA). Some online catalogs containingcataloging records with relator designa-tions {bllowing the author name in theauthor heading, lbr example, "ed.," create

LRTS . 4i(2)

separate groups for these records becausefiling programs sort on relator terms. Re-Iator terms are seldom used today; thussuch groups might be misleading to cata-log users because they give the impressionthat all the works edited, etc., by an authormight be fbund in such groupi.

Sometimes displayed as a separategroup are spurious and dtrubtful u;orks.ALA 1942 explicitly mentions theseworks, requiring that they ffle after theknown works of the author (rule 26(b)).Because the A.L.A. Cataloging Rules forAuthor and Title Entri,es (American Li-braryAssociation 1949) and previous setsof cataloging rules stipulate use of a formsubdivision "spurious and doubtful works"in an author heading for works of thisnature, those cataloqs constructed by suchrules would group fh"re works automat-ically by fbllowing the rules for alphabeti-cal {iling. Parizzi's last author groupingcontains "works not written by the personbut under whose name they will be cata-loged" (rule DOCVII), which would per-haps have contained spurious and doubt-{ul works if they existed.

The Iast class of materials common toall the codes is works about the author,including both biographies and criticisms.Works about usually file last in an authordisplay (Cutter rule 326, ALA 1942 rules25,26(a) and 26(b), LC 1956 Aut. rule III,ALA 1968 rules 26 atd27,ALA 1980 rule1980 and LC 1980 rule 6). In actual cata-logs, works about can outnumber the ac-tual works of an author, particularly worksabout classic and volumilnous authors, andmay thus comprise a significant portion ofan author display.

An unusual arrangement is stipulatedin ALA 1942 rule 26(c), one of the op-tional mles fbr arrangement ol'classic andvoluminous authors. It requires that textsof all types by the author in the originallanguage be filed in one group, followedby groups of texts in various translations{iled by language. Each ol'these two ma.jorgroups is subdivided into the {bllowingclasses: complete works, selected works,single works, spurious and doubtfulworks, and selections. These two maiorgroups are followed by three categoriei ofworks about: biography and general criti-

. Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /87

cism, criticism of single works, and othersubiect entries for the author.

in later codes, rules {br the creation ofauthor displays are quite simple, specifr-ing two classes only: works by the authorand works about the author (ALA 1942rule 25. ALA 1968 rule 26. ALA 1980 rule2.2, and LC 1980 rule 6). These displaysseparate groups of work records fromworks about the work (criticisms, for ex-ample). In addition, as mentioned above,if uniform titles are not used, such &splaysdo not collocate the editions of a workbecause they separate records for editionsthat have varying titles proper or trans-lated titles and they interfile records forrelated works among edition records. InALA 1942 and ALA 1968, the simplebylabout display was recommended fbrnonclassic or nonvoluminous authorsonly, presumably because these displayswould consist of f'ew records.

Finally, cross-reference records areolten used in author displays. See re{-er-ences are used to refer users {iom various{brms of an author's name. See also re{'er-ences zue used to reI'er users from variousnames used by the same author. In a list-ing of titles under author name, see re{'er-ences can be made fiom variant titles oI'an author's work to its uniform title (e.g.,AACR2RnrJre 26.4; illustrated in fig. 3 onIines 3 and 7). This type of see re{'erencewas used in earlycatalogs when no recordswere {iled under variant titles and all re-cords were {iled under unifbrm titles.Such see ref'erences are still sometimesused to direct users to unilbrm titles.However, few online catalogs are able todisplay title references and, mimickingthe card environment, displaythem underauthor name only and not under title aswell. Furthermore, few catalogs, if any,{bllow early catalog practice and displaythe see re{'erence instead ofrecords underthe variant title.

Those online catalogs displaying titlesee re{'erence.s frequently display recordscontaining the same variant title in prox-imity to the title re{'erence, sending a po-tentially confusing message to the users(see l ines 3, 4, 6,7, and 8 in { ig. 3). Inad&tion, the title that they see on thescreen usuallyrepresents records {br related

88/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carl|le

works (see line 6 in fig. 3); records fbreditions ol'the work tley are actually seek-ing are buried in the group of recoids thatappears under the author name alone (seeline Z in ftg. 3). See and see also referencescan also be used to direct users to parts ofworks cataloged independendy (for exam-ple, AACR2R n:Ie 26.48.2) and to directusers from relatedwork entries to the workto which they are related (for example,AAC R2R rule 26.4C), respectively.

FILING Rur,ns DIscUssIoN

All of the codes of ffling rules, inclu&ngAI-A 1980 and LC 1980, require the for-mation ofgroups ofwork and author rec-ords based on their relationships to eachother. Groups are deffned because theitems in them share speciftc relationshipsto each other. For example, in the transla-tions group, all items share the same rela-tionship to the original in that they haveall been translated into a language differ-ent from the language of the original. Theextent to which grouping based on spe-cific relationships has occurred in the dis-play ofworks and authors has frequentlydepended on the number ofrecords asso-ciated with them. In the words of ALA1968 (113):

Arrangement of all works by title page tideis suitable only for a small collection withrelatively few titles under an author Anorganized arrangement should be intro-duced in situations where the alphabeticorder becomes difficult to consult because

of the number and character of the tides,editions, translations, etc., as under classicand voluminous authors . . .Large files have always presented a

problem for catalog users, and groupedarrangements have been used as means ofsolving this problem. However, if thegroups used in ordering are not clearlymarked, the resultant arrangements maybe confusing to users, which was noted by

fackson in his study ofcatalog use (1958).

The dangers ofgrouped arrangements inthe card environment were identiliedearly on. Cutter, with his usual perspicu-ity, noted (rule 326):

. . . practice hitherto has been to arrangeentries by joint authors afar the works writ-

ten by the first author alone . , , but al-though it is pleasing to a classilying mind, itis practically objectionable because a reader,not knowing that the book he is looking foris ajoint production, and not linding it in theIirst series of titles, might suppose that it isnot in the library This danger is greatest ina card catalog, where it entirely overweighsthe somewhat visionary advantage of theseparate arrangement. The arrangement ofa card catalog should be as simple as possi-ble, because the reader having only one

card at a time under his eye can not easilysee what the arrangement is. On theprinted page, where he takes in many titlesat a glance, more classification can be ven-

tured upon; there the danger is conffnedto the more voluminous authors; wherethere are few titles the consulter wilI read

them all and so will not miss any.

Search on: DICKENS CHARLES

Line Entries Author/Title

I I Dickens, Charles, 1719-1793.2 283 Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870.3 0 Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Annotated Christmas carol.4 ll search for Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Christmas carol.5 3 Dickens, Charles, l812-1870. Bleak House.6 11 Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Christmas carol.7 0 Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Christmas carol in prose.8 1l search for Dickens. Charles. 1812-1870. Christmas carol.9 | Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Christmas carol. Selections.

10 I Dickens. Charles. 1812-1870. Christmas carol. Selections. 1992.

Figure 3. Work Cross-Reference Display Under Author Name.

LRTS o 4i(2)

One solution to the problem of usersbeing unaware of grouped arrangementswas to insert guide cards to mark the be-ginning of record groupings. However, itwas never widely implemented. Thus in-dividually alphabetized groups of recordswere liled in card catalogwork and authordisplays, and there was sleldom any indica-tion ofwhen these classes began or endedor what they represented.

Librarians frequently criticized thesehighly organized, classified arrangements,for the rensons identified by Cutter (forexample, Scheerer 1959).'In addition,when early online catalogs were devel-oped, it was discovered that contemporarycodes of liling rules (LC 1956 and ALA1968) relied heavily on human intelpreta-tion and contained many exceptions, attrib-utes with which computers were unable tocope (Wellisch 1983). The argument wasmade that "filing should be a purely me-chanical operation which can be reduced toa straightforward arrangement o( sortsand nulls. The filer or program should notbe expected to expand or interpret forfiling purposes" (Hines 1963, &,9). Thoseadvancing tlris argument prevailed, andALA 1980 and LC 1980 were developed toaccommodate the inflexibility of the mm-puter by simpliling the liling process (ALA1980, I-3; LC 1980,2J; Andenon 1982).

As mentioned earlier, ALA 1980 andLC 1980 reduced the number ofclasses ofrecords in work and author displays totwo: editions or works, including relatedworks, which are interfiled, and worksabout. However, whether or not theseclasses were fbrmed depended almost en-tirely on the presence of uniform authorand title headings. In any case, the reduc-tion in the number of classes has not elimi-nated the "large lile" problem, which con-tinues to haunt catalog users (see, forexample, Wiberley, Daugherf, andDanowski 1995). The online cataloe's inabil-ityto demonstrate relationships ariong t""-ords has been suggested as contributing tothe large ftle problem (Carlyle 1996). Thisinability stems in part from t}re abandon-ment, by codes of filing rules, of classifieddirpl"y. in which relationships among itemscan be shown. Abandoning this method ofshowing relationships is even more serious

c Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /89

considerinq that current research advo-cates an Jrr"tt .or" detailed olganizationof relationships among items in the cata-log (fbr example, Svenonius 1988, Tillett1991a, Smiraglia 1992, Leazer and Smi-raglia 1996).

Tus BrnLtocRAPHrcRnr-erroNslilPs SCHEME

A second scheme that may be used toguide the creation of displays that meetthe second objective for works is based onTillett's taxonomy of bibliographic rela-tionships (I99la), whichwas developed to{'acilitate the creation of a conceptualmodel of the catalog. Tillett, in her rela-tionship ta(onomy, spells out the types ofrelationships that exist among works. Al-though the taxonomy was not necessarilyintended as a scheme for creating onlinecatalog displays of works, it does definerelationships that might be used to groupitems related to works in the catalog. Thegroupings that are suggested by Tillett'sbibliographic relationships are first re-viewed and then compared to the tradi-tional groups created by liling and catalog-ing rules (see Tillett 1991b for a completereview of the treatment of bibliographicrelationships in cataloging rules).

Tillett deftnes the equioalerce rekttinr-shE hrst. Equivalent items share intellectualand artistic content as well as authonhip, andher examples include copies, {'acsimiles, andphotocopies. A grouping of records based onthe equivalence relationship canbe regardedas a subset ofthe {iling group "e&tions of thework in the original language." Howeve4 theoriginal-language e&tions group also in-cludes e&tions that have the same contentand authorship but might vary in other re-spects; fbr example, they might have differ-ent pubLshers, editors, or illustrators. In ad-dition, the original editions liling groupmight contain items that do not share iden-tical intellectual and artistic mntent, for ex-ample, revisions and abridgments.

Next, the derioatioe relntiorchlp erjs|isbetween any item and anotler item that hasbeen derived from it. The range of itemssharing the derivative relationship extendsfrom items that exhibit only small differ-ences in intellectual and artistic content to

90/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

those that have very little intellectual andartistic content in common. For example,it may hold between editions that

-are

nearly identical, as between an originale&tion and a corrected edition publishedby t}e same publisher and, at the otherextreme, between a textual edition of AChristmas Carol and a Frenchpop-up bookversion, avideo or au&o performance, orAChristmas C arol card garne.

Smiraglia (1992, 28) refines derivativerelationships into various subrelation-ships. Smiraglia's seven derivative subre-lationships include: simultaneous deriva-tions, successive derivations, translations,amplifications, extractions, adaptations,and perfbrmances. Some of his subrela-tionships have been slightly modi{ied orrenamed in the following discussion tofacilitate comparison to filing rules group-ings. Because the number of items thatcan fall into the derivative relationshipcategory is so large, Smiraglia's subrela'-tionships have the potential to be espe-cially use{ul fbr grouping items in display.

Rersisions, which Smlraglia calls "suc-cessive derivations," consisl of items thathave been revised. Anotherway oflookingat revisions is to say that they have beenchanged in such ^ *^y ^ io alter theintellectual and artistic content of theoriginal without changing its intellectualand artistic intent, fbrm, or format. In thispaper, a distinction is drawn between con-tent, on the one hand, and intent, Ibrm,and {brmat, on the other, because it is seenas being central to making distinctionsbetween diff'erent types of derivations. In-tellectual and artistic intent might includeintended audience, prrrpor"l point o1'view, or discipline represented by a work.Form includes internal structure; for ex-ample, textual forms include outlines,prose, plays, poetry etc. Format includesextemal or physical structure, {br example,sound recordings, videorecordings, books,etc. It must be noted that some changes infbrmat do not indicate a derivation, in par-ticular, those that replicate the conditionsunderwhich the original item is experienced(Helmer 1987). For instance, edidons ap-pearing on audiocassettes and compactdiscs, or editions appearing in book lbrmatand microfbrm, could be considered to be

equivalent. With this exception noted, arevision may thus be de{ined as resultingfrom a change in intellectual or artisticcontent without alterations in the intent,form, or format of the original.

Revisiors have been included in two dif'-f'erent groups in filing practice dependingon authorship conditions and tides used. Ifauthorship conditions and tide of the origi-nal edition have been oreserved. then revi-sions have normally been grouped with theoriginal editions, although treatment in thisarea has varied in cataloging history. InAAC&2R, if authorship conditions or tidehave changed, then revisions have beentreated as new works. Name-tide added en-tries are not created for all revisions treatedas new worls, and thus records for theserevisions have not been filed with records{br the original consistently.

Revisions can be contrastedto adapta-tioru. which alter the intellectual and ar-tistic intent, fbrm, or {brmat of an originaledition as well as its content. Smiraglia'sexamples include simplifications, whichmay result liom the desire to present thework to a &fI'erent audience, and screen-plays adapted from prose works, whichchange the internal structure of a workand may, in addition, include variouschanges of intent. Other changes in artis-tic intent, form, and format include paro-dies, dramatizations, free translations,and reproductions of artworks. Yee(1994c,

-1995a) identi{ies many types of

items that would be included here in parts2 and 3 ofher review of the concept of"work." We might also wish to add hereanother of Smiraslia's derivative subrela-tionships, perfbrriance, sound or video, asa type of adaptation.

Most adaptations, including perlbrm-ances, have been treated as new works intraditiond cataloging practice because theyinvolve a change in authorship conditions. Anotable exception is music; performances ofmusical works have been treated as editionsof the original work. In practice, treatmentof adaptations is similar to that of revisionsinvolving a change in authorship conditions;name-title added entries may or may not berequired, and thus recorcls ior adaptauorsand perfbrmances may or may not begrouped with records {br the original.

LRTS o 4t(2)

Smiraglia also identi{ies trarulntlons ardextra{-tions as sepaxate tgles of derivatiors.Translatiors have alwavs been identiffed incatalog displays and, as a group, are identicalto the group identilied in traditional prac-tice. Smiraglia does not address the displayissue, but subgrouping by language for dis-play pulposes, consonant with ffling nrlepractice, is a logical extension ofthe transla-tion grouping.

Extractions include abridgments, con-densations, and excerpts. Smiraglia in-cludes excerpts in the extractions subrela-tionship. Excelpts might also beconsidered to bear a type of whole-partrelationship to an original. The whole-irartrelationshii is discrissed below. Extrac-tions have often been treated as editions,or as equivalents, in traditional catalogingpractice (Yee 1994c), with the exceptionof abridgments that are seen ,N the workofthe abridger, which are treated as newworks related to the original and givenname-title added entries. As a result, rec-ords for extractions have often been inter-filed with records for original editions intraditional {iling practice.

Ampffications of a work occur when anew work has been created or producedto ampli$/, add to, or extend the originalin some respect (Smiraglia 1992). Onemay or may not wish to regard ampliffca-tions as a type of derivation. A case mightbe made for amplifications to be on aparallel footing with Tillett's other biblio-graphic relationships. Also, amplificationssubsume a large part of Tillettt accompa-nying relationship, which, in this paper, isnot being regarded as a separate biblio-graphic relationship (see discussion be-low). The new work mav or mav not bepublished with the original. Examples thatSmiraglia gives include illustrated texts,musical settings, and concordances. Intraditional cataloging practice, amplifica-tions published with the original havemost often been grouped with records forthe original work as if they were identicalto thei. Ampli{ications published sepa-rately are usually treated as di{Ierentworks and related with a name-title addedentry. Records for these items are thenfiequently interliled with records for theoriginal work.

. pulftllingthe Second Objectit:e /9L

The uhole -p art relationship holds "be-

tween a component part of a bibliographicitem or work and its whole" (Tillett 1991a,156). Current cataloging practice calls lbrthe identiftcation of parts or selectionsusing either a unifbrm title (AACR2R,rule 25.6) or a note identilying the hostitem. If a unifbrm title is not used, recordsfor parts can be arranged randomly amongrecords {br the whole item; in some in-stances they can interftle among totallyirrelevant records. If a uni{brm title isused, separate groupings are created foreach part because the part name is in-cluded as an extension ofthe uniform title.

A whole work that is published as partol'a collection can be identified with aname-title added entry and, in most filingcodes, inter{iledwith other records forthework, but the practice of assigning name-title added entries is limited to collectionscomprised of three or fewer separateitems (AACR2R rule 2I.7Bl). Some-times separate works are identilied in con-tents notes only, and frequently they arenot identilled at all. As a result, biblio-graphic records display the whole-part re-lationship inconsistently.

The sequential relationship holds be-tween an item and other items followingor preceding it. This relationship also hasbeen treated in a variety ofways in cata-loging practice. For serial title changes,practice has varied lrom creating a singlerecord with added title entries fbr thevarious titles used, to creating a succes-sion of entries representing the varioustitles used with linking added entries. Re-centlv successive entrv has been used. Useo{'successive entry for serials implies thatserials whose titles have changed are dif-f'erent works. However, added entries foran earlier and a later title are mandated,thereby partially grouping records underboth old and new titles in the catalog andtreating them as related works.

Items exemplilying other $ryes of se-quential relationships-in particular, {ic-tion sequels-are rarely identified in cata-loging practice. If liction sequels areidentified, identi{ication is usually limitedto a note and not an added entry. In thisway the two schemes &ffer in the group-ings that would be created in a work dis-

92/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

play; the traditional liling rules schemewould place far fewer items in this cate-gory than the bibliographic relationshipsscheme.

The descriptioe relationship translatesmore or less into the class that has beenreferred to here as works about a rrarticu-lar work. Works in this relationihip areexempli{ied by criticisms, commentaries,and reviews. Cataloging practice pre-scribes that subject added entries be in-cluded in records for items bearing thisrelationship, and liling practice has calledfbr this group of items to be {iled togetherat the end ofa file ofwork records.

'fhe shared charact eristic relationshipis fbund among any two items that sharean identical characteristic. such as anauthor or work name. In filing practice,records are grouped when they shareidentical access points, and thus group-ings created by this relationship would beidentical to those created by filing rules solong as the shared characteristic has beengiven an access point. Groupings wouldnot be made in a catalog for characteristicsnot given access points, although an on-line catalog that has kepvord searching ofall fields makes such groupings possible ifthe characteristics appear in the bibliog-raphic records.

Tillett describ es the accompanying re-lationship as holding between two ormore items that are published together orare meant to be used together-betweenan item and another item accompanyingit. I would arzue that there is no need fora separate cal"go.y lbr accompanying re-lationships, because although accompany-ing materials are related, they alwaysshare one or more of the relationshipsdescribed above.

All of the examples that Tillett gives ofitems ol' the accompanying relationshipcan be placed into one of the bibliographicrelationship categories described above.Her examples include a predominant itemand a lesser item, e.9., a text and its supple-ments. A supplement to a text might beregarded either as an amplification or a se-quel, depending on the nature ofthe sup-plement. Other predominant items acrom-panied by lesser items, such as a geographytext accompanied by an adas, a childrent

book accomparried by a doll, or a com-puter lile accompanied by a manual, couldall be seen as amplifications. Items thatprovide access to other items, LubeEky'.s"dependent works" category, includingconcordances, indexes, and catalogs,might also be regarded as a special type ofamplification. Tillett's last example, theseparate components of a ht, do not nec-essarily represent a bibliographic relation-ship in that they, like chapters in a book,comprise the item. If the individual com-ponents of a kit are separated for somereason, then the whole-part relationshipmight be appropriately applied to de-scribe the relationship of the part to thewhole and vice vena.

PRoBLEMS IN THE CREATToN oFORGANTZED AurnoneNp

Wonx Drspuys

Each ol'the schemes discu-ssed above. the{iling rules scheme and the bibliographicrelationships scheme, {'alls somewhat shortof creating displays that fullill the secondobiective because they do not identilyclearly the nature oI, and relationshipsamong, items retrieved in a search lbr anauthor or work. In this section, the {ilingn-rles scheme and the bibliographic relation-ships scheme are evaluated with respect totheir limitations in guiding the creation ofcatalog displays. The eflect of ke;'wordsearching on the creation of relatiorxhip-based displays is analyzed as well.

EvaluetloN oF THE Frr,rNc RulnsScHnvn

One critical weakness of the filing rulesscheme is that it depends on record con-tent fbr grouping. This is unsatis{'actoryIbr two reasons. First, record content isdetermined by cataloging rules, andsometimes the cataloging rules do not re-quire the necessarycontent. For example,because AACR2R and earlier codes havenot required the use of uniform title,many records that are related cannot begrouped together in catalog displays be-cause they lack a uniform title. Even itemsthat share identical intellectual and artis-tic content might be treated as different

LRTS . 4i(2)

works because uni{brm titles are not used.Another example is parodies; AACR2Rdoes not require a name-title added entryfor the work parodied, and as a result, therelationship between a parody and thework parodied is not shown.

A second reason that dependence onrecord content fbr grouping is unsatisfac-tory is that online catalogs might misfileor ignore catalog headings in filing. Whencatalog headings that are intended togroup records together are mis{iled or ig-nored, the records representing particularworks and authors are scattereci. For ex-ample, name-title added entries are fre-quently filed not as two separate headings,a name and a title, but as a single heading(see line 6, fig. 3). Another example isIiling the work-s of an author undeititlesproper instead ofuniform titles. Althoughthese problems might be remedied bycorrected programming, thus far manyonline catalog designers do not seem to beinclined to move in this direction.

Another weakness of the ffling rulesscheme, particularlywhen viewed in the con-text of works and the bibliographic relation-ships scheme, is that it does not su{Iiciendy&stinguish among items that bear &ff'erentrelationships to each other, treating asequivalent items that are, in f'act, quitedif{'erent. As Wilson has pointed out onnumerous occasions (e.g., 1983), the tra-&tional Iiling rules scheme does not iden-tify items that contain identical texts.Even when editions are grouped together,it is up to the user to look carefully at eachbibliographic record to determine whichone, for example, represents the most re-cent edition. The qreatest failure to makedistinctions u*oig different types ofitems is in the group of items that areassigned name-title added entries. Theseitems might bear equivalent, derivative,or sequential relationships to awork. Cur-rently only one distinction can be madeamong these items. The name-title addedentry provided by the MARC fbrmat al-Iows two groups to be distinguished: agroup of related works, which includesitems bearing derivative and sequentialrelationships, and a group of analytics,which includes items bearing an equiva-lence relationship.

. Fulfillingthe Second Objectir:e /93

Ev,llue.ttox oF THE BrBLrocRAPHrcRELATIoNSHIP Scnnur,

One of the major wealmesses of the biblio-graphic relationship scheme is that the intel-lectual and artistic distance of items bearinga bibliographic relationship to an originaledition is not taken into account, nor areauthorship conditions. Intellectual and artis-tic distance can be viewed in part as changesin a work that involve its intent, fbrm, orformat, as discussed above. Authorship con-ditions, particularly primary authorship, in-herent in main enhy decisions, are closelyrelated to such changes in that a change inmain entrv indicates that an item has moveda significant distance away from the original.

Traditional cataloging practice hasgenerally divided the derivative relation-ship into two groups based on authorshipconditions represented in the items. ThisdMsion might be seen as an indication ofthe distance of a particular derived itemIrom the original. In the first group arethose items whose authorship is repre-sented as being the same or nearly thesame as the authorship for original item,Ibr example, an edition updated or revisedby the original author(s). Changes in sub-sidiary authorship-for instance, changesin illustrators or the addition of transla-tors-have not been considered to changesigni{icantly the authorship conditions ofthe original edition.

In the second group are those itemswhose authorship is represented as being&Il'erent from the original, for example,an adaptation {br children by a newauthor, an edition completely revised byanother author, or an adaptation into an-other {brmat. While we might wish tomake more distinctions than these two, itwould be just as unwise to group dl itemssharing the derivative relationship to-gether without making distinctions basedon distance from original or authorshipconditions. The subgroupings of the de-rivative relationship suggested by Smi-raglia remedy much of this problem, buteven so, it may be misleading to users ifall of these subgroupings appeared to-gether in a work display as a single class.

Several aspects ofthe bibliographic re-lationship scheme could be modifted to

94 LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

make it show the nature of items in aworkdisplay more clearly. The equivalence re-lationship as set forth by Tillett does notdistinguish between items sharing identi-cal text or intellectual content onlv anditems sharing identical or nearly identicaltitle page representation as well as identi-cal content. For example, it does not dis-tinguish the relationship between an itemand a photoc,opy of that item (items thatshare identical or nearly identical titlepage representation, paging, and content)and the relatiorxhip between an item pub-lished by one publisher and an item withidentical content published by another pub-Iisher (items that share identical contentonly). Tillettt list of examples suggests tlatshe understands the equivalence relation-ship to hold between items sharingidenticaltitle page representation,pagng, and intel-lectual content. Yee (1994a) has recom-mended that these items be considered nearequivalents and be described by the samebibliographic record, with an in&cation ofchanges in lbrmat or other minor changes.With respect to items sharing identical intel-lectual 6ntent only, Wilson-(1989b) has ar-gued that our conception of"work" shouldinclude only these items, which he callstexts. It makes sense to reline Tillett'.sequivalence relationship in display alongthese lines by incorporating near equiva-lents into the display of a single biblio-graphic record, as recommended by Yee,and by grouping items that share identicalintellectual content, regardless of title pagerepresentation, as suggested by Wilson.

Smiraglia identifies a type of relation-ship-the "simultaneous derivation"-that might be helpful to treat as a subtnreof equivalence relationship (Smiraglia1992, 28). This relationship is called herean orthographic mod.ification. Editions ofan English work published in the UnitedStates might include differences in spell-ing, and a textual work might be publishedin large print or Braille. Changes such asthese do not affect the intellectual or ar-tistic content of a work. Orthographicmodilications have never been classedseparately in any set of {iling rules, buthave been treated as equivalent editions.When a work has many orthographicmodifications, this relationship might be

an important means of helping users iden-tify quickly the items they need.

It might also be useful, depending onthe work displayed, to aralyze some ofTillett's bibliographic relationships intosubrelationships, much the way Smiragliahas done with the derivative relationship.

of items in which the whole ap

For example, items sharingwhole-part re-lationshios could be divided into a srouolationships could be into a group

rooears withot ltems ln which the whole appears wrtnother items in a collection and- then into

another group ofitems that contains partsonly. Another example is the sequentialrelationship; items sharing the sequentialrelationship could be grouped accordingto whether they appear earlier in a se-quence or later than the work displayed.Bernhardt (1988) suggests this type of&s-play fbr serials that have undergone titlechanges. The problem of displaying se-quels and serials is analogous to the prob-lem of relating records for corporateauthors or other authors represented un-der two or more difl'erent and sequentialnames. Bernhardtt proposal for alterna-tive serial displays provides a blueprint forclarilying &splays of sequentially relatedauthor names in the catalog as well.

KEYwoRD SnencsrNc e.ND DTSPLAY

Any implementation of the second obiec-tive is challenged in the online environ-ment by a phenomenon that could nothave existed in the manual environment,which is the retrieval of records {br itemsthat are related to a particular work orauthor but that have not been explicitlylinked in cataloging practice to that workor author. Although these items lack de-liberate cataloging links to the relatedwork or author they are retrieved in kev-word searches (thai are assumed to haveBoolean functionality) because relevantuncontrolled names or titles are embed-ded within access lields or are present innonaccess fields (see items 1, 9, and 12 infig. I and I and It in fig. 2). Items in thisgroup are of two types. First are items that,Ibr a variety of reasons supported by cata-loging rules, lack deliberate links but are, inI'act, e&tions, related works, or works aboutthe work or author sought (unlinkedworksor authors). Second are items that lack de-

LRTS o 4t(2) .

liberate Iinks to a particular work orauthor because they bear only a periph-eral relationship to that work or author(peripherally related works). Peripherallyrelated works include those that devote asmall percentage ofcontent to a particularauthor or work or those that mention aparticular author or work in p:ssing. Inkeyword searches fbr proli{ic au*rors andhighly manil'ested works, many recrcrds ofboth types might be retrieved.

In principle, all records for particularauthors and works should be grouped ac-cording to the second obiective. Howeve4{br various reasons, cataloging nrles andpractice have not required the creation ofexplicit links in ever/record for items thatincorporate the work of an author or ane&tion of awork. For example, if an editionof a work is published in a collection of fouror more works (MCft2R rule 21.7) or if atranslator or illustrator does not {ullill basicadded entry requirements (AACft2R mle2I.30K), explicit linking is not required. Thereasons lbr this are primarily economic; t}reprice of explicit link is high and as a result,the number ol links has been limited.

Fortunately, some unlinked recordscan be identified automatically. Forexam-ple, many editions of works are containedin single-volume collections of an authortworks. In many records for these collec-tions, the author's name appears in themain entry lield andtitles of the containedworks appear in the contents note lield. Inthese cases, records for single-volume col-lections containing editions of singleworks could be au-"tomaticallv identifi"edand grouped with other equivalent items.Unfortunately, not all unlinl

96/ LRTS . 41(2) . CarlTle

ond objective to a greater extent than hasbeen accomplished befbre. This newscheme, the organized display scheme,combines the strengths ofboth ofthe ear-lier schemes to grve users a precise indi-cation ofthe nature ofitems retrieved andthe relationships among them by takinginto account both the types ofrelationshippresent among items as well as the dis-tance ofan item from the original. It alsoacknowledges the presence of peripheraland unlinked items retrieved in a keywordenvironment.

The emphasis in this paper has been onthe identification of groups or classes ofitems that share speciffc relationships.The reason {br this was to facilitate thecreation of summary displays in which allthe records fbr a particular work or a par-ticular author could be displayed on asingle screen. Evidence exists that somecatalog users, when con{ronted with largesets of retrieved items, leave the cataloqwithout consulting a single record (Wiberlley, Daugherty, and Danowski 1995). Thecompression oflarge retrieval sets ofworkand authorrecords onto single screens hasthe potential to relieve this problem ol'overload.

WORK NAME / AUTHOR NAME

EditioN. Books. R@ordings. Large print, Braille,. nlustraled editions, editions witi commentaN.. Work nw ptb[shed with other works

. Revisions, updated editions, --

. Tmladons

. Parts, slections, extrrcts, .

AdaptatioN & Relared Wo*s. Abridgements. simplified vereions, summuies.. Sequels,supplements,, . .. Videos, motion pictures. Muical versioni. Pictus ad other graphic versions. Compuer vemioni, CO-nOVs, . . .. Indexs, concorduces,. Miselluous

Works abott Work name

Item Fobably related to Work w

Items thar may or may notbe re1latr.d to Work nM

OdEt worksby Author w

Figure 4. Summary Work Display for TextOriginal.

In ligures 4 and 5, summary work andauthor displays are suggested. These sum-maries are suggestions only, because dif-{'erent works are manifested in differentways and would be served best by custom-ized displays. For example, some workshave been adapted many times and havemany related works associated with themand some do not. If {'ew adapted and re-lated works are associated with a particu-lar work, then that grouping could appearas a single selection under "Editions" andnot as a major grouping with speciliedsubgroupings. Likewise, if many items ina subgrouping existed, for example, am-pli{ications of a particular work, it wouldbe uselul to divide that group into sub-groups, perhaps grouping all of the textsthat have been illustrated and then all ofthe texts that have been published withcommentaries. and so fbrth. Another rea-son that the work display in {igure 4 is onlya suggestion is that it a^ssumes that theoriginal edition is a text; originals that arenot texts would require slightly &ff'erentsummary displays.

In the summary work display (figure4), those items whose intellectual and ar-tistic content are close or identical to theoriginal work-in other words, the itemsthat are normally given the same mainentry-appear together in the first majorgrouping of items on the screen. Itemssharing the same text appear in the first

Single WorksWorknaresA-HWorknws l -OWorknamesP-Z

Colleted Works

Sel€tions from Arth or mrc's wotks

Spurious md doubtful works

Works aboutAutror Mrc (biognphy, criticism, ..-)

Items probably elaed b Auilor rure

Items that may or may not be related to A uthor nw

Works by the samelrehted author: Author name 2

Figure 5. Summary Author Display.

LRTS o 41(2)

{ive subgroups, with revisions and transla-tions appearing next, and finally items thatrepresent parts on[y. In the next majorgrouping are those items whose intellec-tual and artistic content are further lromthe original by virtue of the fact that theirintellectual or artistic intent, Ibrm, andfbrmat have been altered. These itemshave normally been given main entriesdilTerent lrom the original. The sub-groupings in this category includevideorecordings and musical and com-puter versions. A miscellaneous categoryis included lbr items that might not fit anyofthe other adaptations and related workssubgroupings eiactly.

The summary author display ({igure 5)is based entirely on the filing rule scheme,since the bibliographic relationshipscheme applies to works only. Like workdisplays, displays Ibr individual authorscould be customized according to the re-lationships among the items"retrieved.Few authors, {br example, would have anyitems appearing in a "spurious and doubt-f ul work" category and it would seldom beneeded in an author display.

One of the limitations of summary &s-plap such as the ones suggested here is thatrelationships between individual items that

summary display level.

MovrNG TowaRD Nuw ScnnrunsFOR DISPIJ\Y

Although it is not within the scope of thispaper to outline how a new displayscheme could be implemented, it will behriefly addressed here. It is wellwithin the

" Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /97

capacity of current computer technoloryto create displays that identi{y clearlyvari-ous classes of materials. Such displayscould be designed using various ap-proaches, {br example, using graphical,hierarchical tree-structures to illustratethe types of materials retrieved in asearch. The computer could also createpermanent links among records so thatevery record would always be linked to theentire set of records related to it. An ad-vantage of the electronic environment isthat it can provide relationship-based dis-plays without the hazards slch displayspresented in the card environment; thatis. users would alwavs be able to see asummary screen thatidentifies clearly theclasses of related items retrieved.

Although it is within the power of thecomputer to create relationship-baseddisplays, two major obstacles must beovercome lirst: the inadequate identifica-tion of relationships in existing catalogingrecords and the limitations ol' currentcataloging practice and the MARC lbr-mat. To eliminate the first obstacle itwould be necessary to identily existingcataloging records that lack appropriatelinks and then upgrade them by addingthose links. It is likely that upgrading ex-isting records would be prohibitively ex-pensive. A compromise would be to up-grade cataloging fbr only those recordsassociated with works and authors repre-sented by large numbers of records andsought {iequently by catalog users. Thisworst-case approach, while {'ar {rom ideal,would lower the cost ofupgrading currentrecords by limiting its application to thoseworks and authors that are both sought{iequently by catalog users and are mostlikely to result in long, disorganized dis-plays.

Eliminating the second obstacle, thelimitations of cataloging practice and theMARC {brmat, is more of a challenge. Asnoted several times in this p^p"tAACR2R does not identify relationshipsbetween items consistently. AACR2R, likemany of the cataloging iodes that pre-ceded it, restricts itself to the creation ofindividual cataloging records and says lit-tle about catalog display. While rules lbrrecord construction might have been suf-

98/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

ficient to guarantee lulfillment ol'the sec-ond objective in the card environment,they are not su{ftcient to guarantee it inthe online environment. Ronald Haglerhas put it this way (1989, 212):

AACR2 is still written as if it were a codeonly for inputting data. Use of the com-puter, however, separates what is inputfrom its output, or display, formats, allow-ing selection and reformatting decisions tointervene. Output formats have unfortu-nately gone somewhat adrift of the codeand seem to be considered by many to beindependent of cataloging rules Specialattention is now required to reintegratethem with those rules, especially in thecontext of online catalogues.

Widespread implementation of relation-

log, it does not explicitly provide {br thesecond objective in catalog displays. Il'theobjectives are to be truly accepted andendorsed, then at some level AACR2Rmust provide standards or guidelines thatimplement them.

The number of suggestions for sub-stantial changes in the MARC {brmat isincreasing. MARC has many problems(see, for example Leazer 1992), not theleast of which is its limited ability to showrelationships. Heaney (1995) presents aplan to restructure MARC records thatcould be used to create the type of dis-plays presented here.

our catalogs to provide a variety ofrecordarrangements; for example, arrangementsby publication date or by other elementsof a cataloging record. It is not so.easy,however, for existing catalogs to provideorganized, relationship-based displays,nor would it be easy for users to articulatea need for a relationship-based display. Itis only members of the cataloging profes-sion who, understanding and endorsingthe objectives of the catalog, have thepower to change the current situationsuch that fulftllment of the second objec-tive becomes a reality. Such a change isIong overdue.

WoRxs CtrED

American Library Associaflon. 1942. ALAnies for filing catal.og cards. Chicago:American Library Association.

L949. A.L.A. cataloging niles forauthor and. titl.e entries 2d ed. Chicago:American Library Association.

1968 A.L A. iles for filing catalogcards. 2d' ed. Chicago: American LibraryAssociation.

1980. ALA ftltng iles. Chicago:American Library Association.

Anderson, James D. 1982. Catalog {ile display:Principles and the new filing rules. Cata-loging b cl.assification quarterly 1, no. 4:3-23.

Anglo-American catalnguing niles: NorthAmeri.can turt. 1967. Chicago: AmericanLibrary Association.

Anglo-Amcrican cataloguing iles. 1978. 2d,ed. Ottawa: Canadian Library Association.

Anglo-Anzrican cataloguing iles. 1988. 2d,ed., 1988 rev. Ottawa: Cana&an LibraryAssociation.

Ayres, F. H., L. P. S. Nielsen, M. J, Ridley, andI. S. Torsun. l99S.TheBradfordOPAC: Aneu concept in bibliographic control. WestYorkshire: British Library Research andDevelopment Department.

Bernhardt, Melissa M. 1988. Dealingwith se-rial title changes: Some theoretical andpractical considerations. Catah:ging ltclassiJication quarterly 9, no. 2: 25-39.

Boston Athenaum. 187

IRTS o 4j(2)

work records: An evaluation of collocationin online catalog displays. Journal of theAmerican Society for lnformati.on Science47:538-54.

Cutter, Charles A. 1904. Rules for a dicti.onarycatalog 4th ed., rewritten. Washington,D.C.: Govt. Print. OfL

Domanovszkv. A. 1975. Func"tions and obiectsof author'and title catalo guing: A contlribu-tion to cataloguing theory Munich: VerlagDokumentation.

Haglea Ronald. 1989. The consequences ofinte-granon. In Thn corcepnal foundatirns of de-scriptitw canloglng, ed. Elaine Svenonius,I97-2I8. San Diego: Academic Pr.

Heaney, Michael. 1995. Object-oriented cata-logSng. lnformation te chnolo gy and librar-ies 14,no.3: I3S-53.

Helmer, John. 1987. Cataloging, economics,and the experience of works. Master's the-sis, University of Cali{brnia, Los Angeles.

Hines, Theodore C. 1963. Machine arrange-ment of alphanumeric concordance, the-s.o.,r., ^od. index entries: The need forcompatible standard rules. In AmericanDoanmantation Institute, 26th AnnualMeeting, Chicago, Ill , October 1963, 7-8.Washington, D.C.: American Documenta-tion Institute.

International Federation of Library Associa-tions. 1971. Statement of principlesadopted. at the International Conferenceon Cataloguing Principles, Paris, Oc'toberI96.L Annotated edition with commentar-ies and examples by Eva Verona. London:IFLA Committee on Cataloguing

Jackson, Sidney L. 1958. Catalog use study.Chicago: American Library Association.

Jewett, Charles C. 1853 Smithsonian reporton the constnrction of catalogues oflibrar-ies, andtheirpublicationbE mea.ns of sepa-rate, stereotyTted titles, uith ntles and ex-amples. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

Leazer, Cregory H. 1992. An examination ofdata elements for blbliographic descrip-tion: Toward a conceptual schema for theUSMARC lbrmats. Librant resources lttechnical senices 36: 189-2b8

Leazer, Gregory H., and Richard P. Smiraglia.1996. Toward the bibliographic control ofworks: Derivative bibhographic relaUon-ships in an online union catalog. InDigitalLi.braries 7996: Proceedings of the firstACM International Conference on DigitalLibraries, Bethesda Md., USA, ed. Ed-ward A. Fox and Cary Marchionini, 36-43.New York: Association for Computing Ma-chinery.

. Fulfillingthe Second Objectioe /99

Library of Congress. 1956. Filing n"tles for thedictionarE catalogs ofthe Library of Con-grass Washington, D.C.: Processing De-partment.

I98O. Libranl of Congress filingniles Prepated by John C. Rather andSusan C. Biebel. Washington, D.C : Li-brary of Congress.

Lubetzky, Seymour. 1953. Cataloging rulesantl principles: A critique of the A.L.A.rules for entry and a proposed dzsign fortheir reoision. Washington, D.C. : Process-ing Department, Library of Congress.

1960. Code of cataloging rules:Author and title entries. An unfinisheddraft. American Library Association.

1963. The function of the mainentry in the alphabetical catalogue-Oneapproach. Working paper no. 2. In Inter-national Federation of Library Associa-tions. lnternational Conferenae on Cata-loguing PrinciTtles, Paris, 9-78th October,1961 Report,139-43 London: Clive Bin-gl"y.

1969. Principles of cctaloging Fi-nal report. Phase I: Descriptive cataloging.Los Angeles, Calif.: Institute of LibraryResearch, University of California.

O'Neill, Edward T., and Diane Vizine-Goetz.1989. Bibliographic relationships: Implica-tions {br the function of the catalog.InTheconoeptual founclntions of d.e s criptio e cat a-logi.ng, ed. Elaine Svenonius, 167-79. SanDiego: Academic Pr.

Online catalog screen d.isplnys: A series of d.is-cussions Report of a conference sponsoredbu the Council on Librant Resources at theL'ok".oy Conference Center, Austin,Teras, March 70-13,1985. 1986. Washing-ton, D.C.: Council on Library Resources.

Panizzi, Antonio. I84L. Catalague ofprintedbooks in the British Museum. Vol. L Lon-don: Printed by order of the Tiustees.

Pettee, Julia. 1936. The development ofauthorship entry and the formulation ofauthorship rules as {bund in the Anglo-American code. Library quarterly 6:270-90.

Scheerer, George. 1959. Card catalog arrange-ment. Libranl resources ls technical sero-ices 3: 140-45.

Smiraglia, Richard Paul. 1992. Authority con-trol and the extent of derivative bibliog-raphic relationships. Ph.D. diss,, Univ. ofChicago.

Svenonius, Elaine. 1988. Clustering equiva-lent bibliographic records. ln Annual re-oieu of OCLC research, July 1987-June1988, 6-8. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC.

LOO/ LRTS . 41(2) . Carlyle

l99lb. A summary of the treatmentof bibliographic relationships in catalogingnies. Li.branl resources Cz techni.cal sens-ices 35: 393-405.

Vellucci, Sherry L. 1990. Uni{brm titles asIinking devices. Catalnging lz classifica-tion quarterly 12, no. 1: 35-62.

Wellisch, Hans H. 1983. The ALA filinq rules:Flowcharts illustrating their appli6ation,with a critique and suggestions for im-provement.,for,rrnal of the American Soci-etE for lnformation Science 34: 313-30

Wiberley, Stephen E., Robert AllenDaugherty, and James A. Danowski. lgg5.User persistence in displalng online cata-log postings: LUIS. Library resources lttechnical s eraices 39: 247 -64

Wilson, Patrick. 1983. The catalog as accessmechanism: background and concepts. L!brory resutrces b teahrxical sercices 27 : 4-I7

I989a. Interpreting the second ob-jective of the catalog. Li.brary quartedy59: 339-53

1989b. The second objective In

The conceptual foundations of descriptioecataloging, ed. Elaine Svenonius, 5-16.San Diego: Academic Pr.

Yee, Martha M. 1994a. Manil'estations andnear-equivalents of moving image works:Theory with special attention to moving-image materials . Library resources b tech-nrcal SerDrces J6t ZZ l-OD.

1994b. What is a work? Part 1: Theuser and the objects oI the catalog. Cata-loging Cr classification quarterhT 19, no. l:9-28.

1994c. What is a work? Part 2: TheAnglo-American cataloging codes. C ata-logi.ng b classification quarlerl4 19, no. 2:

1995a What is a work? Part 3: TheAnglo-American cataloging codes. Cata-Ioging d.r classification quarterlq 20, no. I:25-46.

1995b. What is a work? Part 4:Cataloging theorists and a delinition ab-stract. Cataloging b classifi.cation quar-ter la 20, no.2:3-24.

/t0l

Chemistry Journol Use ond Cosl:Results of q Longitudinol Sludy

Tino E. Chrzostowski ond Brion M. Olesko

Jutnutl-use shtdies uere condacted in the Unioersity of Illirwis at [Jrbarw-Champaign Cherni*ry Library in 7988, 7993, and mort recently in 1996.Betueen 1988 and 1996,the costof purchuingthe joumalcollection.rose 66.9Vouhile use of thn coLleaion rose 34.2Vo. These increases occurred during thecancellatkn, of ooer 180 chernistry janmals between 1988 and 1996. The datapoint to a collection uith oboiow 'top" jcrurnals that generate most of the use.While the dnta confinnthe 80/20 rule (84Vo of use uus generatedbV the top 100

rJ oumal-use sfudies were conducted in the Because chemistry serials are among theUnivenity o{'Illinois at Urbana-Champaign most expensive joumals purchased by aca-(UIUC) Chemisky Library in 1988, 1993, demic libraries, they are often targeted forand most recendy in 1996. The initial pur- cancellation. Use data and mst-use ratiospose for these surveln was grim: to deter- can demorstrate how cost-efi'ective a high-mine use and a cost-use ratio of a large and use chemistryserial collection can be. Theseexpensiveserialcollectioninordertocancel hnd of data also serve to provide factual,subscriptions andbalance the budget based statisticalreasonstogivetofacultytoexplainon quantitative data. Although the original why a serial was canceled or to library ad-reasons for data mllection were negative, ministrators to demonstrate why an expen-the merits and multiple uses of these data sive journal is cost-effective to own.have proved the eflbrts very worthwhile.

TINA E. CnnzesTowsxr (CHRZ@uiuc.edu) is Chemistry Librarian and Associate Prof'essor ofUbrary Administration, University of Illinois at UrLana-Champaign; Bnleru M. Olesro(bolesko@&scover.wright.edu) was formerly Graduate Assistant, UIUC Chemistry Ubrary andgraduate student, UIUC Graduate School of Library and Information Science, and is nowRel'erence and Outreach Librarian, Fordham Health Science Library Wright State University.Manuscript received December 2, 1996; accepted {br publication fanuary 27, 1997.

I02/ LRTS . 41(2) o Chtzastoroski and Olesko

use of the botanv serial collection at the

John N. Couch Biology Library at Univer-sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill overa seven-yeuu period, from 1982 to 1988.Parsons examined total use ofbotanv titlesover this time period in order to investi-gate cumulative data, but she limited heranalysis to the general categories of usedand unused titles. She did not track use bytitle, by year, as it changed over time.

Naylor (1994) examined periodical usethrough two use studies with differingmethodologies conducted in 1987-88 and1991-92 at the State University of NewYork at Buffalo Science and EngineeringLibrary. Nayl