BIBLIOGRAPHIC STANDARDS AND LIBRARIES

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 04 October 2014, At: 23:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Science & Technology LibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wstl20

BIBLIOGRAPHIC STANDARDS AND LIBRARIESRobert S. Tannehill Jr. BA, MS aa Library Manager, Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, OHPublished online: 18 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Robert S. Tannehill Jr. BA, MS (1981) BIBLIOGRAPHIC STANDARDS AND LIBRARIES, Science & TechnologyLibraries, 1:2, 61-74

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J122v01n02_10

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wstl20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J122v01n02_10

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

BIBLIOGRAPHIC STANDARDS AND LIBRARIES

Robert S. Tannehill, Jr.

ABSTRACT Standardization within the l ibmy and information community is defined and then considered in terms of support from and involvement of the community, factors causing standardization, and problems encountered in the develop ment of standards. The author concludes that there is a viable mechanism for the develop ment of bibliogmphic standards, but that there is &king not only a basic understanding of this mechunism and the importance of sondards by the information community, but also the necessary commitment and involvement critical to successful standardiration

ROLE OF STANDARDS "Barbarism is the absence of standards to which ap-

peal can be made. Our civilization and all human relations are built upon a set of standards-standards which are usually applied without thinking about it."'

While Sturen is refemng to standards in the broadest sense, i.e., social as well as technical, aspects of his statement relate directly to bibliographic standards and their impact on scientific and technical, special, medical, public, and other types of libraries. Librarians, in fact all members of the information community, must be aware of relationships, the future development and demands of our information-based society, and the key role standards will play in these developments. No longer can librarians-whether their area of expertise or activity be in the scien- tificltechnical arena, the public, special, or otherwise-adopt, consciously or unconsciously, a philosophy of benign indifference relative to standards and standardization. The issues are too important, the results too serious for anything but an active awareness and an aggressive involvement in standards development and use.

In the July 1980 issue of Library Journa&2 several "top executives in information companies" describe the library of 1985. Their scenarios clearly indicate that standardization will be an important issue. Without such, their visions of the library-to-be may not be viable. Examples of their forecasts wherein standards will be important include:

-"...the distinction between reference. retrieval, and document delivery will lessen as currently developing. sophisticated data communications and facsimile services come into

Robert S. Tannehill, Jr.. is Library Manager at the Chemical Abstracts Sentice. Columbus, OH. He holds a B A degree in Chemistry from University of Southern Mississippi end an M S degree in Information Science from Drexel University.

Science & Technology Libraries. Vol. 1121. Winter 1980 01981 by The Haworth Re.% AU rights renwed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

62 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES

operation and aoeeptance.;'3 (Obviously, data communications and facsimile systems r e quire standardization if data exchange and transmission, and system interfacesllinking are to take place.)

-"In all libraries of reasonable size in 1985, machines, not librarians, should be ordering and cataloging materials, checking in serials, checking out books, and compiling bibliographies."4 [Machine lie.. computer) interfacelactivity means standardization, not in the shape and size of forms, cards, etc.. but in terms, for example, of what data are selected, and in many cases how data are formatted and represented.]

-"Networking will be vital to the continued existence of the library in 1985, and networking protocols will be developed to facilitate effortless inter-network communications."5 (Not only network protocols, but the user-computer-database interface must be made simpler and more convenient, and this requires standardization.)

1985 is just around the corner, and one would think that, given the high value of standards in the development of the information field, significant standardization efforts would have been underway for some time. Such, sadly to say, is not the case. True, there has been a history of calls for standards and much discussion of their worth, but only a few shining examples of success in bibliographic standards development and im- plementationluse can be documented.

A review of standardization activity within the United States reveals that of the approximately 10,000 standards listed in their catalog by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through May of 1980, only 36 (.36%1 are related to the librarylpublisherlinformation sciences field6 (i.e., standards developed by American National Standards Com- mittee 239) (see Appendix A for a list of the 36 standards). This is not an inherently negative situation, presuming that these 36 standards are needed, employed, and of benefit. However, only a few of these have seen a level of adoption and use that would imply that they are valued and accepted by librarians and the rest of the information community. Some of the remaining ANSI 239 standards are too new to determine their impact on the information community, and for a number of these, the potential is positive.

Turning briefly to the international level, the picture of bibliographic standards is about the same as in the United States. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) had published 3.925 standards as of the end of 1979, 25 of which (.64%) have been developed by IS0 Technical Committee 46: Documentation. Precious few of these 25 bibliographically related standards have seen widespread use. Those that have are generally well-known within the United States information community. include:

IS0 4-1972 Documentation-International code for the abbreviation of titles of periodicals

IS0 2108-1978 Documentation-International standard book numbering (ISBN)

IS0 2709-1973 Documentation-Formats for bibliographic information interchange on magnetic tape

IS0 3166-1974 Codes for the representation of names of countries

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert S. Tannehilt Jr. 63

I S 0 3297-1975 Documentation-International standard serial numbering (ISSN)

Calls for standardization have come from various segments of the information community, and have spanned a number of years. Glotfelty, of the micrographics industry, states that "A strong standardization program is very important to an industry if i t is going to grow, prosper, and endure. Standards 'make i t easier for manufacturers to market products and easier to users to invest in systems, knowing that they will not be useless in a year or two.'I7

In their important work on standardization in 1970. Wigington and Wood mention the need for standardization in both representing information and developing the procedures for handling it.8

Wainright mentions that "One characteristic of the computer age of bibliographic processing is the increasing acceptance of standards as an aid to communication and international interchange of cataloging records. " 9

At the 80th meeting of the Association of Research Libraries in 1972, a list of 21 possible activities was circulated. The results as reported by the ARL Commission on the Organization of Resources identified "serials, a machine-based cataloging system for monographs, and standards for bibliographic data bases for immediate attention."lO

Note that eight years ago, ARL members identified standards "for immediate attention." Compared to the other two ARL priority activities, standards have received little attention within the information community. For example, as recently as August 1980 i t is mentioned that "Job- bers and commercial processors should standardize their cataloging by following accepted cataloging codes acd practices, which would allow libraries to exchange and integrate the information in their catalogs and networks.""

This is not to say that the for-profit publisher sector of the information community has ignored bibliographic standards. Certainly, their adoption and use of the ISBN and ISSN are well known. Also, the nonlibrary sector is strongly represented on the ANSC 239 Committee, and the publishers have established a committee within the American Associa- tion of Publishers (AAP) called BISAC (Book Industry Systems Ad- visory Committee) that is quite active. Even the American Society for Testing and Materials has entered the realm of bibliographic standards (e.g.. ASTM E250-76, Recommended Practice for the use of CODEN).

The library community is also active in the area of standards if the plethora of committees and groups working on "standards" is taken into account. For example MARBI (Machine-Readable Form of Bibliographic Information) has been involved for some time with MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging) in all its aspects; ALA's Library and Information Technology Division (LITA) works on standards, as do ALA's Reproduc- tion of Library Materials Section Standards Committee and its Descrip- tive Cataloging Committee in the Reference and Technical Services Divi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


sion; OCLC, Inc.'s cataloging Advisory Committee advised OCLC on cataloging standards; and, of course, the Library of Congress has developed "standards" such as MARC, Romanization schemes, library identification symbols (i.e., National Union Catalog symbols), country and language codes, etc.

The government also enters the bibliographic standards picture. For example, the National Bureau of Standards cooperates with both IS0 and ANSI on country codes (i.e., NBS Let ter Circular 1067, Codes for the Names of Countries) as does the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, and then there are a host of Federal Information Processing Standards issued by U.S..Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.

No wonder that with every Tom, Dick, and Harry issuing "standards," the picture has become so confused that most people throw up their hands and bow out of trying to untangle the mess. In a special study for ASLIB, Carole Wilmot states that:

Matters are further complicated by the existence of many standard issuing bodies operating at different levels e.g. organizational, national, regional or intema- tionautl Commercial organizations may devise their own standards tailored to meet their needs .... Nationel standard issuing bodies, such as the American Na- tional Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI) participate in the formation of standards on an international level, and increasingly, international organizations such as UNESCOIUNISIST and International Fedemtion of Library Associations (IFLA) play a prime role.

The recognized authority for the publication o f international standards is the Intematioml Organization for Standardization /IS@ "I2

A more rational approach is needed to bibliographic standardization. There should be a specific meaning associated with the term "standard" and the process labeled "standardization."

WHAT I S A "STANDARD?" "Standard" is a term that has been frequently used in

this paper and is just as frequently used in the literature. But what is really meant by this term? I have not defined my use of the term so far, and some readers may have taken umbrage a t the statements I have made relevant to lack of activity or the use of "standards" by the information community.

Perhaps some readers have not considered that there are various types of standards. For example, Kutten and Merom refer to "national standards; standards issued by societies; codes, codes of practice, specifications, rules, regulations [and] procedures."I3 Atherton writes of "dimen- sional, performance, testing, technical terms and symbols, and codes of practice."l4 And then, there are "qualitative standards used to evaluate services and resources."l5

Types of standards can be grouped into two broad categories: the type of thing being standardized and the entity responsible for the develop ment and promulgation of standards. In this paper I am concerned with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert S. Tannehill, Jr. 65

the latter category, as "what" is not nearly so important as "who," for it is the "who" that determines whether a standard will be successful, that is, used. The "what" cannot be totally ignored, of course, for no matter with what authority a standard is developed and promulgated, if i t stan- dardizes something perceived by the potential user community to be ir- relevant, the standard will go unused. Still, no matter how relevant a standard or how technically sound, if an authoritative body does not support it, the standard will not survive as a true standard. And this brings us to defining a standard.

Definitions range from simple statements, e.g., "Standards are generally accepted and documented sets of conditions to be fulfilled"'6 to the complex, e.g., "S tandark A prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements established by standards-setting bodies, concerning definition of terms; classification of components; specification of materials. performance, or operations; delineation of procedures; or measurement of quantity or quality in describing materials, products, systems, services or practices."l7

The American National Standards Institute suggests that a standard is: "A prescribed set of conditions and requirements, usually in the form of a document, established by custom, general consent or authority aimed a t promotion of optimum benefits and intended to satisfy recurring or an- ticipated needs. "18

La1 Verman, in his lengthy treatment of standardization in 1973, gave the following as "a most picturesque panorama of what is covered by the term standard."

A standard is a formulation established verbally, in writing or by any other gmphical method, or by means of a model sample or other physical means o f representation, to serve during a certain period of time for defining, designating or specifying certain features of a unit or basis of measurement, a physical object. an action, aprocesq a method, a practice, a capacity, a function, a duty, a right, a responsibility, a behavior, an attitude, a concept or a conception, ora combination of any of these, with the object of promoting economy and efficiency in pmduc tion, disposal, regulation an&or utilization of goods and seruices, by providing a common ground of understanding among producers, deders, consumers, users, technologists and other groups concerned 19

ISO, on the other hand, defines the term standard as follows:

A technical specification or other document avaihble to the public, dmwn up with the coopemtion and consensus or geneml approval of all interests affected by i t based on the consolidated results of science, technology and experience, aimed at thepromotion of optimum community benefits and approved by a body recognized on the mtionnL, regional or international leveL20

A key point in the IS0 definition is the phrase "by a recognized body." The National Standards Policy Advisory Committee (NSPAC) definition above also attaches importance to "standardysetting bodies." As previously mentioned, the "who" in standards activity is important, as is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


born out by IS0 and the NSPAC. In the United States, the recognized national standards body is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). One might ask "Recognized by whom?" At the international level, ANSI is recognized as the U.S. national standards body by such entities as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the In- ternational Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the Pan American Standards Commission (COPHANTL21 At the national level, in addition to membership in ANSI or ANSI committees implying support of its national role, such organizations as ALA's Information Science and Automation Division (ISAD) [now Library and Information Technology Division (LITA)] have had in-depth discussions of "who should set standards." For example, in a 1977 ISAD meeting it was stated that "ISAD should not set standards." Rather, "that ISAD should establish pro- posed standards," and then turn these "over to the standards-making 0rganizations."~2

The proper standards-making organization is one that can "provide a framework for the efficient organization of both public and private resources to ensure that the United States' national standards needs are competently and economically met, on a timely basis, under generally recognized principles of due process."23 The specified type of "due process" that provides the most sound, widely accepted standard is that of consensus. Verman defines consensus standardization as the process

by which the largest possible agreement is securedamong all interests concerned with the use of standards .... Once all these interests have agreed and a common ground upon which to base the standard has been found the standardacquires an authority possibly much morepowerful than a legal instrument might which has secured only a 51 percent majority vote in its

Thus, a basic tenet of the author is that true standards are those developed by a recognized authoritative body (in the case of the United States ANSI and at the international level ISO) using the consensus pro- cedure. In addition to "what" is developed, "how" it is developed, and by "whom," implementation, promotion, and compliance are important factors in the standardization process. These topics will be touched on later in this paper, but it is important to consider in more detail, the "who" of standardization.

While there is not total agreement within the information community as to which body should have the standards setting authority, as has been mentioned, ANSI appears to receive the most general support, particularly for the types of bibliographic standards that lie outside the realm of practices (e.g., AACR 11). and guidelines for library collection development, staff size and qualifications, etc., i.e., for more technical standards.

There has been increased interest in and activity within American Na- tional Standards Committee 239, the primary ANSI committee responsible for developing standards relevant to the information community.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert S. TannehiY Jr. 67

This is particularly so since 239 was reorganized in 197811979 as the result of a Task Force on American National Standards Committee 239 established by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). Initially established in 1939, the work of 239 failed in the ensuing years to adjust to the changing nature of the information field. In fact, during the period of 1939 to 1963, few if any standards were developed by 239, and even as of 1970, Wigingtton and Wood reported that "there is a serious lack of standards formally approved for the information field by ANS1."25 The NCLIS study reported that:

There has been a gmwing concern on the part of the community involved in the development and operation of automated information services that 239 has con- centrated on the more traditional library areas. This group feels that not enough attention has been given to the needs for standards in the fast growing data base business in the information-related fields land I might add, the publishing fields1 26

Z39's reorganization included a new name, scope, bylaws, new funding, and a more efficient and effective administrative structure. Standards work has actively proceeded, with a broad range of information-related standards being developed and in process. Still, many areas of standardization need to be investigated, and although 239 has the mechanism to develop needed bibliographic standards (i.e., it is a central, effective standards setting body), unless the information community also increases its awareness and involvement in standard work and also fully supports 239, improvement in standards development will not be as rapid as needed and will be too diffuse.

WHAT FACTORS CAUSE STANDARDIZATION?

One cause of the attitude of benign indifference to standardization on the part of many in the information community may be that the factors creating a need for establishing and implementing standards are not present. Another may be that the factors are present, but not perceived.

At a recent symposium, it was stated that "Standardization is a condi- tion for and a result of [my emphasis] an efficient transfer of technology."27 SO, one impetus for the development of standards is a combination of systems and methods permitting efficient transfer of technology. The premise is that the less parochial the employment of ad- vanced technology, the greater the potential for interchange of information, data, communications, etc., and the more linking, the greater need there is for standardization to achieve efficiency, effectiveness, cost reduction, and increased productivity.

In regard to cost reduction, concern with this factor has been present for some time. Back in 1972, Frederick Burkhardt, then Chairman of NCLIS, stated that "the cost of information is pushing libraries to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


cooperative efforts."28 The results of this concern are all too apparent when one considers the development of OCLC, Inc., the Research Libraries Information network (RLIN), the Washington Library Net- work (WLN), the University of Toronto Library Automated System (UTLAS), etc. Less recognized, however, is the development of such networks as competing (or if not competing, certainly isolated) entities. That is, these cooperative efforts, while within the system, did not consider the future very objectively or carefully in terms of between systems, with the result that the cost of internetwork linking that allows effective, efficient transfer are currently higher than necessary-one outcome being the Council on Library Resources' funded study of the impacts of linking bibliographic utilities carried out by Battelle Colurr~bus Laboratories.29 Given a variety of pressures (e.g., economic, technical, market, and political) these systems are slowly beginning efforts to interface, but the standards aspect is still a significant problem

Hemenway provides another factor in the causes of standardization when he states that "Market structure determines both the incentives and the ability needed to create workable product standards within a given industry."30 Obviously, if a true monopoly exists (one seller, many buyers), there is little incentive for formal standardization, since the products produced by the single seller are, in effect, defacto standards. Ex- amples include the LC card format, AACR 11, the LC subject heading authority file, various aspects of the OCLC, Inc, systems in their halcyon days, etc. Once other sellers enter the picture, however, and the market shifts from a monopoly toward perfect competition, the climate for formal standardization improves. For, with multiple sellers and many buyers, the demand for the same way of doing things to allow transfer and interchange at the lowest possible cost yet highest efficiency significantly increases.

These and other factors can be combined to create the following set of reasons for development of standards.

1. The evolution in communication methods, which has resulted in the capability to rapidly, easily, and inexpensively communicate and transfer data between any two or more libraries, systems, companies, groups, or other points.

2. The development of multistate, multiregional, and multinational information organizations which have found their activities hampered by conflicting modes of operation. product specifications, procedures, legislation, etc.

- - 3. The vtowinr interest of eovernment authorities in n consistent basis for the har.

monizationof reGlations, syst&s, and policies. 4. The desire to achieve economy in routine information activities that would allow con-

centration of resources on more productive aspects of the information function. 5. The widenine realization that standards are imnortant and needed-such recoenition

being caused by &erience (whether by the results of lacking a standard: or by becoming mvolved in their development) as well as by pubhcuing of the need

FUTURE ASPECTS OF STANDARDIZATION Having briefly considered some basic aspects of stan-

dardization and the current state of affairs, the question must be asked. "Can the information community afford to sit on thc porch complacently rocking and watching new technology, new markets. and new systems

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert S. Tannehill Jr. 69

develop without being concerned?" Jus t so we librarians and information specialists do not think we are unique in our inattention to and unawareness of standards, consider Fred Gruenberger's rather acid com- ments. He lampoons the computer industry for its poor track record on standards, stating: "Not that we are short on standards; we have, in fact, hundreds of them even some good ones, except that no one seems to observe them." In several cases, the industry has two standards on the same aspect [e.g., keyboard layouts (neither of which is to be found on a keyboard), and information interchange codes]. Gruenberger goes on to state that "it is difficult to explain just why this is all tolerated by sup- posedly intelligent people." After identifying a number of areas that need standardizing (e.g., basic terminology), Gruenberger mentions that one standard (COBOL) was achieved by government edict, "so maybe our government should issue a few more edicts.031

While this may appear merely a sarcastic comment on Gruenberger's part, his statements actually point to the question of standards by edict versus standards by consensus. The value of consensus standards has already been discussed, but the question may be asked, "At what point can we no longer afford a voluntary approach to the implementation of standards, i.e., that they must be used?" Can a combination of "standards development by consensus" and "use by edict" be viable? I sug- gest that the answer, for certain areas of implementation, is "yes." There comes a time in interactive systems development when there can be no option on how to do a certain process, input various types of data, and so forth. At this point, entities that are or wish to be a part of the system or cooperative enterprise must lose a portion of their autonomy for the good of all. Marcy Murphy speaks to these points when she states that "Net- work membership might impose demands ...," and then refers to "Bibliographic standards required by a large national system ..." [my emphasis].32

Livingston speaks to the point of autonomy when he states that "The degree of systems autonomy, inevitable in a democratic country, almost automatically rules out any formal standardization within the bounds of individual systems." "The [standardization] effort must bear on those codes, formats. nnd messages that flow between and among systems ...."33 I am not sure that a philosophy of "all effort over here and none over there" is viable. Given the goals of efficient and cost effective interchange, there may, indeed, be a need for some loss of autonomy within a system. The point would appear to be not so much whether autonomy will or will not be lost, but what are the benefits for the greatest number of users that accrue by any one standardization effort. John Berry supports this approach as he says,

I f we are euer to build that legendary National Network we are going to have to ... am'ue at a way to standardize the policies ... in that network. There will have to be one set of rules and procedures so that every libmry in the network can u p pmach lproblems and functions1 with the same knowledge .... To achieue that kind

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


of stanhrdiration some of these ... institutions will have to sacrifice some of that unihteral autonomy.34

In addition to autonomy, another problem in standardization, both past and current, is sEoroness in the development' of standards. Sometimes potential users of standards do not wish to wait for the development of a standard to be completed, perhaps because of cost con- siderations, impatience, or possibly there is the attitude that whoever im- plements a process first has a good chance to influence, if not set the direction a standard will take. Take the example of the Columbia Broad- casting System (CBSj when it stated: "The EIA [Electronic Industries Association] is a year behind in developing a teletext standard. If we waited much longer, systems based on different standards would pro- liferate and the creation of a nationwide teletext system would be serious- ly delayed."35

Pointing out slowness as a problem does not inherently imply that this is an evil to be erased. While rapid standards development is certainly desirable, many factors contribute to a slow developmental process. For example, the variety of procedures required to ensure a valid consensus method create a normal developmental period that ranges from two to three years. Also to be kept in mind is the volunteer status of those serv- ing on committees and subcommittees and doing the work. These individuals have Limitations on their time, and fitting standards work into their busy lives points to their interest and dedication. Then, there is the aspect of funding. Committees must meet, which means travel and associated expenses, and, of course, the coordination and administrative costs for an effective standards function are significant. Lack of funds means less efficiency and a slower process. There is no doubt that some standards have taken an inordinate amount of time to develop, for example the ANSI standard on Bibliographic References (ANSI 23929-1977). which was recommended as an area for ANSC 239 effort in 1968 by the President's Task Group for the Interchange of Scientific and Technical Information in Machine Language (ISTIM), but not published until 1977. nine years later. This is certainly the exception, and given the tortuous route the developmentallapprovaUdistribution process must take, the average of two to three years is a wonder. indeed. To sum up slowness, it should be recognized as a problem, but recognized also as necessary if the proper levels of consensus, support, and technical validity are to be achieved.

Another problem is that of embedding, the idea being that once ways of doing something are well in place, it is often economically unfeasible to make significant changes - a t least, unfeasible in the short term. This brings us the question of long term benefits to the user, as well as long term planning on the part of standards setting bodies to try and forecast new areas needing standardization as far ahead as possible in order that the impact of "embedding" be lessened as much as possible.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert S. Tannehill, Jr. 71

Other problems include the cost of converting existing procedures and systems, the cost of developing standards, promoting standards, and compliance. Each of these areas is much too complex to treat usefully in this paper, but the important point to be kept in mind is that while standardization carries with it varying sets of problems (but then what p r e cess does not), the future benefits are what are important. Carole Wilmot states that "the long-term economic advantages of standardization are fully apparent; but for many ... the immediate benefits are harder to determine. I t should be easier to encourage new, rather than established services to comply with international standards ...."36

WHAT STEPS MUST BE TAKEN?

The preferred process of standardization has been discussed (voluntary, consensus standards); the preferred authoritative standards-setting body identified (the American National Standards In- stitute); and current problems with the standardization processes mentioned. While the entire state of affairs is not totally in disarray and the reorganized ANSC 239 Committee is beginning to make progress, there is much work needed if the bibliographic standardization process in the United States is to become a viable, aggressive, relevant, "used" function.

What steps might be involved in this "shoring up process?" I see three main areas where increased activity is needed:

1. Involvement and dedication to both identification of aspects needing standardization as well as the actual development of standards;

2. Promotion and implementation of standards that have been developed; 3. Financial support of the standardization process, particularly for standards develop i

ment.

One example of getting involved is highlighted by Ukoh when he calls for the library to "play a vital role in correcting anomalies [on the part of] authors, printers, and publishers ...."ST

Libraries tend to concern themselves with "librarian" things. and leave "publisher-related" things to publishers. However, if the information/ community is to reach those levels of standardization necessary tB achieve effective. efficient information transfer, document delivery, infof- mation retrieval, etc., all segments of the information community mubt become involvedlconcerned with the other segments. Ukoh is concerned about the Nigerian publishing industry's la& of awareness of which bibliographic elements to provide on their publications and how to format these elements. He laments the absence of standards that would help the publishing industry, such as those made available by the British Standards Institute (e-g., Specifications for the Title Leaves of a Book+ki, BS 4719:1971) or the International Organization for Standardization (R: 1086 Titk Leaves of a Book). Even in countries that have bibliographic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


and information-related standards, the problem of ignorance is no stranger [the U.S. standard on Title Leaves o f a Book is ANSI 239.15-1971(R1980)]. And here is where the library community can help, by becoming aware of what standards are available and by making others (librarians, publishers, printers, computer specialists) aware that standards do exist, that their use should be investigated, and that they should be employed whenever possible.

Another example includes acti;e participation in ANSC 239, whether it be as members of 239 subcommittees that are developing standards, working within the 239 administration to identify new areas of standards work, assisting in securing funds for 239 operations, or promoting the use of 239 standards.

Aggressive involvement in the bibliographic standardization process also involves making a shift in the perception held of how one's own library or system fits into the scheme of regional and national cooperative networks and systems. "There is no doubt that, as local, state, regional, and national library networks based on computers develop, the trend will be away from the traditional local autonomy heretofore always enjoyed in academic libraries and toward standard formats. codes, and the content of bibliographic records."38

Such a shift in beliefs, in traditions, and in philosophies may be quite difficult for some, but, indeed, this must occur if the systems and mechanisms required for the proper place of information processing within our society are to exist. They cannot exist if standards do not play an important role.

REFERENCES

1. Sturen. 0. The role of I S 0 in the generation and transfer of technical knowledge. P m ceedings of the Symposium on the International Network for Standards-ISONET. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; c1978: p13. 91pp.

2. 1985: New technology for libraries. Libmry Journal 105(13):1473-1478; 1980 July. 3. Ibid, p. 1474. 4. Ibid. p. 1477. 5. Ibid, p. 1478. 6. Direct communication with ANSI and the ANSC 239 executive director. 7. Glotfelty. Robert A. It's standard. Journal of Micmgmphics. 13(6):48-49; 1980

JulylAugust. 8. Wigington. Ronald L.; Wood. James L. Standardization requirements of a national

program for information transfer. Libmry Trends. 1814):432-447; 1970 April lp. 432). 9. Wainright. Jane. Review of ISBD(s). Catalogue & Index. 147):5; 1977 Winter.

10. Report on the 80th meeting of the Association of Research Libraries. Libmry of Con- gress Information Bulletin 31123): A71-A75; 1972 June 9 Ip. A74).

11. Continuing report on the 99th annual conference of the American Library Associa- tion. New York City. June 28-July 4.1980. Libmry of Congress Information Bulletin 39(32):281-288; 1980 Aug. 8 (p. 285).

12. Wilmot, Carole D. International tape standards for documentation and information processing: existence, aims, and implementation. London: ASLIB: 1977: p. 1 (ASLIB Occasional Publication:21).

13. Kutten, A,; Merom. Marian. Guide to standnrds and specifications at the library. Haifa. Israel: Technicon-Israel Institute of Technology: 1978: 36p.

14. Atherton. Pauline. Standards for a user-system interface language in online retrieval

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert S. Tannehi4 Jr. 73

systems: the challenge and the responsibility. OnlineReview. 2(1):57-61; 1978 Mar.(p. 571. - . ,.

15. Draft: Standards for university libraries. College and Research Libraries News. (4):89-99: 1978 Apr.

16. Atherton, Pauline. Op cit p. 57. 17. A recommended national stcmdads policy for the United States. Washington. D.C.:

'National Standards Policy Advisory Committee; 1978 February 24: p5. 18. Direct communication with ANSI and the ANSC 239 executive director. 19. V e m n , Lal C. Standardization, a new discipline. Hamden, CT: Archon; c1973: p22.

461pp. 20. International Organization for Standardization. Geneml terns and their definitions

concerning standardization and certrFcation Geneva: ISO; 1978. (IS0 Guide 2-19781E).

21. The mle of the American Nationol S tadan i s Instibte. New York: ANSI: 1972 December:.dp.

22. Highlights of ISAD board meetings. Journal of Librnry Automation 10(3):255-272; 1977 S p t . (p. 268).

-

23. A recommended national stan& policy for the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Standards Policy Advisory Committee; 1978 February 24: p3.

24. Verman. La1 C. Op cit p. 12. 25. Wigington, RoMd L.; Wood, James L. Op ci t p. 434. 26. American National Standards Comm'ttee 239: Recommended future directions.

Washington, D.C.: National ~ o m k s s i o n on Libraries and dorm ah on science; 1978 February: p3. 63pp.

27. Proceedings of the symposium on the international information network for standards-ISONET. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; ~1978: 91PP.

28. Report on the 80th meeting of the Association of Research Libraries. Op cit. p. A72. 29. Kovacs, Gabor J.; Smalley, Donald A.; WesseUs, Michael B. The effects of linking

bibliographic utilities: a progress report. Bulletin of the American Society for Infor mation Science. 6(5):18-20: 1980 June.

30. Hemenway. David. Industrywide voluntary product standards. Cambridge. MA: Ballinger; 1975. 141pp.

31. Gmenberger. Fred. Fruitcakes, nuttier than. Datamation 24(12):135-137; 1978 November 14.

32. Murphy, Marcy. Networking practices and priorities of s p e d and academic libraries: a comparison. Information Reports and Bibliogmphies. 7(1):4: 1978.

33. Livingston, Lawrence G. Bibliographic standards and the evolving national library network. In: Poole. Herbert, ed. Academic iibmries by the year aaOa New York: Bowker; 1977: p167.

34. Berry. John. Interlibrary loan and the network. Libmry Journal 103181:795; 1978 Aor. 15.

35. CBS gets the jump on teletext. Business Week. (2649):32; 1980 August 11. 36. Wilmot. Carole E. Op ciL p. 1. 37. Ukoh. R.A. Cataloging and bibliographic control problems; Nigeria. I n t e m t i o n d

Libmrv Review. 9f3):269-277: 1977 Julv.

PUBLICATIONS CONSULTED

American National Standards Institute. American National Standards Institute procedures for manuaement and coordi~t ion of American National Standards. New York: ANSI; i977. 1 9 ~ -

American National Standards Institute. Ca&g of American nutional standards. New York: ANSI; 1980. 186p.

American National Standards Institute. The role of the American National Standards Institutp. New York: ANSI; 1972. 8p.

U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology. Dmft final report of the Task Group for Interchange of Scientific and Technical Information in Machine Language IISTIM). Waslhgton, D.C.: 1968.

International Organization for Standardization. IS0 standards hnndbook I: information transfer. Geneva: ISO; c1977. 516p.

International Organization for Standardization. IS0 carologue I M . Geneva: ISO; c1980. 237p.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES

APPENDIX

Z39-Library and Information Sciences and Related Publishing Practices

For more than 40 years. American National SCandards Committee 239 on library and information sciences and related publishing practices has played a central role in the effort to codify the vast amounts of information that are filling miles of library shelves and magnetE tape. Representing a broad range of distinguished individuals and groups, the standards-writing programs organized by 239 have attempted to facilitate the exchange and use of this k ~ o w l ~ d g e among researchers from every country and discipline.

The American National Standards listed here cover many facets of publishing and library work. AU of these voluntary consensus standards may be obtained a t the prices noted from the American National Standards Institute. 1430 Broadway. New York. N.Y. 10018.

239.1-1977 Periodicals: Format and Arrangement. 54.50. 239.2-1979 Bibliographic Information Interchange on Magnetic Tape. $4.00. 239.4-1968(R1974) Basic Criteria for Indexes. $4.00. 239.5-1969(R1974) Abbreviation of Titles of Periodicals. $4.00. 239.6-1965(R1977) Trade Catalogs, $3.50. 239.7.196fAR1974) Library Statistics, $6.50. 239.8-1977 Compiling Book Publishing Statistics, $4.00. 239.9-1979 International Standard Serial Numbering. $3.50. 239.10-19714R19771 Directories of Libraries and Information Centers. $4.00. 239.11-19721R1978) System for the Romanization of Japanese. $4.00. 239.12-1972(R19781 System for the Romanhation of Arabic. $3.50. 239.13-1979 Describing Books in Advertisements, Catalogs. Promotional Materials. and

Book Jackets. $4.00. 239.14-1979 Writing Abstracts. $4.50. 239.15-1980 Title Leaves of a Book. $3.50. 239.16-1979 Preparation of Scientific Papers for Written or Oral Presentation, 54.50. 239.18-1974 Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports.

$4.50. 239.19-1974 Guidelines for Thesaurus Structure. Construction. and Use. $5.00. 239.20-1974 Criteria for Price Indexes for Library Materials. $4.00. 239.21-1980 Book Numbering. $3.50. 239.22-1974 Proof Corrections, $5.50. 239.23-1974 Technical Report Number (STRNJ. $3.50. 239.24-1976 System for the Romanization of Slavic CyriU~c Characters. $4.00. 239.25-1975 Romanization of Hebrew. $4.50. 239.26-1375 Advertising of Micropublieations. $2.00. 239.27-1976 Structure for the Identification of Countries of the World for Information

Interchange. $2.00. 239.29-1977 Bibliographic References, $12.75. 239.31-1976 Format for Scientific and Technical fianslations. $4.00. 239.33-1977 Development of Identification Codes for Use by the Bibliographic Cam.

munity. $3.50. 239.34-1977 Synoptics, $5.00. 239.35-1879 System for the Romanization of Lao. Khmer. and Pali. $4.50. 239.37-1979 System for the Romanization of Armenian, $3.50. 239.39-1979 Compiling Newspaper and Periodical Publishing Statistics. $3.50. 239.40-1979 Compiling U.S. Microform Publishing Statistics. $3.50. 239.41-1979 American National Standard for Book Spine Formats. $3.50. 239.42-1980 American National Standard for Serial Holdings Statements at the Summary

Level. $5.50. 239.43-1980 Identification Code for the Book Industry. $3.50.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 23:

32 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

BIBLIOGRAPHIC STANDARDS AND LIBRARIES