Hella Heydorn FINAL PAPER LIS 296A
SPRING 1994
Instructor: Howard Besser
Hella Heydorn
FINAL PAPER LIS 296A
SPRING 1994
Instructor: Howard Besser
© NOTICE
Part I: Information and the structure and organization of InfoLib
Part II: Cataloging issues and procedures
Part III: Who makes decisions for selection?
It seems like a risky endeavor to try to understand the nature of Gophers, a
tool that is still evolving but that already has been hailed for its potential
as a research instrument[1]. Until now, the Internet
"architects" were the guarantors of quality since they include educational
institutions, government agencies and other organizations involved in research.
This paper will examine one small segment of the Internet, the UC Berkeley
Library Gopher InfoLib.
The examination consists of three parts. In part one, I examine the structure
and organization of InfoLib, keeping in mind a changing attitude towards
information and information retrieval. In part two, I adopt a librarian's
point of view in discussing cataloging issues, primarily for electronic
journals. In part three, I consider InfoLib as part of a giant reference
source. Who makes the decision to include and exclude an information source?
The information explosion goes hand in hand with the emergence of new
information sources. The librarian and the library which s/he creates are
affected by the interplay of information, the need for control, and control
technologies. A technological and social phenomenon like the Internet invites
us to revisit the mechanisms that bring together human beings and recorded
knowledge. In the center of it all is information and the filtering and
delivering of it from the amazing quantity of information available.
There is a number of different definitions of information and how it is
filtered and delivered[2]. Blokdijk unites communication
and knowledge in his definition[3]. Langefors includes the
concept of value and action[4]. And Davis and Olson add
that information reduces uncertainty[5].
The characteristics of each of these types of perception of information and how
they affect the structure and organization of InfoLib are discussed below.
This is the most general, accessible and flexible concept of information.
Ravault [6] points out that this definition emphasizes the
uses people make of information rather than its effects upon people and
society. It is the least controversial one and the most widely used.
This is also the definition underlying the understanding of information on the
Internet. However, when information is defined as a resource, librarians
encounter problems. An array of difficulties stem from the basic fact that,
unlike physically available material information in the electronic environment
cannot be shelved and physically pointed at. (This raises questions in
cataloging procedures which will be dealt with in part II.) Viewing
information as a(n electronic) resource, its creators, processors and users
appear as discrete and isolated entitites. Information comes in pieces,
unrelated to bodies of knowlege or information flows. Jesse Shera called this
the "(...) stimulus which we perceive through our senses. This information may
be a single isolated fact or it may be a whole cluster of facts; but it is
still a unit; it is a unit of thought. It can have any dimension but it is
that intellectual entity which we receive, the building block of knowledge" [7]. Shera's thesis is that librarianship is not only built
upon documentation but also on dissemination of information: "it means taking
the initiative in creating channels along which information may pass quickly to
those who can use it" [8].
This definition applies to InfoLib insofar as UCB Libraries are offering a
service to the UC Berkeley campus and a virtual scholarly community.
Information as a service increases its scope as it involves social, cultural
and educational values. It incorporates the exchange and use of information
among people (in the widest sense of the word). The social structure, too, is
more articulated, comprising librarians, patrons and the university (as the
organization that sustains InfoLib). This take on information also alludes to
the power of knowledge -- and the role of librarians to contexualize knowledge
and therefore to increase power.
This approach, too, adds context. Seen from this perspective, information has
a past and a future. It is affected by changes and may be altered by
decisions. To perceive information as a pattern reduces uncertainty. This
model finds its most practical application in an economist's point of view (and
less in an academic or intellectual setting). It is the underlying assumption
for quantifying and valuing information. Information flow as a pattern may be
used by those who select and control information resources (this question will
be dealt with in part III).
These concepts of information provide us with a framework for understanding the
advent of new information technologies (like the Internet and InfoLib) to the
library. It broadens the concept of a book storage facility to a social and
intellectual phenomenon[9]. New technologies, therefore,
are one factor (besides demographic and organizational factors) that bring
about changes in the organization of libraries[10].
Computers seemed to pose both a fundamental threat and offer a great potential
to librarianship as a profession and libraries as an institution. They created
a dilemma for librarians. On the one hand they facilitated circulation and
revolutionized catalogs and therefore released librarians from repetitive,
low-status tasks. On the other hand, computerization of library services
required an almost complete standardization of bibliographic records,
cataloging procedures, indexing etc. and profoundly shook up the "area of
judgment that made librarians professionals"[11]. Just
like computers, the Internet and electronic publishing were not invented by
libraians. But they have forced librarians to rethink their professional ethos
and not only adapt to but also organize the information chaos thrown up by the
Internet[12]. While librarians have developed libraries
into a sophisticated form of information control, it is now necessary that they
invent forms of control for the Internet in order to bring people and knowledge
together. With InfoLib, the library attempts to domesticate at least one
portion of the Internet by filtering out the resources that may be most
relevant to the academic disciplines of the university.
InfoLib is undoubtedly more part of a virtual library than of the UC Berkeley
Libraries. It forces us to view the library as a logical entity and it offers
a great opportunity for librarianship to shift the focus from library materials
to the librarian.
Gapen[13] suggests viewing the virtual library as a
metaphor for a control revolution. Keeping the metaphor of a control revolution in mind, the voices complaining about the Internet's general lack of control and organization have been as loud as those praising it as an invaluable reference source.
InfoLib is designed for use primarily by the UC campus and a wider scholarly
community. In the most basic sense it is a tool to help search a variety of
online resources. It is a substantial source of information. As with all
information sources in the electronic environment, the value of a source is
dependent not only upon the intrinisic quality of the information itself but
also upon how easily the information can be accessed [14].
For printed materials, access and location are generally well understood
(pages, indexes, etc.). Relative to printed matter, Gophers are still a new
tool, and conceptual methods for using them efficiently are still evolving.
The truly new aspect of Gophers is that they offer more than one possible path
through information therefore taking into account that information is
multifaceted and that information sources are pluralistic [15]. This pluralistic approach is enticing in its
flexibility and openess but it does not offer any concrete guidance in choosing
from the many sources available, each one characterized by its own constraints
and motivations. InfoLib is a menu-based service. Its hierarchical structure
attempts to offer a solution here. InfoLib tries introducing order into the
chaos of the Internet by allowing searches to be defined by scope (from broad
to narrow) and subject. The conceptual structure is a matrix of functional
subsystems, each of which is divided into yet more subsystems. For example,
"Other Gophers" offers a whole subset of menus. The user is unaware of the
client-server connections being made. S/he only sees the hierarchical menu
system - a set of linked menus that are easy to navigate - with an interface
that does not change throughout the system.
For example, if a patron of the virtual library wants to look up President
Clinton's latest speech, s/he chooses as one possible path: Other
Gophers-Domestic Gophers-LC Marvel-Federal Government Information-Federal
Information Resources-Information by Agency-Executive Branch-White House-White
House Speeches-1993 or February or March or April. The Gopher "prowls" throught
the Internet to look up the President's speeches. For the library patron,
InfoLib meets inquiries in three ways: 1. as an information resource; 2. as an
information service; and 3. as an information pattern [16].
A key source of Gopher's fame is that it is userfriendly and requires minimal
instruction.
Shortly after InfoLib's introduction, the UC Berkeley Teaching Library offered
a series of instruction sessions which were well attended, mainly by graduate
students and by library professionals from the area. Even though according to
the head of the teaching library [17] students are fairly
open to new technologies involving libraries in general and information
retrieval, explanations pertained mostly to lowering the threshold and to
drawing attention to the Library Gopher in general. Nearly 30.000 connections
were made through the UC Berkeley InfoLib between February 1 and March 1.
InfoLib is conveniently accessible via the Melvyl and Gladis welcome-screen on
terminals throughout the Libraries. As we approach the universal catalog, both
welcome-screens are somewhat cluttered. InfoLib appears as yet one more
menu-item on the screen and is in fact not very obviously or outstandingly
introduced as a unique research tool[18].
Once the InfoLib screen pops up, it presents itself as a line by line menu,
ranging from the most general "About InfoLib" to more specific "title search
techniques in this Gopher". The underlying metaphors which may be useful in
understanding the nature of InfoLib are the library and the encyclopedia. The
information base is best viewed overall. Like a library patron the user must
bring his or her own agenda to the information base. And the non-linear
approaches to the information base makes it encyclopedic in style[19] .
If the Internet can be compared to a giant information resource, Gopher can
vaguely be compared to a librarian who with the help of a subject index guides
the user to the desired part of the virtual library. As Lynch and Preston
point out, users do not always need access to the entire universe of
information [20]. What really is needed is a subset that
applies to the users particular interests [21].
This part presents suggestions to describe and classify networked information
sources. Of particular interest are electronic journals because of their
phenomenal proliferation. They have sparked heated debate about cataloging
issues and procedures[22]. But there is no serious
question as to whether librarians should got involved in describing these
resources on the Internet (and electronically published material in
particular). Quite the opposite. Librarians are called upon to provide
"bibliographic" control to this wealth of information because of their
reputation as experts in organizing material and their professional ethos of
providing services to the academic community.
There are two USMARC-fields that lend themselves to expansion or are genuinely
flexible. These are: the types of files-field and the electronic location and
access-field (holding codes).
In the library world, these suggestions are accompanied by a more theoretical
debate about the usability of AACR2 for networked electronic information, and
the agony and excitement that goes with changing well-established rules and
practices. In the center of the discussion is "Proposal 93-4"[23], which makes recommendations for changing the
bibliographic format in order to house electronic journals (and other
electronic resources accessible on the Internet)[24].
The 008/26 field is used for retrieval of specific types of computer files. It
is suggested that the list of computer file types in this field be enlarged in
order to make this data element more useful.
The more specific codes are believed to be necessary to adequately describe
types such as: bibliographic data, font, game, sound, and graphic. These
suggestions meet some opposition in parts of the library world, primarily due
to the method these suggestions were derived and the spectrum of librarians who
cataloged in OCLC's computer files-experiment.
There is particularly a clash between catalogers of large research institutions
and librarians of smaller college, public or school libraries. For the latter,
the term "graphic" for example may be precise enough since they do not catalog
a very diverse spectrum of graphic materials. For a research university
cataloger, however, defining a file as "graphic" may represent a loss of
information. For example, a satellite picture has traditionally been described
as "representational" - a term that is more precise than "graphic".
The 256-field (file characteristics) is used as a collation field for computer
files and includes a statement of the type of file. To this date, "computer
data", "computer program" and "computer data and program" has been used in this
field. Some librarians criticize its scope as too limited. For example,
patrons looking for an electronic journal would not naturally think of it as
computer data. A possible expansion of field 256 would embrace "electronic
document" and "electronic journal".
Changes to field 256 have to be preceeded by changes to AACR2. This has to be
carefully evaluated. Changes to the cataloging rules, as some librarians
argue, should be driven by a careful and precise description of materials.
Catalogers have to evaluate if a term like "electronic journal" does not in the
final analysis water down the descriptive wealth contained in a term like
"computer data" and that its specificity may be deceptive.
As identified by Dalton and others[25], the most
challenging aspect associated with cataloging e-journals is the frequently
changing location and means of access of Internet resources[26] . In this respect, their "behavior" is similar to
serials[27]. But the necessity of hardware and software
locates them in the vicinity of computer files. The decision to catalog
computer files as (monographic or serial) computer files or as serials depends
ultimately on the local cataloging practice. Unless there are plans to print
out on paper or to download on diskette any of the selected materials, these
titles will have no physicl location in the sense that other more traditional
materials do. They will, instead reside somewhere in the electronic
environment of the Internet (or InfoLib). Therefore, creating a new holding
code to structure the electronic environment will be helpful to library patrons
in a variety of ways.
One of the problems is keeping the holding statement concise enough that it can
be included into a bibiographic record. By creating an entirely new holding
code for the electronic part of the library collection, offers the opportunity
to include instructions for access and sufficient flexibility to add, delete or
change this information as needed.
Proposal 93-4 invented a new field for "Electronic Location and Access" (856)
that includes data elements for type of access (for example e-mail, FTP, Telnet
and other), host name, path name, file name and other information necessary to
access or retrieve a source over the Internet. Field 856 is a holdings and
location field identifying a particular location of an item. For example,
files may be compressed with different file names than the uncompressed file.
In this case two 856 fields would be given with different filenames. This may
also be the case for very long documents that had to be broken up.
The main TCP/IP protocols would be defined in "indicator 1 - Access method"
which will reflect upon how the remaining data in the field will be used. The
subfields are: $a Host name, $b IP address, $c compression information, $d
path, $f filename, $g name of publication or conference, $h processor of
request, $i instruction, $k password, $l logon/login, $m contact person for
information, assistance, $n name of location of host, $o operating system, $p
port, $q file mode, $s file size, $t terminal emulation, $x non-public note, $z
public note, $2 source of access (if "other"). This information is judged
valuable since electronic resources can be found in several formats in a number
of directories, at a number of hosts, including non-Internet resources[28].
Classification (and subject headings) for computer files is likely to be more
general and therefore simpler (than for printed works). In addition,
classification of computer files will not result in shelf locations as
classification of materials in other formats does. However, there are a number
of good reasons to classify these materials. First of all, classification will
provide the librarian with a collection of data that will be useful in
assessing the library's collection's strengths and weaknesses.
In addition, classification will supply a call number which in turn will
constitute an additional access point to material on InfoLib. Call numbers are
a constant element that will link titles under the earlier title and the later
title (in case of a title change), improving access and assuring continuity[29].
The discussion revolving around cataloging issues, definitions and terminology
underline the pluralistic character of information and its retrieval. It
confirms that description of networked information resources will ultimately
depend upon what users want[30]. Librarians are called
upon to alter and refine their techniques so that they evolve simultaneously
with the progress of society itself. Without quality cataloging, however, the
chances of successfully creating the knowledge link are lowered[31] .
Library material selection procedures have always been accompanied by internal
departmental rivalries revolving around who is in charge and frustrations by
patrons who could not fathom that the particular item they are looking for has
not been selected and was therefore not included in the library collection.
Selection of material for a large research library is usually regarded as a
scholarly activity. Educational and economic considerations come into play as
well as a certain vision of the future. The latter is certainly appealed to in
selecting (re-)sources for the Library and Information Studies portion of
InfoLib. As we move toward the virtual library with universal access it seems
to become less and less important who writes the collection policy and if a
collection policy is implemented since the "network of networks" will assure
access to anything anywhere. Gophers in particular seem a step away from a
"corporate mentality" [32] ("a mainframe servicing
hard-wired terminals".) They allow individual departments to manage, arrange
and distribute information sources in a way that suits them best (as done with
InfoLib).
Libarians as selectors of materials have two qualities going for themselves: 1.
they are affiliated with an educational institution that stands for a set of
values, and 2. they fulfill a public service as they protect open access to
information.
At second glance, however, it becomes apparent that the information highway is
actually controlled by various interest groups (private industry, government
agencies, universities etc.). Access to less mainstream databases and
resources may be jeopardized at some point in the future.
In a university environment, the question of who controls information and the
availability of information does not naturally rise to prominence[33]. The environment is generally considered as "benign",
competent, democratic and socially responsible. But in the electronic age
where information is predominantly viewed as a commodity, the evolving
interdependencies between universities, private industry and Government may be
less fruitful for library collections.
On a larger scale, the United States is trying to assume a leadership role in
the Information Age. Congress is currently considering a number of bills
designed to promote private sector investments in the National Information
Infrastructure, while trying to protect the public interest. These bills
include proposals to update telecommunications regulations, promote
applications of the NII, and develop information policies for the digital
era"[34]. Even though many see a role for Government in
developing public service applications (for schools and libraries), most
material contained in the major research libraries is not digitized and
questions remain about copyright issues and who will pay the cost of
conversion[35]. In addition, the private sector firmly
maintaines that companies, not the Government, already have created much of the
information superhighway, and that the private sector has a critical role in
the evolution of the National Information Infrastructure. Industry assumes
responsibility for developing, planning, designing and implementing the NII for
the market place. It expects the Government to create a conducive legal and
regulatory environment.
This does not directly and presently affect InfoLib but it certainly may affect
the larger picture of the information superhighway and therfore may have
recurrences for InfoLib in an attempt to curtail pluralism.
Abbott, Andrew: The system of professions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1988.
Beniger, James R.: The control revolution: technological and economic
origins of the information society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1986.
Blokdijk, André and Paul: Planning and design of information
systems. London: Academic Press, 1987.
Borah, Eloisa Gomez: "Beyond navigation: Librarians as architects of
information tools". In: Research Strategies. A Journal of Library Concepts
and Instruction. Vol. 10, no. 3, Summer 1992.
Braman, Sandra: "Defining information. An approach for policymakers." In:
Telecommunications Policy. September 1989.
Brett, George H.: "Accessing information on the Internet". In: Electronic
Networking. Spring 1992, vol. 2, no.1.
Bridges, Karl: "Gopher your library". In: Wilson Library Bulletin.
November 1993.
Caplan, Priscilla: "Cataloging Internet resources". In: PACS Review
1993, vol. 4.
Congressional Research Service.
Convey, John: Online information retrieval. 3rd ed. London: Clive
Bingley, 1989.
Dalton, Marian L.: "Does anybody have a map? Accessing information in the
Internet's virtual library." In: Electronic Networking. Vol. 1, no. 1,
Fall 1991.
The Daily Californian. Vol. CXXIII, no. 68, April 15, 1994.
Dillon, Martin; Jul, Erik; Burge, Mark; Hickey, Carol: "Assessing information
on the Internet: Toward providing library services for computer-mediated
commulnication". In: Internet Research. Vol. 3, no. 1, Spring 1993.
Gould, Carol C. (ed.): The information web: ethical and social implications
of computer networking. Boulder: Westview Press, 1989.
Internet accessible guide to library catalogs. 1992.
Internet resource guide. 1989.
Kalin, Sally W.: "Beyond OPACS...The wealth of information resources on the
Internet". In: Database 14(4), August, 1991.
Krol, Ed: The whole Internet. User's guide and catalog. Sebastopol:
O'Reilly, 1992.
Langcaster, F. Wilfried; Warner, Amy J.: Information retrieval today.
Arlingon, VA: Information Resources Press, 1993.
Langefors, Börje: Theoretical analysis of information systems.
Philadelphia, 1973.
Lynch, Clifford A.; Preston, Cecilia M.: "Describing and classifying networked
information resources". In: Electronic Networking. Vol. 2, no. 1, Spring
1992.
Machlup, Fritz; Mansfield, Una (eds.): The study of information:
interdisciplinary messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
OCLC Research Report 93/1.
Ploman, Edward W.: International law governing communications and
information. Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood, 1982.
Riley, M.J.: Management information systems. 2nd ed. San Francisco:
Holden Day, 1981.
Ravault, Rene J.: "Information flow: which way is the wrong way?". In:
Journal of Communication. Vol. 31, no. 4, 1981.
Saunders, Laverna M.: The virtual library. Visions and realities.
Westport: Meckler, 1993.
Shera, Jesse H.: Libraries and the organization of knowledge. Hamden,
Connecticut: Archon Books, 1965.
Shera, Jesse H.: Sociological foundations of librarianship. New York:
Asia Publishing House, 1970.
Tillett, Barbara: Bibliographic relationships: Toward a conceptual structure
of bibliographic information used in cataloging. Ann Arbor: U.M.I., 1987.
U.S. Library of Congress: Delivering electronic information in a
knowledge-based democracy. Washington, July 14, 1993.
Witteman, Mark: The feasibility and desirability of cataloging Internet
files: A study for the UC Berkeley Libraries. (unpublished), Berkeley,
1993.
Wynar, Bohdan S.: Introduction to cataloging and classification.
Littleton, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, 1985.
Part I: Information and the Structure and Organization of InfoLib
1. Information as a resource
2. Information as a service
3. Information as a pattern
4. How easy is it to get to know InfoLib? A short practical evaluation.
Part II: Cataloging Issues and Procedures
1. Types of computer files-field: 008/26 and 256-fields
2. Electronic location and access
3. Classification
Part III: Who Makes Decisions for Selection?
Who Controls It?
Bibliography
[1] Kalin, 1991, p. 28.
[2] There are more than 40 academic fields that deal with information. A survey discovered that more than 100 definitions of information relating to "communications" were being used more than 10 years ago. (Edward. W. Ploman, International law governing communications and information, Greenwood, Westport, CT., 1982.
[3] "what reaches man's consciousness and contributes to his knowledge" (p. 421).
[4] "Information is any kind of knowledge or message that can be used to improve or make possible a decision or action" (p.319).
[5] ..."underlying the use of the term in information systems are several common ideas: information adds to a representation, corrects or confirms previous information, or has "surprise" value in that it tells something the receiver did not know or could not predict" (p.200).
[6] Rene J. Ravault,"Information flow: which way is the wrong way?" In: Journal of Communication, vol. 31, no. 4, 1981, p. 129-134.
[7] Jesse H. Shera: Sociological foundations of librarianship. 1st ed. New York: Asia Publishing House, 1970, p. 96-97.
[8] Shera, 1965, p. X.
[9] Saunders, 1993, p. 5.
[10] Andrew Abbott, 1988, p.220.
[11] Andrew Abbott, 1988, p. 220.
[12] Shera, 1965, p. 54: "...the rapid proliferation of new techniques for information retrieval, many of which are as yet untested; all of these quickly invalidate any attempt to return to standardization (and) neccessitate a re-examination of the fundamental theory of librarianship."
[13] D. Kay Gapen, :The virtual library: knowledge, society, and the librarian". In: The virtual library, 1993, p.2.
[14] Dalton, 1991, p. 31.
[15] Franklin Ford argued that information appears differently when perceived by the individual, the class and the whole. To IBM, information operates simultanesously as an asset, a resource, and a commodity. (Braman, 1989, p. 235.)
[16] Braman offers a fourth category: Information as a constitutive force in sociey. 1989, p. 235.
[17] The Daily Californian, vol. CXXIII, no. 68, april 15, 1994, front page.
[18] There is, for example, no indication as to the walth of resources that InfoLib is a gate to.
[19] InfoLib's potential seems to lie more in its future used than in its present use, particularly as some features are still in experimentalmode or material can not be accessed yet.
[20] They discovered a need for directories of networked information resources in the dizzying array of online library catalogs, electronic documents etc. So far, there is Internet accessible guide to library catalogs (St. George and Larson, 1992) and Internet Resource Guide (Partridge Roubicek, 1989). Though Lynch and Preston do not call into question the value of these print-riented directories, they believe that they cannot solve the long-term problem of describing and classifying networked information sources.
[21] Lynch and Preston, 1992, p.21.
[22] For example, Caplan, 1993, p. 61-66.
[23] OCLC Research Report OCLC/OR/RR 93/1.
[24] In an initial experiment, a group of volunteer catalogers were asked to catalog electronic resources applying the USMARC computer files format and AACR2 as best as they could and to keep a journal as they go along, documenting their difficulties, observations and suggestions.
[25] Dalton, 1991, p. 36; Witteman, 1993, p. 4.
[26] As Lynch and Preston point out, the resources which will be selected for a library collection will be less volatile than a lot of other resources on the Internet (1992, p. 20).
[27] I have not found the argument very convincing that some material on the Internet should not be cataloged because of its ephemeral character. More traditional materials like monographs and serials get lost, or stolen, mutilated, are out of print, receive a new editon, new title, new author, publishing houses cease to exist, merge etc. Needless to say, those are vexing incidences for both users and catalogers but on the whole they don't call into question the value of cataloging principles and the usability of the entire catalog.
[28] In a provocative manner, it can be argued that information on location in the record itself is not necessary. sense. Here is were URI and URL come into play. "Only URI's would be imbedded in the bibliographic description, and computers would associate the URI with one or more URL's in much the same way an Internet host name (HARVADA.HARVAD.EDU) is associated with its IP address (128.103.60.11) by the name server system. (Caplan, 1993).
[29] Lynch and Preston, 1992, p. 20:"One problem with this approach is that it depends on LCSH being universally understood (...) One does not want too many classification schemes since this will "balkanize" the information resources on the network."7
[30] Internet Research, 1993.
[31] Levels, 1993.
[32] Kar Bridges, 1993, p. 36).
[33] Machlup, 1983:"A largely hidden information community has arisen to help feed the enormous and ever increasing appetites of information users. The information community is made up of a variety of institutional participants, including publishers, information clearinghouses, educational institutions, broadcast companies, vendors, brokers, document delivery services, libraries and information centers that serve information creators, processors and users."
[34] Congressional Research Service; CRS Report for Congress).
[35] U.S. Library of Congress, Delivering electronic
information in a knowledge-based democracy. Summary of Conference Proceedings,
Washington, July 14, 1993.
Impact Main Menu