Page images
PDF
EPUB

price per volunse of $2.26 in fiscal year 1966 to an average price of $2.51 in fiscal year 1967.

Secondly, as the Library's collections grow there is more material to be bound, and as the collections get older there is more rebinding to be done.

Thirdly, general review of the deacidification, laminating, and repair programs was conducted last year and it was determined that a definite expansion of these programs was necessary if we were going to cope with the backlog of books, manuscripts, posters, prints, and other pictorial material that need to be preserved.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that preservation is a rather complex and many-faceted subject. As new techniques and equipment are developed, they must be carefully tested and it is felt that the Library of Congress must assume the leading role in this area, thereby insuring benefits to the entire library and archival community through its program and the results of studies.

Mr. ANDREWS. What are the works that you usually bind, laminate, and deacidify?

Dr. MUMFORD. In respect to books, those that are noted to be in very bad condition on the shelves are set aside for rebinding. New materials that are received in unbound form must be bound.

In respect to lamination, we have for some time been carrying on a program of laminating manuscripts in very poor condition and a small number of maps also. There is a great deal more of this material that needs treatment. Preservation is one of our biggest problems, Mr. Chairman. It is a problem not only to the Library of Congress but to the research libraries throughout the country.

As we have stated before, materials that have been published since 1870, or thereabouts when the pulp paper era came into being, simply do not last. They deteriorate rapidly. The material will be lost forever if a major effort is not made. For our own need, as well as the Nation's, we feel that it is important to preserve at least one copy of every important book, manuscript, or whatever it may be.

Mr. YATES. May I ask a question there?
Mr. ANDREW. Yes.

Mr. YATES. What are the problems of deterioration other than paper? Are there such things as insects, worms, or other things that creep into your books?

Dr. MUMFORD. This is not a serious problem with us. It is in many countries, tropical countries particularly. Mr. YATES. Just deterioration of the paper itself? Dr. MUMFORD. That is the primary thing. Mr. YATES. Thank you.

LARGE INCREASE TO CONTINUE AUTOMATION STUDY

Mr. ANDREWS. You are requesting an increase of $1,100,000 for the automation study. We discussed this previously. How much is the base and what is the total requested for 1968?

Dr. MUMFORD. The base is $585,000. We are requesting an increase of $1,100,000, which would make $1,685,000 total. The question arose yesterday, Mr. Chairman, about the amount of personnel we would be using in this request.

We have prepared a breakdown of how much we would anticipate using through contractual efforts, and how much we would expect to use by employment of temporary people on our own staff in connection with the orienting of the contractors and the monitoring of contracts, and other related studies.

If you wish, I can give you some figures on that. May I go off the record just one moment, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, sir. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ANDREWS. For this automation program to date, how much have you had, $1,685,000? What was the original estimate of the cost for this automation project?

Dr. MUMFORD. The survey team which studied the Library of Congress and made a report—and this team was made up of experts, some of the best minds in the country-estimated that the preliminary work would run as high as $750,000, but that the complete project of converting the bibliographic machinery of the Library to automated form might run from $50 to $70 million. We have been proceeding very cautiously trying to avoid wasteful expenditures and to be sure that we are on the right track in aiming toward this goal.

Mr. ANDREWS. Your original estimate was around $50 to $70 million?

Dr. MUMFORD. From $50 to $70 million.
Admittedly this was a rough estimate because they could not
Mr. ANDREWS. What is the current estimate?

Dr. MUMFORD. We have not yet had any reason to change that original estimate. However, the program may be modified depending on how far back we go in converting the records of older titles, that is, whether we deal only with the current materials or whether we convert the entire library catalog.

Mr. ANDREWS. So you say that the current estimate is still about what the original was?

Dr. MUMFORD. If we do the whole job.
Mr. ANDREWS. Between $50 and $70 million?
Dr. MUMFORD. If we were to convert our entire catalog.

Mr. ANDREWS. You are requesting in this budget $1,685,000 for this automation project ?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. How much have you had through fiscal year 1967?

Dr. MUMFORD. Including the five budgeted positions we have had, it comes to $1,073,165.

Mr. ANDREWS. To date you have had for this automation project $1,073,165 ?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. You are requesting $1,685,000 in the 1968 budget? Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. If that is granted you will have had through 1968 $2,758,165 for the project which is estimated to cost between $50 million and $70 million?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. That is the picture? Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. When you mention the automation project you are talking about four separate programs: First, the central bibliographic

system ; second, the machine readable catalog project; third, the design of related systems; fourth, the acquisition of computer equipment. Is that correct?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. For the first program under the automated project you are requesting an increase of $305,000 for the central bibliographic system, is that correct?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

CENTRAL BIBLIOGRAPHIC SYSTEM

Mr. ANDREWS. Explain that system briefly.

Dr. MUMFORD. The concept of this system was set forth by the team of experts and by other experts that we have had as advisers since the report of the team was made, and by experts now on our own staff. We would store in a giant memory the information which is now on our catalog cards—author, title, subject classification, and other bibliographic information. There would be random access to this information as needed by a reference assistant, a reader, or a cataloger. They might want to know if we had a particular book, or they might want a list of books upon a particular subject. They might want a printout of a bibliography. There are many uses to which this bibliographic information could be put.

One of the big arguments for the conversion of this bibliographic apparatus to computer form is that we could do indexing in greater depth. Whereas we now assign one, two, or three subjects to a book, we could assign a dozen subjects if it seemed desirable.

We could include tables of contents of journals, titles of articles, et cetera, that we are not now able to do manually because there is too much manpower involved and because it means the proliferation of our catalogs. Our catalogs are constantly growing. In fact, one of our experts who has great experience in this field remarked recently that he could foresee our cataloging and bibliographic machinery breaking down completely by 1980 if we did not pursue automation.

In addition to the advantages of making this information accessible to the users of the Library of Congress other libraries could tie into it and obtain information that would serve their needs for acquisition, cataloging, reference, location of books, et cetera.

Mr. ANDREWS. I see the language here for the automation study. Is this money that we have appropriated heretofore and that you are requesting for 1968 to be used solely for study, or do you contemplate buying any kind of hardware?

Dr. MUMFORD. This acquisition of computer equipment is simply to enlarge and expand our capability with computers. Our present computer equipment is limited in its capacity. As we proceed we shall need to expand the capacity.

Mr. ANDREWS. Most of the money requested and heretofore appropriated is being used for study by experts?

STUDIES Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir; looking toward a system design. Mr. Chairman, this machine readable catalog project which we referred to yesterday is providing cataloging information on magnetic tapes to other libraries throughout the country. We have run the pilot

project with money from a foundation. Some 16 libraries have participated in this pilot project. The results have been very favorable and we expect eventually to have an available product from that. We would charge a fee for the tapes as we distribute them to other libraries. There is still considerable work to be done before we have a salable product.

Mr. ANDREWS. For this project, central bibliographic system, you are requesting an increase of $305,000. I wish you would place in the record at this point the total amount that has been spent to date and will be available in 1968 if this request is granted.

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

(The information follows:) Central bibliographic system : Fiscal years 1966 and 1967

$560, 000 Requested for fiscal year 1968-

730, 000

[ocr errors]

Total spent or arailable through fiscal 1968-------------------- 1, 290, 000

MACHINE READABLE CATALOG PROJECT Jr. ANDREWS. Your next project under automation study is machine readable catalog project.

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. You are requesting an increase of $365,000 for this item. I wish you would also place in the record at this point the total amount spent to date and the total amount available in 1968 if this request is granted and give us the total amount that will be available or spent for this project through 1968.

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

(The information follows:) Machine readable catalog project : Fiscal year 1967-------

------- $135, 000 Requested for fiscal year 1968---

500, 000 Total spent or available through fiscal 1968.

-------- 635, 000 Mr. ANDREWS. Explain briefly this project, machine readable catalog project.

Dr. MUMFORD. This is the program to provide cataloging information—the information that is on our catalog cardson magnetic tape to other libraries. The tapes are not ready as yet for general distribution on a fee basis. There is considerable developmental and testing work still to be done.

We have been moving forward in three stages on this project. The first stage, which is nearing completion, converts information about current books in English to a form that can be read by machine. Magnetic tapes are sent to 16 participating libraries in all parts of the country for experimental purposes.

In the second stage, which will be undertaken in 1968, the scope of the material converted will be increased to include that in the French and German languages. In addition, arrangements will be made to increase greatly the number of participating libraries—hopefully to offer this as a service to any library requesting it.

In the third stage the system should be fully operational.

[ocr errors][merged small]

DESIGN OF AUTOMATED PROCEDURES FOR THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE Mr. ANDREWS. Your next project is design of a related system.

You are requesting an increase of $280,000. Place in the record at this point the total amount spent and available through 1968, if this request is granted for this project. Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir.

(The information follows:) Design of related systems:

Fiscal year 1967------
Request for fiscal year 1968.-

-- $280,000 Total spent or available through fiscal 1968__

280,000 Mr. ANDREWS. Describe that project briefly.

Dr. MUMFORD. This project is directed primarily—almost entirelytoward studying the Legislative Reference Service and the possibility of using automated procedures and techniques in providing information to the Congress.

Mr. ANDREWS. Describe that. What will this project do? What do you hope to accomplish by this system?

Dr. MUMFORD. We hope to be able to speed up service to the Congress—to provide them with various data that are needed quickly.

Mr. ANDREWS. How would you do it?
Mr. Jayson. May I reply to that?
Mr. ANDREWS. Do you need machines, computers, or hardware?

Mr. Jayson. About a year ago we put on the Legislative Reference Service staff an expert in information systems to serve two purposes : His first purpose was to act as our expert in responding to congressional inquiries relating to automation. You know there has been a great deal of interest by Members of Congress and the committees in the subject of automation, which is a very technical one. The first role of our expert in the field was to respond to these inquiries from Members. His second purpose was to actually make a survey, of a very initial and preliminary type of LRS's own operations with a view toward seeing which of our operations might be automated so that our service to the Congress would be better.

During this past year-
Mr. ANDREWS. Explain what you mean by automated.

Mr. Jayson. I might explain a little what he has been doing in this past year. On the first role he has spent a great deal of time briefing Members and their staffs, explaining what automation can do broadly speaking. He has written a good many papers which have been multilithed and distributed in response to inquiries from Members on the subject of automation for the Congress.

In connection with the LRS role vis-a-vis the Congress, he has made a broad preliminary survey and has identified some two dozen areas of our operations which could, he thinks, be automated. We have refined these areas down to about a half a dozen of highest priority from the point of view of simplicity, et cetera. Among that half dozen is “The Digest of Public General Bills." This could be printed out automatically and would save not only staff time, but we would hope it would provide more comprehensive information for the Congress on a prompter basis.

Additionally, under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1967, which is pending, one of the additional services that LRS would have

« PreviousContinue »