19.07.2013 Views

The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)

The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)

The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

72 <strong>The</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cali<strong>for</strong>nia</strong> <strong>Libraries</strong><br />

Fortunately, a wide variety <strong>of</strong> terminals is also available, and<br />

at increasingly reasonable prices. <strong>The</strong> standard terminals envisaged<br />

by the plan are estimated to cost approximately $1,500. Those with<br />

the ability to display diacritics are estimated at $4,000, and those<br />

with both diacritics and the capability <strong>of</strong> printing hard copy are<br />

estimated at $6,000. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> terminals required is estimated<br />

on the basis <strong>of</strong> the best in<strong>for</strong>mation currently available, but this<br />

aspect is receiving continued study to make certain that serious<br />

queuing problems do not occur. <strong>The</strong> system itself will be designed<br />

to handle up to 1600 terminals in order to provide <strong>for</strong> any future<br />

expansion deemed necessary.<br />

Alternative Systems Considered. In evaluating the feasibility <strong>of</strong><br />

the on-line catalog project outlined above, several alternative<br />

courses <strong>of</strong> action were considered, and at least one should be mentioned<br />

here. This is the possibility <strong>of</strong> using existing on-line<br />

systems, designed <strong>for</strong> library cataloging and other technical processing,<br />

as the basis <strong>for</strong> the on-line public catalog at UC. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

are several such systems, and staff members have visited and examined<br />

all <strong>of</strong> them. <strong>The</strong> two most likely candidates are those described in<br />

detail in Chapter VIII: the Ohio College Library Center (OCLC), and<br />

the BALLOTS (Bibliographic Automation <strong>of</strong> Large <strong>Libraries</strong> using Online<br />

Time Sharing) system at Stan<strong>for</strong>d <strong>University</strong>. Despite some<br />

possible advantages, the idea <strong>of</strong> using one <strong>of</strong> these systems <strong>for</strong> the<br />

on-line catalog had to be rejected, however, <strong>for</strong> the following<br />

reasons:<br />

1. Neither system is designed <strong>for</strong> use by the public, and the<br />

most widely-used one (OCLC) does not have provision <strong>for</strong> searching by<br />

subject, nor does it display local call numbers.<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> terminals required <strong>for</strong> use <strong>of</strong> these systems are more<br />

expensive because they must provide capabilities needed by library<br />

cataloging (but not <strong>for</strong> public inquiry), and the total cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />

on-line catalog if these terminals were used would be millions <strong>of</strong><br />

dollars more.<br />

3. Representatives <strong>of</strong> both OCLC and BALLOTS indicated that<br />

neither system has the capability to absorb the 600 or more terminals<br />

needed <strong>for</strong> the UC on-line catalog, and even if it were possible <strong>for</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!