From: Simper, Melissa (SEN) on behalf of Web, Administrator (SEN)
Sent: Friday, 16 August 2002 1:53 PM
To: ERCA, Committee (SEN)
Subject: FW: Submission to Inquiry into Libraries



-----Original Message-----
From: darjett [mailto:darjett@telstra.com] 
Sent: Friday, 16 August 2002 12:04 PM
To: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Subject: Submission to Inquiry into Libraries




Submission to the Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online 
Environment

{Inadequacy of the current Kinetica cataloguing client ; diseconomies in 
the Kinetica cataloguing system}

I would like to make a very brief point to the Committee about one 
aspect relating to libraries in the online environment, which relates to 
the terms of reference (c) and (e).

Many Australian libraries have been formally linked online for more than 
20 years through the concept of the National Bibliographic Database.  
This was originally the Australian Bibliographic Network, a union 
catalogue which listed the holdings of many major Australian libraries, 
as well as many librraies with unique areas of interest.
The concept of the National Bibliographic Database is the single most 
important resource-sharing tool in Australia, and is likely to remain so 
for the foreseeable future, if only because its historical perspective 
includes millions of items which are unavailable on the internet.  

The Australian Bibliographic Network was one of the greatest 
efficiency-saving initiatives in Australian library history.  Largely 
coordinated by the National Library of Australia, and with input from 
various representatives to ensure continuing relevance and quality, its 
efficiency came from the simple notion of sharing cataloguing.

Cataloguing is a labour-intensive activity, which is costly to 
individual libraries, and costly to the nation.  The Australian 
Bibliographic Network enabled cataloguers to share work done by 
cataloguers in other institutions.  An item catalogued once onto the 
system could be shared at a minimal cost.  For example, it may cost 
$15.00 for 1 library to catalogue an item ; however, if that same item 
is catalogued onto the local system of 10 libraries, it has cost the 
country $150.00, yet the country has no more "produce" for the extra 
expenditure.

The system which replaced the Australian Bibliographic Network is 
Kinetica.  It is my belief, and the belief of many practising 
cataloguers, that its cataloguing system (the "Client") is less 
efficient than the Australian Bibliographic Network.  The result of this 
is that more libraries are cataloguing onto their own systems and 
"uploading" onto Kinetica.  This is a duplication of cataloguing effort 
which is costing individual institutions and the country dearly.  It is 
also causing extra costs and time at the searching end of the library 
process, since the "uploading" creates extra bibliographic entries 
(duplicate records) and extra headings (which then require more 
searching).  The fact that many libraries are choosing to use the 
"uploading" option is, in my opinion, an indictment of the cataloguing 
client, since it was not originally the intention of most libraries to 
abandon the ABN joint cataloguing model.  It was only when cataloguers 
saw the cumbersome cataloguing client that they looked for other 
options.

There is an urgent need for the National Library to examine alternatives 
to Kinetica when evaluating Kinetica at the end of its current contract. 
In particular, the cataloguing functions (including authority work) must 
be upgraded or changed as a matter of urgency for the continuing 
integrity of the National Bibliographic Database.

I am only too pleased to demonstrate the inadequacies of the Kinetica 
cataloguing client, or to explain further my comments on the economic 
waste created by the current system.




Richard Goodwin,
B.A., Dip. Lib.
02 4324 8999