LETTER FROM CHRISTA HOFFMANN (NLM)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS AND APPOINTEES 1995/96
FROM THE EDITOR
Sue Neumeister
The lull before the storm.
The storm: Get ready to receive the OLAC Directory soon, plus the Cumulative Index for v.1-15 early next year.
You may want to mark your calendars for the OCLC Internet Cataloging Project Colloquium to be held in association with ALA Midwinter on Friday, January 19, 1996 2-5 p.m.
Additionally, don't forget that the next OLAC Conference will be held at the Radisson Hotel in Denton, Texas on October 3-5, 1996. Sharon Almquist and Ralph Hartsock are co-chairs. Details of the conference will be in the next issue of the OLAC Newsletter.
As always, this issue is printed before the ALA Midwinter schedule is published, so I will post those meetings of interest to OLAC on AUTOCAT and on the OLAC web page shortly after the schedule is made available.
Remember to check out the OLAC web page at URL:
(The OLAC web page has been cataloged in OCLC as part of the OCLC Internet Cataloging Project.)
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Heidi Hutchinson
As the days grow short and the Santa Ana winds sweep the summer heat out of the inland valleys of Southern California, I can somehow feel the year 1995 drawing swiftly to a close. And kind of gathering momentum as it rolls ... But for library organizations such as OLAC, whose working year begins in June withor followingthe ALA Annual Conference, the end of the calendar year is more of a time for interim progress reports. Here are a few highlights and happenings since I last wrote to you.
The ad hoc committees working on proposals for an OLAC conference scholarship and an OLAC research grant are finalizing draft guidelines to present to the Board at Midwinter. The scholarship will provide funding for an OLAC member to attend an OLAC conference, while the research grant will be awarded to encourage research in the field of audiovisual cataloging. With these grants, OLAC's role in continuing education for AV catalogers will take on an exciting new aspect.
The NACO Funnel Project for AV authority records has entered its initial phase, with contact being made with the Library of Congress and OLAC's project coordinator, Ann Caldwell of Brown University, completing her NACO training in November.
I am particularly pleased to report on the success of OLAC's letter to the National Library of Medicine regarding their change in policy on authority records. They had initially decided to streamline their cataloging process by ceasing to contribute name authority records for their core level AV materials records. As a result of discussion at the June OLAC CAPC meeting, we wrote to NLM to ask them to reconsider this decision, emphasizing how important their contribution of NACO records to a national database is to AV catalogers around the country. They agreed. The reply from the Head of Cataloging at NLM follows this report.
Oh, and by the way, it's not too late to nominate your best friend or volunteer yourself to run for OLAC Vice President/PresidentElect or Secretary. The deadline for submitting nominations to the Chair of the OLAC Nominating Committee, Karen Driessen, is January 2, 1996. Karen's address information was printed in the September OLAC Newsletter.
The dates for our meetings at San Antonio are January 19, 20 and 21, in the usual sequence, CAPC Friday, Business meeting Saturday, and Board Sunday, each at 8 to 10 p.m. Check your ALA Midwinter schedules under "UNO" for the venues. See you there!
October 13, 1995Letter from Christa Hoffmann
Ms. Heidi L. Hutchinson
President
Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
Rivera Library
P.O. Box 5900
University of California
Riverside, CA 92517-5900
Dear Ms. Hutchinson:
NLM would like to inform you and the OLAC membership that we have reconsidered this decision. As of October 1, NLM policy for core level cataloging of audiovisuals includes the contribution of name authority headings established for audiovisuals and computer software to the national authority file maintained under the auspices of the National Coordinated Cataloging (NACO) Program. With this change, our core level policy for audiovisuals conforms to the basic premise of the emerging national standards for core level bibliographic records presently under development by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging.
We are pleased to be of service to the audiovisuals library community by continuing to contribute NLM authority headings created in audiovisuals and computer software cataloging to the national authority file.
Christa F.B. Hoffmanm
Head, Cataloging Section
National Library of Medicine
Johanne LaGrange
Reporting period: July 1, 1995 through Sept. 30, 1995
Membership: 648
Institutional - 282
Personal - 366
ACCOUNT BALANCE: June 30, 1995
Merrill Lynch WCMA Account 30,868.56
INCOME
Back Issues 71.50
Dividends--WCMA Account 376.06
Memberships 558.00
TOTAL INCOME 1,005.56
EXPENSES
American Library Association
ALCTS (ALCTS/CCS Preconf.) 1,000.00
Conference Services 120.00
1,120.00
Banking Fees
Activity Fee 11.91
Annual Fee 80.00
91.91
Consultant
Financial 100.00
OLAC Award 90.53
OLAC Birthday Party 398.05
OLAC Board Dinner (Conference) 274.92
OLAC Newsletter (v.15, no. 3) 1,471.80
Publication/Printing
Brochures and Rationale 201.50
Stipends 995.96
TOTAL EXPENSES (4,744.67)
ACCOUNT BALANCE: Sept. 30, 1995
Merrill Lynch WCMA Account 27,129.45
ONLINE AUDIOVISUAL CATALOGERS
EXECUTIVE BOARD 1995/96
HEIDI HUTCHINSON
Rivera Library
P.O. Box 5900
University of California
Riverside, CA 92517
714-787-5051
7147873285 (Fax)
HEIDI@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU
VICE PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT-ELECT:
RICHARD HARWOOD
University of Tennessee
326 Hodges Library
1015 Volunteer Blvd.
Knoxville, TN 37996-1000
615-974-6696
615-974-0551 (Fax)
HARWOOD@UTKLIB.LIB.UTK.EDU
TREASURER:
JOHANNE LAGRANGE
Health Sciences Library
Columbia University
701 West 168th Street
New York, NY 10032
212-305-1406
212-234-0595 (Fax)
JL70@COLUMBIA.EDU
SECRETARY:
CATHERINE GERHART
Cataloging Division, FM-25
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195
206-543-1828
206-545-8049 (Fax)
GERHART@U.WASHINGTON.EDU
NEWSLETTER EDITOR:
SUSAN M. NEUMEISTER
State University of New York at Buffalo
Central Technical Services
Lockwood Library Bldg.
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
716-645-2305
7166455955 (Fax)
NEUMEIST@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
CAPC CHAIR:
DIANE BOEHR
Costabile Associates, Inc.
4800 Montgomery Lane
Suite 1050
Bethesda, MD 20814
301-986-8560
DANNYB@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT:
MARY S. KONKEL
University of Akron
Bierce Library, 176A
Akron, OH 44325-1712
216-972-6257
MARYKONKEL@UAKRON.EDU
OLAC LIAISON TO ALCTS AV, 1995-1997
(Association for Library Collections & Technical Services
Audio Visual Committee)
MOLLY BRENNAN
McConnell Library
Radford University
Radford, VA 24142
MHAND@RUACAD.AC.RUNET.EDU
OLAC LIAISON TO AMIA, 1995-1997
(Association of Moving Image Archivists)
MARTHA YEE
UCLA Film and Television Archive
1015 N. Cahuenga
Hollywood, CA 90038
EFS4CMB@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
OLAC/CC:DA AUDIENCE OBSERVER, 1995-1997
(Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access)
PAT THOMPSON
DuPont Library
University of the South
Sewanee, TN 37383
PTHOMPSO@SERAPH1.SEWANEE.EDU
OLAC LIAISON TO MARBI, 1995-1997
(MachineReadable Bibliographic Information Committee)
JOHN ATTIG
Authority Control Librarian
University Libraries
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
JCA@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU
OLAC LIAISON TO MOUG
(Music OCLC Users Group)
To be announced.
OCLC USERS COUNCIL MEETING
Mary Konkel (University of Akron)
The first meeting of the 1995/96 OCLC Users Council was held October 22-24 in Columbus. The program theme for this year's Council is "25 Years and Counting: OCLC and Libraries," marking OCLC's silver anniversary. The focus of this fall meeting was "Human Factors and Information Technology."
Edward Holley, the William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor at the University of North Carolina and former Chair of the OCLC Board of Trustees, delivered the first of two keynote addresses. Dr. Holley's remarks focused on OCLC's impact on librarianship including: 1) the creation of the Online Union Catalog and automated card processing (which for the "wedded wives of the 3x5s" was nothing short of a minor miracle), 2) a great enhancement and growth in interlibrary lending, 3) an increased efficiency in technical processing, and 4) access to a new world of information through online databases and electronic journals. OCLC has become a household name in the library world thanks to Fred Kilgour and his predecessors and Dr. Holley invites us to check the library job advertisements and see just how many times "familiarity with OCLC" is mentioned. "The opportunities never looked brighter and the problems never looked tougher. As I watch you from the sidelines, I will be grateful and I will cheer you on."
In the second keynote address, Nancy Eaton, Dean of Library Services at Iowa State University of Science and Technology and current Chair of the OCLC Board of Trustees spoke about what's ahead for OCLC including: 1) likely changes in user access to information, 2) likely changes in library and information environments, 3) contributions that library staffs and OCLC can make to help accomplish a desirable information future, and 4) OCLC's strategic directions in years ahead. Networking is key. She urges OCLC to offer solutions, not just products in efforts to bridge telecommunication networks, seek collaborations, increase market research, and renew investment in research.
The Technical Services Interest Group, which I elected to attend, met to help develop a charge and agenda for a new task force which the OCLC Executive Committee of Users Council will appoint from the Council delegates. This task force will be asked to reexamine the purpose of OCLC credits for original cataloging. This was a lively discussion, as most issues involving money are, but of particular interest to the AV community is the question of whether cataloging credit should be based on a level of effort eg. book vs. audiovisual record. Other considerations are incentive to contribute, and the value of the contributed record for cataloging, reference, and resourcesharing use.
The RILM (Repertoire International de Litterature Musicale) abstracts and the NetFirst database (Internet resources) will be available soon through OCLC's FirstSearch service.
The OCLC President's report, as well as those from other OCLC staff, were very favorable and indicative of OCLC's position in the forefront of furthering access to bibliographic and full-text information both domestically and internationally. Users Council also recognized 23 OCLC staff members who have 20 or more years of service and thanked them for their contributions. The first public library to input an OCLC gold record was the Kansas City Public Library with the 33rd millionth record.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to attend OCLC Users Council on OLAC's behalf and particularly enjoyed networking with colleagues from MOUG. As always, I'd be happy to hear your comments and pass on your concerns.
Last December the Commission on Preservation and Access and the
Research Libraries Group created the Task Force on Digital Archiving
to investigate the means of ensuring "continued access indefinitely
into the future of records stored in digital electronic form."
The task force has now issued its draft report.
The Commission and RLG are making the draft report, titled "Preserving
Digital Information," widely available in paper and electronic
form. Paper copies are being sent to RLG Member Representatives
and ShaRes and PRESERV liaisons and to Commission contacts. Electronic
versions are available from the RLG FTP server and the RLG web
site.
(Note that the following filenames contain upper and lowercase
letters which must be used as shown.)
NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Barbara Vaughan, Column Editor
Web URL: http://www-rlg.stanford.edu/ArchTF/
Return to Table of Contents
FTP Server: lyra.stanford.edu
Adobe Acrobat version: /pub/ArchTF/DraftReport.pdf
Microsoft Word 6.0 for Windows version: /pub/ArchTF/DraftReport.doc
ASCII version: /pub/ArchTF/DraftReport.txt
John Byrum (Library of Congress)
As part of its ongoing program to define core bibliographic record standards, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) announces the formation of a new core bibliographic record task group.
The PCC's new Core Bibliographic Record for Audiovisual Materials Task Group (CBRAV TG) was established in June 1995. Eric Childress (Elon College (Elon College, NC)) has been appointed chair of the CBRAV Task Group. Members of the CBRAV Task Group are: Diane Boehr (Costabile Associates (Bethesda, MD)), Jane Magree (UCLA Film and Television Archive), Roger Minier (NWOET Foundation, Bowling Green State University), and Glenn Patton (OCLC, Inc.). An additional appointment to fill the sixth and final position on the task group is forthcoming. The PCC liaison to the task group is Joan Schuitema (Northwestern University), a member of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards.
The task group's charge is to define a core bibliographic record standard for audiovisual materials (specifically for moving image and graphic materials cataloged under Chapters 7 & 8 of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 rev. and any published amendments).
The Core Bibliographic Record for Audiovisual Materials (CBRAV) standard will define which data elements (i.e. what information) must be recorded and will specify which fields and subfields in the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data must be used to record the required elements.
A core bibliographic record is one created to a new standard level of completeness, a level between minimal and full level cataloging. The core level standard emphasizes the inclusion of required (as opposed to optional) descriptive elements, the streamlined assignment of subject and descriptive access points, and a greater tolerance for local cataloging practices and priorities.
A core record may be upgraded to full at any time by authorized institutions, and even some "core" records will probably be contributed with optional elements, headings, etc. present, depending on the policies of the contributing library.
By defining national core bibliographic record standards for various categories of works, the cataloging community will have access to a set of core record standards that strike a careful balance between record quality and cataloging efficiency. Use of the core standards will be strictly voluntary, but PCC institutions using the core record standards either to upgrade minimal cataloging records or for original cataloging will be required to adhere carefully to the standards, including exercising authority control over any access points present in core level records (and if necessary contributing new authority records or adjusting existing authority records in the national authority files). Bibliographic records created in accordance with the core record standards will be clearly identified as PCC core bibliographic record standardcompliant records in the 042 USMARC field.
Preliminary anecdotal evidence from several PCC institutions that have made selective use of the existing core record standards suggests that significant improvements in cataloging productivity can be achieved without compromising the overall quality of cataloging output. General or selective use (perhaps based on local collection priorities) of full, core, and minimal level cataloging is expected to allow institutions to improve productivity, better control cataloging costs, increase the speed of cataloging of current receipts, and promote cataloging arrearage reduction efforts.
The availability of clearly identified PCC core standardcompliant member copy in the bibliographic files of the major bibliographic networks should contribute to greater streamlining and efficiency in cataloging operations for a wide range of institutions the PCC core record identifier will serve as an indicator of high quality member copy.
Questions, queries, and comments about the CBRAV Task Group, the CBRAV standard, and related issues should be directed to the task group chair:
Institutions wishing to participate in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) should apply to the PCC for membership. Information on the PCC and applications for membership are available from:
Ann Caldwell (Brown University)
As many of you know, OLAC became part of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging through the formation of a NACO Funnel Project for Audiovisual Materials. A funnel project, as described by Ann Della Porta of the Library of Congress's Cooperative Cataloging Division, is "a group of libraries that have joined together to contribute authority records to the national authority file(s). The libraries are usually working in the same subject area, such as the NACO Music Project and ArtNACO, or they may be regionally based, like the North Dakota Funnel."
One of the many advantages of a funnel project is its efficiency. There is one institution serving as coordinator and LC deals solely with this coordinator. All correspondence and subscriptions are sent to the coordinator, who is responsible for disseminating information to all the funnel participants. The coordinator receives five days of training in the formation of headings, references and various other information. In many ways a funnel is like a miniNACO project in that it recruits, trains, and reviews just like Cooperative Cataloging Division does for single institution participants.
I was honored to be asked to serve as the coordinator of NACOAV (as I've come to refer to it). From October 30-November 3, 1995 I received NACO training from Rhoda Kesselman of Princeton University. She had attended LC's "Train the trainer" sessions, a program which enables individuals outside of the Library of Congress to train other libraries in their geographic area. As you can imagine five full days of authorities were very intensive, but also very enjoyable. Rhoda was an excellent teacher; she guided me through not only NACO record formation and the mechanics of submitting headings, but also provided me with hints on revision headings, a list of other funnel project coordinators, and a lot of good common sense.
At the ALA Midwinter meeting in San Antonio, Diane Boehr, Chair of CAPC, and I will be discussing how next to proceed with the formation of the funnelhow to recruit members, how many members to begin the project with, how to proceed with training. This preALA period, we would like to have an idea of how many people would be interested in participation in NACOAV. I would like members of OLAC who feel they could regularly contribute headings to a project to contact me in order that we may proceed with planning. Although it would be wonderful if we could contribute hundreds of headings, I realize that this is not possible. So when I say "regularly contribute," I'm not referring to quantity, but to quality and consistency. We are tentatively planning to train a small group at ALA Annual in New York City. Gradually more members will be added, but we will need to monitor our progress very carefully before we proceed.
In closing, if you are interested in possibly joining the project at some point, contact me. I'll be happy to attempt to answer your questions. Since Diane and I are newcomers to this, we probably have as many questions as you!
OCLC Internet Cataloging Project
Colloquium
Call For Field Reports and Position Papers
OCLC and the U.S. Department of Educationfunded project,
"Building a Catalog of Internet Resources,"
invite the presentation of
Field Reports and Position Papers
at the Project Colloquium
Friday, January 19, 1996
2-5 p.m.
San Antonio, TX
in association with the ALA Midwinter Meeting
Field Reports
This category is limited to registered project participants.
Proposals are invited for Field Reports by project participants. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:
Presentations that focus on a limited number of specific issues at some depth are preferred to general, wideranging discussions. Proposals will be selected from among all submittals to provide breadth of topical coverage.
To present a Field Report, please submit the following information:
Four Field Reports will be selected for presentation.
Presentations should be no longer than 15 minutes.
Send your entry to jul@oclc.org or 614-7640155 (Fax). Include the subject line, "Field Report."
This category is open to all.
Proposals are invited for Position Papers addressing significant issues related to cataloging and the extension of library services to Internet resources. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:
Position Papers are intended to help distill relevant issues, present varying views and approaches, and promote discussion.
To present a Position Paper, please submit the following information:
Two papers will be selected for presentation and two papers will be selected to represent alternative views.
Position Papers should be delivered in no more than 20 minutes and responses should be limited to 10 minutes.
Send your entry to jul@oclc.org or 614-764-0155 (Fax). Include the subject line, "Position Paper."
Publication
Field Reports and Position Papers will be published in electronic format by OCLC following the Colloquium. Field Reports and Position Papers not selected for presentation may be published in the proceedings.
Selection Committee
For more information, contact Erik Jul, Project Manager, at jul@oclc.org, 614-764-4364, or 614-764-0155 (Fax).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Verna Urbanski, Column Editor
QUESTION: What is going on with UPCs and embedded publisher's music numbers? People are treating them differently on OCLC -- some put the entire number in the 028, others pick out the embedded music number and leave the rest behind. I even found one that couldn't be searched because they had put the number in the field for UPC instead of 028. It's confusing!!
ANSWER: Catalogers who add the UPC (as found with the UPC barcode) should use an 024. If that same number is found outside the UPC barcode area (on the case insert or face of the disc, for example) the number should be recorded as any publisher's number would be (in the 028) even though the two are digit for digit the same. When portions of the number (the "embedded" publisher's numbers of your question) are distinguished by type face or color, that segment of the publisher's number should go into a separate 028. If there are additional occurrences of the embedded segments with letter prefixes, add an 028 for that form, too. This may seem excessive, but not finding an expected 028 form can lead a cataloger to input a duplicate record, which does none of us any good! Sound recording cataloging is increasingly dependent on the specific retrieval afforded by the 028 field, so the more numerous these precise retrieval points, the better. Here are a couple of examples:
In talking (via e-mail) with Jay Weitz at OCLC about this, Jay commented: Let's remember that the UPC appears only in conjunction with a barcode; all other appearances must be considered some sort of music publisher number. ...we need to play it safe and give access to as many as might reasonably be considered important...The 024 and 028 fields are among others being considered as additions to the Database Enrichment capability by the way. That will be more incentive for adding 024s. ---VU
QUESTION: Has anyone discussed a standard note in either the 538 or 500 to focus the catalog user's attention on a single CD-ROM which is compatible for use on either/both a PC-type and a Mac computer? It seems clear that two 538s are needed to separate the DOS from Mac system requirements; however, I feel that does not address the compatibility aspect for the newer CD-ROMs, that is, one disc that works on either system. I am also wondering whether it has become accepted practice to just lift the wording from the container for whatever system requirements statement gets added. I find that those statements vary a lot. I usually follow the list in Nancy Olson's Cataloging of Audiovisual Materials 3rd. ed. Also, is there any agreement on using "higher" or "later" when describing versions of software? Does it matter?
ANSWER: I don't think that a separate note regarding compatibility with two systems has come up as an issue (YET!!). As with all notes, if you feel more comfortable explicitly stating "For use with Macintosh and IBM compatible systems" as a separate note, it should be fine to do so. I don't think that the form of the note could be of too much concern since there is little that could go wrong with such a simple message. Personally, I would not add a separate note, but just let the 538 information suffice.
Since the 538 is repeatable, MARC designers must have envisioned a situation like this and have assumed that people would want to put each system requirements note in a separate field. You could also put both sets of system requirements in a single 538 and connect with an "or." There are advantages both ways. If using two notes it might be helpful to say: "System requirements for IBM PC:....." and "System requirements for Macintosh:....." The decision to use one note or two may be influenced by what your local system can do as far as indexing and display of one versus two 538 notes.
For system requirements notes I take from any and all sources and arrange the information following the order that Nancy suggests in her book. Much of the time I can't find much information, though. I try to include the make and model of the computer and the operating system at a minimum. I always include "or higher" and/or "or later" when it is indicated. --- VU
QUESTION: Has there been any new insight/interpretations on the cataloging of artists' books since the article in v.8, no. 4 of the OLAC Newsletter (December 1988)? What about the piece makes the distinction between using/applying Chapter 2 vs. Chapter 10 or even Chapter 8 of AACR2R? When/what determines the description of a piece that may or may not be described in terms of a specific pagination vs. that of 1 art work? Also, the usage of "art work" in LCCN 86-146269 is not listed as an "appropriate term" of description anywhere in the AACR2R rules, LCRI, or any service or technical bulletins that I can find. Is this a legitimate term? I cannot find an example of it in AACR2R.
I have a piece that at first sight appears to be a book. However, when the cover is opened there are four leaves (35x54 cm.) folded to 23 cm. Each of those leaves is segmented into what appears to be 12 separate pages or illustrated plates enclosed in a cover made of silkscreen on birch bark. Along with this is an insert that resembles a colophon with the following information: "unique book // photocopy (Xerox 5350), silkscreen, hand stamping on Okawara machine // Cover: silkscreen on birch bark.
ANSWER: If there have been insights into the treatment of artists' books by nonspecialists catalogers, I am unaware of it. In my opinion, treatment under Chapter 2, 8 or 10 of AACR2R would be based on whether it seems like an art object, or, an artistic interpretation of the book format. For example, I think I would treat a ceramic "book" as an object rather than a book. But, if the form seems to be imitating the characteristics of a book and especially if the artist/author is calling it a book, I would treat it as an artist's book. Since the distinction is not clear cut, it would be hard for you to be called wrong for deciding one preference for treatment over another--and, if someone should be so bold that might be just keen because maybe they would have information you need to make good distinctions!! In part the decision may hinge on whether or not one or the other AACR2R chapters will allow a better description of the particular item.
I don't think that "art work" is an AACR2R specific material designation, but 2.5B2 could safely be cited as allowing it--"...and follow it with the appropriate term or abbreviation." These materials are so unusual I think the focus should probably be on adequate description, even if that description can't be totally by the book (pardon the pun!)
In your specific example, I would say that the form is imitative of a book and can be treated as an artist's book. Two descriptions seem feasible: 48 pages folded to 4 leaves, or, 4 leaves in the physical description area and describe the specifics in a note. --- VU
QUESTION: We have a professor who would like us to add a note with the public performance rights and closed circuit television rights to all video records. We have never done this before and I've been unable to find examples so far. It looks as if the 540 would be ideal for it. Have you done this, or, do you know of examples on OCLC?
ANSWER: I think the 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) would be appropriate to use. Whether you use the 540 or a plain 500 depends on your local system and what you can get back out of it.
I am not entirely sure why a professor would want this information. It sounds like a terrific amount of work if he wants it on all video records. I think I would want a convincing justification before investing that amount of work. I am not entirely sure what the legal implications of adding something like that to the cataloging record might be either. --- VU
Return to Table of Contents
Top
Last modified: December 1997
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/...
HTML version created by
OLAC Web Manager
Return to OLAC Newsletter index