Abstract: A study at Michigan State University Library compared costs of three different methods of conversion: keypunching, paper-tape typewriting, and optical scanning by a service bureau. The record converted included call number, copy number, first 39 letters of the author''s name, first 43 letters of the title, and the date of publication. Source documents were all of the shelf list cards at the Library. The end products were a master book tape of the library collections and a machine readable book card for each volume to be sued in an automated circulation system.
|Type of Material:||Article|
Journal of library automation|
|Publication Info:||Volume 1 Number 01|
|Publisher:||Information Science and Automation Division|
|Place of Publication:||Chicago, IL|
|Notes:||Notes conversion methods of Southern Illinois University; John Hopkins University. |
Conclusions: (1) conversion costs are a small part of overall automation system implementation. (2) no significant difference between in-house keypunching and the use of an external service bureau, but the use of paper-tape typewriter process is more expensive. (3) Consider the use of an outside organization for large-scale conversion projects (4) getting along without portions of the shelf list for a limited time poses no major problem.
Michigan State University|
Punch card systems
|Last Update:||2020-05-22 15:23:27|
|Date Created:||0000-00-00 00:00:00|