Interview with Mel DeSart in the Engineering Library
I came across a reference for Rotary Wing Aircraft Handbooks and History, edited by Eugene K. Liberature and published in 1954. This is an eighteen volume series of technical reports on rotary wing aircraft. I found the reference in a 1955 print Monthly Catalog (MoCat), in the section for August 1955. While the document did have a SU number assigned to it, D 301.45:R 74, the item did not have a black dot denoting it as part of the documents distributed through the FDLP program. There were, however, two marks made by a librarian noting that the item was received in print format, as well as included in the ReadEx microcard collection. I found an OCLC record, #3674637. This record pointed me to libraries holding some of the volumes from the eighteen volume set in print, but a search in the Catalog of Government Publications online did not return any results. I tried to view the document using the microfiche digital scanner, which was a fairly involved and painstaking process. The volume on the card I found was number 11 of the set. The set was published across several months and the ReadEx set is organized by item number and distribution date assigned in the print catalog, each volume would need to be found in the print MoCat based on the date of release to find the reference number and then find the microcard in the ReadEx collection. None of the individual material in the ReadEx collection has been cataloged in the UW system. I searched the UW catalog and came across six volumes of the eighteen volume set in print, classified with Dewey and housed in the Engineering Library. I decided to find the documents on the shelf and had an opportunity to speak with the head librarian, Mel DeSart.
I talked to Mel about the contents of the collection in the engineering library, the classification systems, and the access to government documents within the collection. The engineering library is not a depository library in the FDLP, and does not use the Superintendent of Documents classification system for any of the items in the collection, except for a selection of microfiche housed on the third floor. There are over 2 million items on microfiche on the third floor and many of the items are not cataloged in the online catalog. These items are found using the original physical card catalog found on the first floor. The predominant classification system is Library of Congress, however the early parts of the collection were originally cataloged using Dewey. The engineering library staff have worked for years to re-classify the collection to LC, but has not completed the process and still has a number of items classified using Dewey (the 600s - 900s series). The item that brought me to the engineering library was classified as 629.176 R74 v.6-14. The problem with the two classification systems in the library (Dewey and LC) is the issue of co-location of the documents. The staff continues to work on re-classification, but the process is slow going because of the labor involved in fixing the records, re-labeling the items, and shifting the shelving as the Dewey items are moved into the stacks using LC.
The primary concern for the library is to provide access to patrons. Which number system used for access is generally of little concern to the user who just wants access to in the information. Since the concern is access, the cataloging staff is less concerned with including SuDoc information in a record if an item has one assigned because the SuDoc number will not be used for shelving or access. I asked if there would every be interest in adding information in the record in a notes field to include SuDoc information if an item has a number assigned, and he said that it would not be a logical project to undertake with the limited resources available to the library. The UW libraries is actually shifting to a simplified MARC systems, using only one subject heading and truncating records to include only basic information because the average user accesses the collection using keyword searches, not cross referencing subject headings. Since the library is simplifying the bibliographic records to save time and money on cataloging efforts, adding additional information about SuDocs seems unnecessary.
The majority of the collection is acquired through donations, and since the items come through donors and not from the GOP or other federal agencies, the documents that may indeed be government documents would not be treated as such in the collection. The library houses many technical documents and publications from government agencies, but does not treat the documents as government information and does not take steps to include these parts of the collection in the CGP. Government agencies are possibly the largest producer of technical documents and engineering information. These reports may be of interest to the general public, and are widely available in engineering libraries atu niversities, and from the agency websites. Commercial vendors such as National Technical Information Services (a quasi-government agency that is entirely self supporting, and charges for access to the database) are making an effort to make these documents available in a digital format.
The primary concern for the library is to provide access to patrons. Which number system used for access is generally of little concern to the user who just wants access to in the information. Since the concern is access, the cataloging staff is less concerned with including SuDoc information in a record if an item has one assigned because the SuDoc number will not be used for shelving or access. I asked if there would every be interest in adding information in the record in a notes field to include SuDoc information if an item has a number assigned, and he said that it would not be a logical project to undertake with the limited resources available to the library. The UW libraries is actually shifting to a simplified MARC systems, using only one subject heading and truncating records to include only basic information because the average user accesses the collection using keyword searches, not cross referencing subject headings. Since the library is simplifying the bibliographic records to save time and money on cataloging efforts, adding additional information about SuDocs seems unnecessary.
The majority of the collection is acquired through donations, and since the items come through donors and not from the GOP or other federal agencies, the documents that may indeed be government documents would not be treated as such in the collection. The library houses many technical documents and publications from government agencies, but does not treat the documents as government information and does not take steps to include these parts of the collection in the CGP. Government agencies are possibly the largest producer of technical documents and engineering information. These reports may be of interest to the general public, and are widely available in engineering libraries atu niversities, and from the agency websites. Commercial vendors such as National Technical Information Services (a quasi-government agency that is entirely self supporting, and charges for access to the database) are making an effort to make these documents available in a digital format.
An image from the Rotary Wing Aircraft Handbook, v. 11
It is also hard to know exactly what would be considered of interest to the FDL program, and what should be included in the CGP. I think the engineering library collection could be a wealth of valuable information that would be considered government documentation, and I think librarians may be interested in sending bibliographic information to the GPO to be included in the CGP if the process were easy and inexpensive or free. I think the incentive for them to do so is lacking. Limited resources mean librarians much make difficult choices about collection maintenance and management. If the funds were there, I think librarians overall would make more of an effort to support the CGP and the FDLP.
Another interesting bit of information gleaned from the conversation is the difficulty in determining what would be considered a government agency producing government information that would fit into the scope of the FDLP. The engineering library holds materials from the US Bureau of Mines, which is no longer in existence, as well as the National Bureau of Statistics, and other agencies. There is also a large collection of documents from NASA, which may be of interest to the public, but since NASA is a quasi-government agency, it is questionable if this information would be considered for inclusion in the FDLP.
Another interesting bit of information gleaned from the conversation is the difficulty in determining what would be considered a government agency producing government information that would fit into the scope of the FDLP. The engineering library holds materials from the US Bureau of Mines, which is no longer in existence, as well as the National Bureau of Statistics, and other agencies. There is also a large collection of documents from NASA, which may be of interest to the public, but since NASA is a quasi-government agency, it is questionable if this information would be considered for inclusion in the FDLP.