Cataloguing is one of the important housekeeping operations of the libraries. Almost all the libraries, with a few exceptions, use cataloguing module to create bibliographical records.The task of creating bibliographical records can be reduced to the minimum by using copy cataloguing option. It is an alternative for original cataloguing. The article describes the catalogue module and copy cataloguing through SOUL 2.0. A brief overview of copy cataloguing in India has also been taken. It has been found that it is underutilised practice and library professional need to utilise the facility of copy catalogueing through IndCat, WorldCat or any other bibliographic database providing such facility. The initiative taken by INFLIBNET in the form IndCat is praiseworthy on this background, yet there might be problems with regard to regional language documents. The recognised publishers need to provide MARC record along with books to promote copy cataloguing. In effect, the library professional have to demand books with MARC records to make them think this as regular practice. Although, copy cataloguing offers an opportunity over original cataloguing, its needs to be judiciously used. In fact its usage as the author urges will help to address and remove the issues pertaining to copy cataloguing.

Keywords:   Cataloguing  copy cataloguing  SOUL 2.0  IndCat

Cataloguing is a traditional library practice to make the user know the record of material in library. It is a tool by which users can know the document available in particular library and information centre from the different access point of the bibliographical details.The librarians have been spending a lot of time, money, and labour to accomplish this task. Since last few years, catalogues are created through data entries by using any library automation software. Every time when the library procures the new title, the bibliographical details concerned with it are to be filled in catalogue module by different access points for the users. However, the fact is that the same book is available in multitudes of libraries across the world. But several records have been generated for the same document which but creates a question in mind as to why this duplication is. A deep thought over this challenges our wisdom. The best solution over this is copy cataloguing which has long been underutilised till date. Copy cataloguing means copying the bibliographical details that is already made available by someone through copy-cataloguing facility. It allows libraries to enter all the details of the document without actually typing, thus without much time, money, and efforts. This can be regarded as the real automation of cataloguing function.

A number of studies have been found on copy cataloguing and its related areas. The present study is different as it deals with copy cataloguing through SOUL 2.0. However, the following studies have been reviewed in relation to the present study.

Talmacs1 opined that the task of copy cataloguing requires the professional judgement and narrated how the Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN) copy cataloguing is undertaken at the University of New South Wakes Library, Australia and also reflected on whether this work should be undertaken by professionals or paraprofessionals. He concluded that more difficult items should be set aside for experieced staff. Coats & Kiegel2 described their experience about automatic monographic selection, acquisition and rapid cataloguing workflows through the use of a book vendor’s database and OCLC’s PromtCat service at the University of Washington libraries. They also identified the benefit of automation to selectors, acquisition staff and copy cataloguing staff. Horenstein3 narrated experience of Adelphi University Library in respect of contracting copy cataloguing and physical processing with Blackwell’s Book services since 1995. Weiss, Paul & Wilson4 examined a random sample of cataloguing copy from selected Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN). The study showed that there was no significant difference in the number of chages made to Library of Congress records and the groups of best member libraries. The finding sustained the expansion of co-operative cataloguing projects, such as the National Co-ordinated Cataloguing Program. In their study, Beall & Kafadar5 examined 100 typographical errors in records in the OCLC WorldCat database. The local cataloues of five libraries, holding the items described by the bibliographical records with typographical errors were searched to determine whether each library had corrected the errors. The study found that only 35.8 % of the errors had been corrected. They concluded that knowledge of copy cataloguing error rates can help to emphasise the importance of quality data in bibliographic utilities and, further can serve as an indication to libraries whether they need to pay more attention in correcting typos in the copy cataloguing process.

Software for University Libraries (SOUL) is state-of-the-art-integrated management software designed and developed by the INFLIBNET Centre based on requirement of college and university libraries. The latest version of the software, i.e., SOUL 2.0 was released in January 2009. The database for new version of SOUL is designed for latest versions of MS-SQL and MYSQL (or any other popular RDBMS). SOUL 2.0 is compliant to international standards such as MARC 21 bibliographic format, Unicode- based Universal Character Sets for multilingual bibliographic records and NCIP 2.0 and SIP 2 based protocols for electronic surveillance and control6.

Catalogue module is used for retrospective conversion of library resources. The strong features7 of cataloguing module are:

(a) Allow cataloguer to create their own templates for data entry of different library resources;

(b) Different templates for leaders and fixed fields of MARC21;

(c) Facilitates authority database of person name, corporate body, subject headings, and series name;

(d) Support copy cataloguing in MARC21 format by using ISO2709 standard;

(e) Master database of publisher;

(f)Multi-lingual database by using unicode character set; and

(g)Support full MARC21 bibliographic format.

L.M. Schultz describes original cataloguing as ‘creating a bibliographic record without reference to other bibliographic records for the same item or different editions of the item. Original cataloguing refers cataloguing an item by examining certain parts of it to obtain information needed to describe it’8. This kind of cataloging is most often needed for unique items, such as materials pertaining local history, archival materials, rare books, manuscripts maps, some sound recordings, etc. The success of original cataloguing largely depends on training and apprenticeship. It equally depends upon the knowledge of descriptive cataloguing and subject cataloging and strong familiarity with common cataloging tools9. If a title is recently published or has a specialised topic, for example, local or government publication, a bibliographic record may not exist in utility or vendor database. In these cases the library uses original cataloguing to create a full bibliographic record directly on the local system. Catalogers analyse the publication and create a new bibliographic record using MARC and AACR2 formats to describe the title. They select subject headings from established heading lists such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Sears List of Subject Headings, or Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). A record contains as many subject as are needed for its description. Each heading becomes a search or access point in the online catalogue10. The workflow of online cataloguing is shown in Fig.1.

The world of library has witnessed a lot of changes in cataloguing. Copy cataloguing is one of the milestones in this journey. It is an alternative for original cataloguing. It is a process of finding almost similar record of an item or items available for cataloguing, incorporating it in integrated library management software (ILMS) with certain degree of edition if required and filling in local details. OCLC WorldCat, online catalog of Library of Congress and INFLIBNET’s IndCat serve as source for copying the items.

INFLIBNET Centre has developed Online Copy Catalogue System (OCS) to promote co-operative cataloguing and avoid duplication of efforts as stated in its objectives.OCS allows copying records of document available in IndCat into SOUL 2.0 software directly. New records can easily be uploaded to IndCat Server. It supports de-duplicate (matched) and merging records11. OCLC’s ‘Connexion’ is a tool or interface for copying bibliographical data from WorldCat. ‘Connexion’ allow one to simply search for matching records in WorldCat, edit the record, set user holding, and export your records and print labels, if desired. One can also create and maintain copies of his/her library’s local holding records, which may contain additional data, such as local call number, holding locations within the institution or local or copy-specific notes12 (Fig. 2).

The provision for copy cataloguing is available under ‘Cataloguing’ module in SOUL 2.0. ‘Import and Export’ is one of the sub modules given there for copy cataloguing purpose. When one clicks on this first sub module, there will be first option as ‘Import from MARC’. The click on this option will open a screen by which copy cataloguing could become possible. On the appearance of this screen, the option ‘Import Bibliographic Record’ can be selected. Now required records are to borrowed or imported in MARC format is selected from the website of Library of Congress or INFLIBNET or any other organisation providing such kind of facility. By using the ‘Browse’ option the record saved in MARC format can be selected, followed by this click on ‘Import’. Within a few seconds, a message will appear as ‘Data Imported’. The click on ‘Data Imported’ will show number of records being processed, number of records being added and number of record IDs. With this step, the screen can be closed. At this moment, the option ‘Add Acc no. to Imported Data’ wherein the local information for instance like accession number, class number, budget, cost and vendor is to filled in is being selected.

Besides this option, there is another option through ‘Predefined data entry’ to mention the local information to complete the bibliographical record. By selecting the ‘Edit’ tab, the record ID or the range of record IDs of imported titles is selected. Then record by record local information has to filled in and saved properly. While deleting particular record in SOUL 2.0, one can save these records in MARC format so, that it can be used as and when required for cataloguing purpose.

The following steps are to be followed in copy cataloguing process (Figs 3(a) & 3(b)):

(a) Determine the records to be imported for copy cataloguing

(b) Search those record from the online catalogue of Library of Congress or INFLIBNET’s IndCat or other bibliographic records which allow copy cataloguing

(c) Import these records in ‘Integrated Database Management Software’

(d) Add the local information after validating the imported records and save the records.

The major benefits of copy cataloguing are:

(a) No need to type the bibliographic record on the part of cataloguer

(b) Offers fewer opportunities to commit typographical error since the whole record is copied

(c) Copied data is more up to date and scientific as it is imported from authentic source

(d) Creates uniqueness in creation of bibliographic record

(e) Promotes resource sharing

Some stumbling blocks of copy cataloguing are:

(a) There may not be any retrieval of record for regional language records.

(b) A certain degree of technical skill is required.

(c) Call numbers may not be available sometimes, especially, for the regional language records.

(d) There might be error in MARC coding.

Library automation has become broader term which not just includes computerisation of the housekeeping operation, but all the process and techniques which aim at doing the work automatically with greater speed and efficiency can be regarded as part of library automation. It is quite surprising that 35 % universities and colleges seem to have automated their libraries. These libraries are largely from urban areas13. Again to determine the level of automation require discussion, debate and research. There are again many libraries which are not using acquisition or serial modules. These conditions entail that copy cataloguing is not widely practiced in India. It might be argued that the libraries have the knowledge of this technique. But cataloguers in many developed countries have been copying catalogue records that member libraries have contributed to utilities such as OCLS13. The option has been provided by the INFLIBNET in the form of IndCat. Today, most of the proprietary software or open source software like Koha has the feature of importing bibliographical records. Moreover, INFLIBNET has been regularly organising seminars and training programmes to increase the usage of copy cataloguing for retrospective conversion. Further, it can be promoted when publishers would supply readymade catalogues in MARC formats so as to import these in local database management software.

In many libraries, cataloguing starts with acquisition process itself. In that case, copy cataloging is limited to editing of records wherever necessary. When the record is imported in SOUL 2.0, it takes separate record ID. While cataloguing, the acquisition process generate separate record ID for each title. Hence, there might be question with regard to editing of data as the editing is not possible for the same record from acquisition process.

Copy cataloguing is very useful so far as increasing the efficiency of academic libraries especially in India. Aiming at out and out automation is the way to work using copy cataloguing. The present situation calls for some liabilities on library professionals in the form of some technical skill as abilities to search the bibliographical records from IndCat, WorldCat or any other similar website providing bibliographical facility, ability to find appropriate records from the bibliographic database, ability to match item in hand with the pertinent record retrieved, knowledge of the MARC code, indicators, ability to do ISBD punctuation if required. A cataloguing person should be flexible enough to quickly unlearn the old ways and learn how to use the new workflows for better productivity14. The copy cataloguing technique offers this opportunity to do the traditional job in more innovative manner. However, all the pros and cons of the copy cataloguing still need to be studied so that it can be used without any hurdle in any open source or proprietary software.

The book publishers in India are not providing MARC records yet. There are at least a few examples from developed country of providing MARC records by the publisher since the importance has been recognised by them while maintaining marketing value. Library professionals here do not seem to have taken any initiative in this direction which would make publishers think on that line. Ready MARC records along with the books would certainly promote copy cataloguing.

1. Talmacs, Kerrie. Copy-cataloguing: A professional task? Cataloguing Australia, 2014, 10(4). http://search.proquest.com/docview/57182002?accountid=35054 (accessed on 24 June 2015).

2. Coats, Jacqualine & Kiegel, Joseph. Automating the nexus of book selection, acquisitions and rapid copy cataloguing. Lib. Coll., Acq. & Tech. Serv., 2003, 27(1), 33-44. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10/1080/14649055.2003.10765894 (accessed on 24 June 2015).

3. Horenstein, Bonnie. Outsourcing copy cataloguing at adelphi university libraries. Cata. & Class. Quart., 2000, 28(4), 105-16. http://tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10./300/J104v28n-04_09 (accessed on 25 June 2015).

4. Weiss, Janet; Paul J. & Wilson, Marijo. An analysis of cataloguing copy: Library of Congress vs. selected RLIN members. Lib. Res. & Tech. Serv., 1991, 35(1). http://search.proquest.com/docview/57055907?accountid=35054 (accessed on 25 June 2015).

5. Beall, Jeffery & Kafadar, Karen. The effectiveness of copy cataloguing at eliminating typographical errors in shared bibliographic records. Lib. Res. Tech. Serv., 2004, 48(2), 92-101. http://search.proquest.com/docview/216887988?accountid=160817 (accessed on 5 February 2015).

6. http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/soul/ (accessed on 15 November 2015)

7. http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/soul/modules.php#cat (accessed on 15 November 2015).

8. Orbih, David Egbailenamhe & Aina, Adebowale Japhet. Issues, benefits and challenges of original cataloguing versus copy cataloguing: The experience at the Logos State University. Inter. J. of Lib. & Inf. Sci., 2014, 6(5), 88-97. http:www.academicjounals.og/IJLIS (accessed on 8 January 2015).

9. LIS Wiki. Original Cataloging. http://liswiki.org/wiki/original-cataloging (accessed on 5 January 2015).

10. Wilson, Katie. Computers in libraries: An introduction for library technicians. New Age International, New Delhi, 2006.

11. http://indcat.inflibnet.ac.in/includes/UserGuide_OCS.pdf. (accessed on 15 January 2015).

12. OCLC.Connexion. http://oclc.org/connexion/features.en.html#acc (accessed on 15 January 2015).

13. Chandrakar, Rajesh & Arora, Jagdish. Copy cataloguing in india: A point-of-view. The Electronic Library, 2010, 28(3), 432-37. http://search.proquest.com/docview/357265718?accountid=35054 (accessed on 31 December 2014).

14. Sung, Myung Gi. Ten essential qualities for success: A new cataloging librarian’s from a supervisor’s perspective. Public Libraries, 2013, 52(3), 32-35. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1371822969?accountid=35054 (accessed on 30 December 2014).

Mr Vishal D. Bapte is working as Assistant Librarian in Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Maharashtra since 2012. Previously, he worked as a Librarian in Shankarlal Khandelwal College, Akola (MS). He obtained his MA and MLISc from the same university. He passed SET examination in Library and Information Science in 2007. His areas of interest are: Collection development, library automation, and open source software.