Government documents and cataloging in research libraries

0177~9390/83/010117-09$3.00/O Copyright @1983 Pergamon Press Ltd

Government Publications Review, Vol. 10, pp. 117-125, 1983 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND CATALOGING IN RESEARCH LIBRARIES PETER

S. GRAHAM

Head, Book Acquisitions Department, Columbia University Libraries, New York, NY 10027

Abstract-Whether or not to cataiog government documents in large academic libraries comes down to a conflict between principle and cost. After recalling the Cutter and Paris cataloging principles, the paper reviews this century% arguments as to the desirability of separate or integrated document collections and catalogs, and as to the desirability of full documents cataloging. The pragmatic approach proposed is to begin full cataloging for document materials not well covered by indexes.

Why should government documents in research libraries not be cataloged like other books and serials? Why should they not be similarly shelved? “Should the ‘accident’ of a government imprint make a difference in our treatment of a publication?” [l] The library literature on the subject has been moderately extensive throughout the century; as Michael Waldo, its most recent surveyor, has said, it is distinguished by opinion and assumption rather than by hard evidence f2]. He might have added that theoretical bases were seldom visible either: it is the rare piece which has mentioned the fundamental principles of cataloging or of bibliographic access, much less advocated them. I intend to touch on these principles, to summarize some of the arguments surrounding the cataloging of government documents, and to propose a practical beginning [3]. The significant articulation of cataloging principles in America is undoubtedly Charles Cutter’s 1876 statement of the “object” of a library catalog: 1. To enable a person to find a book of which either (A) the author (B) the title is known. (C) the subject 1 2. To show what the library has (D) by a given author (E) on a given subject (F) in a given kind of literature. 3. To assist in the choice of a book (G) as to its edition (bibliographically) (H) as to its character (literary or topical) [4,5].

These principles have formed the underpinning

of U.S., and even worldwide, cataloging

For helpful comments on an earlier draft of this articfe written while he was at the Indiana University Libraries, the author is indebted to Professor Bernard M, Fry of the I.U. School of Library and Information Science and to Librarian Alice Wick&r, Head of the Government Documents Department, also at the Indiana University Libraries.

117

PETER

118

S. GRAHAM

theory for the past century. They have been refined-for example, not a great deal of attention is now paid to H-but not altered. A significant refinement took place in 1961, when the “Paris Principles” were formulated by the IFLA International Conference on Cataloging Principles; the conference made no mention of subject access (C and E for Cutter):

2. Function of the Catalog The catalog should be an efficient instrument for ascertaining 2.1 whether the library contains a particular book specified by (a) its author and title, or (b) if the author is not named in the book, its title alone, or (c) if the author and title are inappropriate or insufficient for identification, a suitable substitute for the title; and 2.2 (a) which works by a particular author and (b) which editions of a particular work are in the library [6].

Both Cutter’s and the Paris Principles distinguish between two catalog functions: finding and organizing, or location and collocation. The catalog leads one to find a given item, and allows one to find items related through authorship [7]. implicit in the function of location are the goals of minimum lookups and the context of the local library. An externally produced index may provide the former, if items are shelved in a scheme common to the index [8]. But it cannot provide the latter; a user cannot know from such an index whether or not the item is locally held. The function of collocation is what distinguishes a catalog from an imperfect finding list. Implicit in collocation is the concept of authority control, for names can be related only if their forms are authoritatively established. Determining authorship, and then the form of the author’s name, has been recognized as one of the stickiest problems in government document control because of the slippery nature of the corporate authors in which the material abounds [9]. Agencies change their names, merge, and divide. Governments do the same; they also rise, fall, exist in exile and in occupied and provisional status.

SEPARATE

OR INTEGRATED

COLLECTIONS

The idea of treating government documents separately from other parts of the collection appears to be a phenomenon of the twentieth century. In 1900, when depository libraries were only receiving about 440 items a year from the federal government, the first indication appeared of a library separating documents from the general collection with a separate classification scheme [lo]. Waldo documents the trend through the succeeding decades toward separate documents handling rather than integrated handling. It is only recently that the argument has once again been heard that documents should be accorded the same treatment as other materials: Library administrators need to consider government documents an information resource on an equal basis with books and serials, to the extent that they are integrated in information services, whether or not shelved as separate collections. The relationship between the documents collection and other library collections should be that of a single resource in meeting user needs. The key to a good government documents collection is integration into the mainstream of library information service [I I].

The report

of the National

Commission

for Libraries

and Information

Science (NCLIS),

by

Government documents and cataloging in research libraries

119

Professor Bernard M. Fry, from which this passage is taken, goes on to state the need for “full cataloging” of documents to fulfill these requirements. In fact, nothing less will do if full integration of information services is sought [12]. The desire for full cataloging of documents has long been recognized; it is the idea that it can be achieved that is new. In 1938, Ruth Erlandson summarized much of the discussion about documents in depository libraries, and noted a consensus that “when cost is not considered and no question of expense is involved, government publications should be cataloged, however they may be organized in the library” [ 131. She did not go on to say what was implicit: that is, that questions of expense are always involved and it is doubtful whether any depository institution at the time was fully cataloging all documents. The issue of practicality raised its ugly head early in the game of the cataloging of documents. It is still very much present: in the NCLIS report cited above, Professor Fry notes that “traditional methods of cataloging are uneco~o~icff~ to apply to large collections of government publications,” thus they often “are not reported in the public catalog” 1141.His choice of words is interesting; for it is doubtful whether one could prove that it is “economical” to catalog any form of material. What is true is that cataloging is expensive regardless of the item or class of materials cataloged. Once we choose as professionals to apply our principles of access in the real world, we are confronted with the facts of cost and inevitably we make accommodations: but we should recognize that documents are no more or less “uneconomical” to catalog than editions of Shakespeare or monographs on the stickle-back fish. The conflict between principle and practicality in cataloging only occasionally becomes visible. Recently, for example, library directors have come to realize the problems inherent in the development of AACR2 by catalogers working too independently of public service heads and other library administrators. I suspect that if one searched carefully one would find a general relationship between cataloging standards and acquisitions activity in a given extended time period. It is notable that cataloging staffs tend to handle properly (according to current standards) about as much material as institutions acquire, with the occasional exception of bulges caused by sudden fund infusions or gift collections. Certainly part of the reason is administrative care that cataloging staffs not be larger than required to handle the load; but a kind of inverse Parkinson’s law is also in operation over the long haul ensuring that cataloging standards, and therefore the work required to process pieces, will in gross terms be matched to the volume of acquisitions. Aberrations in the system are introduced when, to our embarrassment, a whole class of materials is held before our eyes and we ask ourselves, “What, catalog this, too?” As best it can, our profession has tried to hide that we are then faced with the dilemma of added expense or a modi~cation of our principles of access. The cataloging of government documents raises just such a dilemma. The question of cataloging government documents has become more urgent in recent years because of their enormous proliferation. In 1900, perhaps 440 items were distributed to depository libraries by the U.S. government. By 1930, the figure was 4,300; by 1960, the annual average was over 12,000; and by 1976, the 1,216 depository libraries were receiving on average over 22,000 items apiece [15]. This takes no account of non-depository publications of the government; of foreign documents or state and local documents; and of the rise of international agencies such as the European Economic Community and the United Nations. Such growth cries out for bibliographic control. The growth has been not only in volume, but in the range of coverage as well. Clarke describes modern government involvement “in all sectors of society, and its publications reflect the diversity of this involvement” [16]. Fry, continuing this thought, makes the useful

120

PETER S. GRAHAM

distinction between the function of documents as “public records of government administrative or operational activities,” which characterized almost all documents until recent years, and as “publications which report for the information of the citizens the results of study and research conducted. . . .” [17] Documents, as he says, are increasingly an information source on their own and should be accessible to the public and to the scholar on the same terms as other, more conventional, information resources. Should they be maintained as a separate collection or assimilated into the main collection? If the latter, of course, full cataloging and treatment identical to that of other books and serials is implied; it is the case in few large depository research libraries. Rips has presented one of the strongest cases for full distribution in the collections and integration of documents in the catalog [18]. But if documents are fully integrated in the catalog, not all problems are solved for the patron. Sharon Edge has graphically described the problems of verification and double look-up involved if a patron first verifies a serial of a U.S. agency in the pre-1976 Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications (MoCat), especially if it is a Bulletin or Report series [19]. The patron (usually also requiring a library reference staff member, MoCat in hand) must then find the agency in the public catalog according to Lc’s determination of the main entry, often quite variant from that in MoCut. Edge characterized the determination of LC main entry after verification in the older Monthly Catalog to be the most serious problem in document retrieval from an integrated documents collection [20]. The arguments against a separate collection once seemed to have some weight, but no longer do in a large research library. The existence of branches for subject materials provides a parallel for many of the problems (and resulting trade-offs) that a documents collection will have: duplication, and the separation of document items from related items, can be seen as outweighed by the usefulness of a specialized collection which keeps agency-related materials together and which will be staffed by specifically knowledgeable people. The argument that items on a related topic will not be classed together has long been dismissed as not serious in a research library where the size of the collection has made browsing undependable.

CLASSIFICATION

SCHEME

If in a separate collection, should the classification scheme be that used elsewhere in the library or one specific to documents? In my view the classification number in a research library is a finding tool needing little redundancy. In fact classification schemes do have information content, in that they organize broadly like materials together according to some principle, but for research libraries this is peripheral to their main purpose. The argument just given about browsing holds here as well; it is poor practice to advise a patron to depend on a classification scheme to find other materials in which he or she is interested. Thus classification is a matter of expediency. Documents collections in most large research libraries are heavily weighted to U.S. materials, most of which have Superintendent of Documents (SuDocs) numbers assigned; and the indexes available often make use of the SuDocs (or serials set) number as they identify items. There is no reason to substitute another code (e.g., Lc’s or Dewey’s), particularly if the collection is separately maintained. I do not find compelling the argument that SuDocs numbers are too complex [21]; in the large modern library a patron who does not write down the classification number to take to the shelf is asking for trouble, whether it is for a literature volume in PR or a Congressional document in Y4. For

Government documents and cataloging in research libraries

121

items lacking SuDocs numbers-some U.S., and certainly all foreign, state and local documents - most libraries presently use some form of alphabetic classification derived from the jurisdiction and the name of the agency. For state and especially local documents this will often be the access point used by the patron in any case. For foreign and international documents the scheme has the virtue of being moderately intelligible and of keeping a country’s documents in the same shelves; in browsing capability it offers some advantage over an accession number sequence or ordering by size.

THE DOCUMENTS

CATALOGING

ARGUMENTS

Following the relatively easily decided questions of separation or assimilation, and of classification, there is the more difficult and more important question of cataloging. The arguments for and against cataloging have been well rehearsed in the library literature. Waldo emphasizes too strongly that much of the argument is based on assumption and opinion rather than evidence derived from solid investigations. On the one hand, it is difficult to distinguish one librarian’s assumption from another librarian’s adherence to principles. On the other hand it requires little detailed study to know, for example, that cataloging documents will cost the library much more money than not cataloging them. He may be right that there is little hard data available for one or the other point of view; yet decisions remain to be made (and, as so often, a decision not made is still a decision, with effects and costs). The arguments against cataloging documents are almost all pragmatic: no one appears to believe that cataloging of documents would in itself be a bad thing. Erlandson summarized most of the arguments in 1938, and they are mostly variations on the circumstances under which one could perhaps be excused for not cataloging documents or in which it really does not matter. If one’s library is a high school library, for example, then so few documents will be acquired that they might as well be cataloged. If the library is a public library, she says, then the patron is so dependent upon qualified help in any case that one might as well rely on the librarian and the indexes. In her view, a depository library will get so many documents “that there may be some doubt as to the possibility or advisability of cataloging them,” but she does not expand on the inadvisability; one must infer that cost is the reason [22]. Some arguments against cataloging documents are not financial. Erlandson suggests that full cataloging, while desirable, “fills up the catalog” [23]; this is a precursor of the difficulties with the card catalog that research librarians heard so much about in the 1970s. From the 1983 perspective one can view with detachment the fears expressed by a librarian in 1938 over the possible unwieldiness of a catalog; for us, the catalog is everywhere unwieldy. If we solve the problem of the card catalog then we will have solved the problem of too many entries, documents or otherwise. Another difficulty with cataloging documents is the implied delay in processing over what is presumed to be possible in a non-cataloging environment [24]. Again, this problem is not specific to documents: a variety of scientific publications and ephemeral business publications, to cite only two examples, require very prompt cataloging to be of any use at all. Librarians have in general resisted “quick-cataloging” nostrums in favor of better-planned processing procedures to take account of this need. And for many U.S. documents, as for many books and serials, the advent of machine-readable cataloging through the bibliographic utilities has reduced the force of this argument. Now that the Government Printing Office is entering data for its publications in OCLC, from which the MoCut is produced, a significant portion of a documents collection can be cataloged on receipt or very shortly

122

PETER

S. GRAHAM

after. For other kinds of documents, the problem is analogous to the problems of other materials uncommon to OCLC; and it is not clear the patron is better served by non-cataloging of documents than by the non-cataloging of arcane books. A significant argument against cataloging of documents is the existence of indexes, governmentally and privately produced, which cover the field. Erlandson 40 years ago felt able to claim “that such excellent indexes are available for this material” [25]; though the Documents Catalog has since ceased, I think most would agree the situation is vastly improved now at least for U.S. documents. The MoCat in its new manifestation, the CZS Serial Set Index and CIS Index (and the new CZS Congressional Committee Prints Index), and the American Statistics Index, the Cumulative Title Index to US Public Documents (now in progress at vol. lo), CR4 & Z, Resources in Education and the like, give access to the bulk of the U.S. literature, with a little effort. There is some help for state documents in the Monthly Checklist of State Publications and now even for local documents in the Index to Current Urban Documents. Some foreign and international documents are more or less well indexed, but in general these, with state and local documents, remain a difficult area to access. This argument against cataloging U.S. documents rests on the case that the indexes exist and that duplication would be wasteful. In principle these are not good arguments, if one consults Cutter and the Paris Principles, for the indexes do not show what is in the library nor do they perform a significant collocation function. In addition, the indexes will often require searches of multiple cumulations (annual or at best quinquennial). However, there is no denying that in an imperfect, that is to say underfunded, world these arguments have practical effect. The fact that a significant part of the documents collection, perhaps half in many large research depository libraries, is accessible through these indexes, however imperfectly, implies that one’s first attentions ought to be to the other parts. Unindexed items of this sort (as well as indexed items) are processed in a variety of ways at different institutions. The tendency is to create less than complete catalog records with less than complete authority work. One result is that in many institutions not only is the collection separately housed but the cataloging is not compatible with the principles used to maintain the larger public catalog. The loss to patrons is well understood: they will miss items they could use, unless they know about and take the trouble to consult the special catalog for documents. A PRACTICAL

PROPOSAL

The usefulness of publications from foreign agencies and from state and local governments is largely vitiated if knowledge of such documents is hidden from patrons by a double screen: a separate catalog, and what can only be called inferior cataloging in the separate catalog. The person searching for, say, Polish materials, may be wholly unaware that materials are available in the documents section of the library; or, if the patron searches there, the catalog may be inadequate to lead him or her to the materials on the shelves. As Hans Wellisch has described, the Breslau/Wroclaw problem is bad enough in an LC-controlled catalog [26]; one wonders what one would find in many less well-controlled catalogs. If one takes cataloging principles seriously, there is no alternative to pursuing what avenues are available for making such documentation accessible according to those principles. Unfortunately, one immediately runs into the practical problem, that of the cost of cataloging. Waldo, as I described above, felt there was not enough data available to make well-founded decisions on the organization of documents in depository libraries. Erlandson drew back from a recommendation in the face of the problems, finding “no dogmatic conclusion regarding the best way to handle government publications”; she is so undogmatic as

Government

documents

and cataloging

in research

libraries

123

to say that “eventually any plan will show results if it is properly administered” [27]. Stapleton, too, seems to have felt that “local conditions” should determine the final decision [28]. These conclusions are helpful in a cheerleading sort of way but don’t give the guidance one hopes for from the professional literature. One can, however, recommend a pragmatic approach which recognizes the financial impossibility of complete cataloging, yet does not completely abandon the cataloging principles underlying American librarianship’s endorsement of bibliographic access. 1. Begin cataloging government publications from areas or agencies which are not well indexed, determining priorities among these according to needs of the local clientele. 2. Maintain a separate documents facility; do not integrate documents fully into the collections, but consider the document collection analogous to a subject-oriented branch. However, insert what cataloging is done in the main public catalog of the institution as well as in the documents department catalog. 3. Where indexes are depended upon for access (as in U.S. documents), use the classification and shelving scheme best keyed to that of the Indexes (e.g., SuDocs). 4. Where cataloging data is cheaply and easily available even for indexed material, obtain it and use it in both the public catalog and the documents collection catalog. The first recommendation is the key. Note that it starts with “begin”; the document cataloging process need not be an apocalyptic event, but can begin at some point. What is done will be better than what existed before, and can be expanded upon as resources permit. There is a counter argument that including partial holdings in the public catalog will mislead patrons into thinking that all holdings are there; I do not believe this to be sufficiently the case to outweigh the usefulness of providing partial holdings. My recommendation speaks of local needs: one library may require access to East Asian documents in preference to Latin American, and another just the reverse. The second and third recommendations are related, in that they allow for the uncataloged portions of the documents collection to be maintained as at present, and allow those documents accessible by indexes to be found by the most direct means: the classification used by the index. Especially in a large research library, I see no need for the question of cataloging a document to be tied to what its location will be on the shelves. The fourth recommendation refers, for example, to the proposal recently floated for OCLC catalog cards automatically to be provided to depository libraries according to their order profile, thus providing depository libraries with cataloging data for many U.S. documents. In my view the cost of these cards (and of the holdings symbol automatically entered in OCLC) should be borne in largest part by the government as part of its responsibility to disseminate information. However, such cards would need authority work to be integrated into the local catalogues [29]; this will make them more expensive. I do not address the question of expense in great detail, as the problem will vary with the institution, All large libraries are short of funds and in no position to begin a major new cataloging process. Yet in most libraries reallocation will be possible. In some, partial cataloging is already being done: is it of the most appropriate materials, considering the available indexes? In others, what amount to accession lists in manual or machine-readable form are maintained: again, to substitute the cataloging of otherwise inaccessible documents might on balance improve access. The inertia of existing processes should not prevent their examination in the light of librarianship’s goals of access. Events at two libraries encourage me to think I am on the right track. Myers and Britton have written of cataloging documents at the University of Houston Library. They have taken a different tack, in that they are selectively cataloging U.S. Documents, but they have

124

PETER

S. GRAHAM

demonstrated that cataloging with SuDocs classification can successfully be entered in the main public catalog and used by patrons. Their documents collection is separate. One interesting aspect of their cataloging U.S. documents is that they include specifically “publications of agencies that the average library user does not know are government agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institute” [30]. They also have taken the approach of partial, not apocalyptic, cataloging: “the amount of cataloging to be done can be limited by the available time and funds. We are providing an additional access point at the public catalog for selected documents, but the rest of the documents are just as available as they were before” [31]. The other encouraging event is the report of a committee studying the future of government documents in the Stanford University Libraries’ catalogs [32]. About half of the SUL documents are U.S. documents. The SUL committee recommended that all documents be cataloged fully and included in their anticipated on-line catalog. It is notable that Stanford has a head start on such a radical idea- which even I do not propose-because they have already for some time been cataloging foreign documents, not an uncommon practice. Their government agency classification committee proposes continuing to use “established schemes” such as those of SuDocs, the U.N., and the California State Library, and will continue to shelve many (though not all) documents in a separate collections. The committee says nothing about costs or sources of funding. Thus variations are possible on the scheme I have proposed. As automation of library operations and catalogs proceeds over the next decade, further variations and greater possibilities will emerge. But the essentials of the scheme remain: to begin to catalog a significant portion of the literature that would be of use to our patrons. If we are serious about bibliographic access, then we cannot continue to treat documents as second class materials. On the other hand, if we are serious about realistic library planning, our approach must be practical.

NOTES

AND REFERENCES

Ruth M. “The Organization of Federal Government Publications in Depository Libraries,” Appen1. Erlandson, dix B, noted as written I938 and revised 1939, in Anne M. Boyd, United States Government Publications (3rd ed., rev. by Rae E. Rips), New York: Wilson, 1949, p. 569. 2. Waldo, Michael. “An Historical Look at the Debate over How to Organize Federal Government Documents in Depository Libraries,” Government PublicationsReview 4 (1977). 319-329 shows that separate documents collections are a phenomenon of the mid-century. 3. Some limitations of scope should be noted: I am dealing primarily with the situation of the large research library; primarily, but not exclusively, with U.S. publications; with the depository library which acquires a bulk of federal documents; and not specifically with technical reports, which present their own, though similar, problems. Dunkin, Paul S. Cataloging U.S.A. (Chicago: ALA, 1969). p. xvii. Cutter, Charles A. Rulesfor a Dictionary Catalog(4th ed., rewritten; Washington: Govt. Printing Office, 1904; republished, London: the Library Association, 1972), p. 12. International Federation of Library Associations. Statement of Principles , edited by Eva Verona (London: IFLA Committee on Cataloging, 1971), p. xiii. Items are also related through edition statements. However, as agencies typically do not publish second editions of hearings or reports, the distinction between book and work is made less often in documents work than else“The Function of the Main Entry in the Alphabetical where. On this distinction see Seymour Lubetzky, Catalogue-One Approach,” in International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Report [the original Paris Principles conference document] (London: IFLA, 1963), p. 139-144; and G. Thomas Tanselle, “Descriptive Studies in Bibliography 30 ( 1977) l-56. Bibliography and Library Cataloguing,” 8. For example, there are the CZS Indexes and the Monthly Catalog itself. The latter, of course, is now in conformance with LC subject headings. I should admit that the subject access to some materials, e.g., TRANSDEXor other KWIC-indexed materials, is not particularly sophisticated. But it is cheap. Library Trends 15 (January 1967). 378 ff., discusses the comPublications,” 9. Childs, James B. “Government plexity of federal government organization. Ellen P. Jackson, “Cataloging, Classification and Storage in a Separate Documents Collection,” Library Trends 15 (July 1966), 50-57, discusses the publications whose life

Government documents and cataloging in research Iibraries

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

125

extends over several agencies (e.g., Minerals Yearbook). See Also Clarke, Norman F. “Cataloging, Classification and Storage of Government Publications When Incorporated into the General Library Collection,” Ljbrar_v Trends 1.5(July 1966), 58-71, on the need for heading conformity. Waldo, “An Historical Look at the Debate over How to Organize Federal Government Documents in Depository Libraries,” p. 320, on the Wagner Free Institute of Sciences in Philadelphia. Fry, Bernard M. Government Publicaiions: Their Role in the National Program for Library and Information Services (Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 13. The terminology here begins to echo that of Brown v. Board ofEducation in 1954. This is probably no accident; “separate but equal” seldom works. Erlandson, p. 572. Fry, p. 6-7; emphasis added. Waldo, p. 321; Fry, p. 22; Clarke, p. 59. Clarke, p. 59. Fry, p. 9. The distinction is a useful one also for what it implies about the relatively lesser need for retrospective cataloging of documents compared to the prospective need. Rips, Rae Elizabeth. “The Reference Use of Government Publi~tions,” Drexel Library Quarterly I (1965) 15-17; cited in Waldo, p. 325. Edge, Sharon. “Retrieval of U.S. Government Publications from Integrated Library Collections,” Kentucky Library Association Bzdfetin 39 (1975), 4-8. Edge, p. 8. Her proposed solution adds another look-up point; she suggests the creation of a cross-reference listing of SuDocs class stems (e.g., “A13.1”) to LC main entry authorities. The problem has been greatly alleviated for post-1975 searches by the new format of the Month/y Catalog. Erlandson, p. 572. Erlandson, p. 573. Erlandson, p. 574. Waldo. D. 324. Erlandsdn, p. 569. Well&h, Hans. “Poland is Not Yet Defeated, or Should Catalogers Rewrite History? with a Discourse on When is an Island Not an Island?” Library Resources and Technical Services 22 (Spring 1978) 159. Erlandson, p. 577. Stapleton, Margaret. “The Treatment of United States Government Publications in Depository Public Libraries of Medium Size,” Public documents, edited by A.F. Kuhlman (Chicago: ALA, 1935). v. 135-137: as cited in Waldo, p. 321. Ohmes, Frances and Jones, J.F. “The Other Half of Cataloging,” Library Resources and Technicat Services 17 (Summer 1973), 321. Myers, Judy E. and Britton, Helen H. “Government Documents in the Public Card Catalog: The Iceberg Surfaces,” Government Pubhcations Review 5 (1978), 312. Myers and Britton, p. 312. Turner, Carol et al. Report of the Coordinating Committee on Future Catalogs. Subcommittee on Government Documents. Stanford, California: Stanford University Library, 1980, photocopied.