With apologies for cross-posting.
> LINC agrees that the case for a national bibliography is strong both as the
> 'people's memory' - a cultural archive, with both national and global
> dimensions - and as a record of published materials. The process of
> producing BNB underpins access strategies. However, more work is required
> in clarifying its primary role. At present, large areas of the national
> imprint are being missed: in the area of the Leicestershire, Leicester and
> Rutland Library and Information Plan, for example, only 38% of publications
> are deposited with the British Library.
I imagine that many publications are not deposited because they are
produced by local groups who are not aware of the laws on legal deposit.
This could easily be improved by publicity, perhaps in public libraries.
Many groups such as local history societies would be keen to know that
their publications would be preserved for posterity by the British Library
if only someone told them. Of course with shorter print runs groups may
not wish to part with copies for all six legal deposit libraries, but
perhaps there are arrangements in the legislation to cope with that.
At the moment, I am not sure how any local society is meant to find out
about legal deposit, unless they have a librarian on the committee! If
the British Library were to produce an attractive leaflet aimed at those
thinking of publishing something, with advice on how to obtain an ISBN,
how to deposit the copy etc and sent copies for distribution via public
libraries and other places, I am sure a greater proportion of the national
imprint would be deposited.
I believe in France you can deposit your two copies at any police station,
but in view of the recent censorship problems in Birmingham, this might
not be such a good move!
Matthew Phillips
Assistant Librarian
Christ Church Library
Oxford
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|