\ 

COMPARISONS OF LC PROOFSLIP AND MARC TAPE ARRIVAL 
DATES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARY 

Charles T. PAYNE: Systems Development Librarian, and 
Robert S. McGEE: Assistant Systems Development Librarian; 
University of Chicago Library, Chicago, Illinois 

115 

A comparison of arrival dates of 5020 LC proofslips and corresponding 
MARC magnetic tape records reveals that four-fifths of the MARC records 
were received the same week as, or earlier than, the proofslips. 

The purpose of this study is to determine the timeliness of MARC II 
records' arrival dates in comparison to the arrival dates of matching LC 
proofslips. The Acquisitions Department of the University of Chicago 
Library receives a complete set of cut and punched LC proofsheets 
(or "LC proofslips") that is used primarily for selection and ordering. 
In examining potential uses of MARC records in acquisitions processing, 
the Library Systems Development Office felt that a critical determinant 
would be the timeliness of MARC records in comparison to the arrival 
dates of the matching LC proofslips. Accordingly, the study described 
below was designed to gather data upon which appropriate system design 
questions might be considered. 

It was decided that "arrival date" would be defined as the week in 
which an arrival occmTed, since the initial processing and distribution of 
incoming LC proofslips is framed within weekly, rather than daily, periods. 
"Week" was defined as the Monday through Friday workweek. "Arrivals" 
were defined as deliveries of MARC tapes and LC proofslips by the 
Library mail service. No attempt was made to influence the normal 
delivery procedures, or to specialize or hasten identification of these 



116 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 3/2 June, 1970 

materials for priority handling. Arrival weeks were numbered consecu-
tively, the week of March 31 - April 4, 1969, being designated Week 1. 
MARC tape numbers correspond to arrival week numbers; i.e., MARC 
tape #4 arrived during Week 4. Table 1 presents these correspondences. 

Table 1. Week Numbers for 15 Weeks of Study 
Week Number Arrival Week Dates 

1 March 31 - April 4 
2 April 7 - April 11 
3 April 14 - April 18 
4 April 21 - April 25 
5 April 28- May 2 
6 May 5-May 9 
7 May 12- May 16 
8 May 19 - May 23 
9 May 26-May 30 
10 June 2- June 6 
11 June 9- June 13 
12 June 16- June 20 
13 June 23- June 27 
14 June 30- July 3 
15 July 7- July 11 

DATA COLLECTION 
Proofslip collection began in Week 2, but in that week only a partial 

collection was made. In subsequent weeks, complete collections of proof-
slips bearing the MARC acronym (MARC proofslips) were attempted, 
so that proofslip data beginning with Week 3 (April 14-18) are more 
complete. Proofslip collection was terminated in Week 15. Discrepancies 
between the counts of MARC records and the numbers of MARC proof-
slips collected have not been accounted for, but possible reasons are dis-
cussed in the following section. 

Data collection was based upon comparisons of: 1) the weekly printed 
indexes, in LC card number order, that came with MARC II tapes; and 
2) weekly lists of MARC proofslip arrivals. In each incoming batch of 
LC proofslips, those with MARC notes were separated and their arrival 
date noted. The MARC proofslips for each week were put in primary 
order by the £rst two digits (series number) of the card number, and 
were secondarily ordered within each series by the serial number follow-
ing the hyphen, thereby matching the order of LC card numbers in the 
MARC indexes. These numbers were transcribed to create a weekly list 
of proofslip arrivals. 

Two new lists of LC card numbers were derived each week: 1) a 
MARC index; and 2) a proofslip list. Weekly each new list was com-
pared with all lists of the other type to identify card number matches. 



\ 

Proofslip and MARC Arrival Dates/PAYNE and McGEE 117 

Thus, each of the two types of lists was cross-tabulated with all the 
lists of the other type, showing on all lists which card numbers had been 
matched, and the week numbers of these matches. 

Counts were made of the matches tabulated on each list, and were 
entered into Table 2. Matches made during a given week are sub-
counted by series groups 65-68, 69, and the 7 series. 

The cumulative percentages of MARC record and proofslips matches 
were entered into Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 contains the percentages of 
matches for any week's proofslips with successive MARC tapes. For 
example, of the 340 proofslips received in Week 4, 71.2% matched MARC 
records received the same week, or earlier, i.e., tapes 4, 3, and 2. Table 
4 contains the percentage of matches for any MARC index on successive 
proofslip lists. For example, of the 768 records on MARC tape number 5 
(received in Week 5) 23% were matched by proofslips received the same 
week, or earlier, i.e., Weeks 5, 4, 3, and 2. 

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 
Some patterns of MARC and proofslip arrivals are indicated by the 

tables. The results in Table 2 show that there is not a one-for-one weekly 
relationship between proofslip and MARC record arrivals. For example, 
the 340 MARC proofslips received in Week 4 matched tape records re-
ceived from Week 2 through Week 10, although the highest number of 
matches was also in the tape received in Week 4. In later proofslip 
weeks, however, the highest number of proofslip matches was with tape 
records received at least one week earlier. 

A summary of Table 2 would show that of the 5020 MARC proofslips 
received during Weeks 3-10, 4004, or 79.8% were matched to MARC 
records received the same week or earlier. 

In Table 3, the cumulative percentages of proofslip matches with suc-
cessive MARC indexes indicate, for several of the weeks, more than a 90% 
match with tape records two weeks after proofslip arrivals. Table 3 shows 
that the percentage of matches for a set of proofslips received in one 
week with the MARC indexes received the same week or earlier ranges 
from 48.9% to 91.6%. 

Table 4 shows that the percentage of matches for a MARC tape re-
ceived in a given week with the proofslips received the same week or 
earlier ranges from 7.1% to 49.8%. 

For the period of weeks corresponding to tape numbers 3-10, 6335 
tape records (from Table 4) and 5020 proofslips (from Table 2 or 3) 
were received. The reason for the discrepancy between the number of 
MARC records and the number of MARC proofslips is not clear, but 
is possibly due to the combined effects of basic factors such as the limited 
period of the study, the difficulties of collecting proofslips in a working 
environment, and the nature of the manual effort required to list LC 
card numbers and compare proofslip lists and MARC indexes. 



Table 2. Number of Proofslip Matches with MARC Indexes by Arrival Week 
and by LC Card Number Subseries 

Proof slip LC Tape Tape Tape Tape Tape Tape Tape Tape Tape Tape 
Week Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

PS 2 
65- 68 5 25 13 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 

# 88 69 2 8 5 3 3 0 l 0 0 0 
7 series 1 2 7 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Total 8 35 25 8 9 1 1 0 0 0 
6!:>-68 6 42 77 37 17 9 2 1 0 0 

PS 3 69 7 25 65 32 30 9 5 0 1 0 
#497 7 series 0 16 36 41 8 2 0 0 2 0 

Total 13 83 178 110 55 20 7 1 3 0 

65-68 0 14 35 57 19 12 1 3 2 1 PS 4 
#340 

69 0 0 26 56 12 3 0 1 1 3 
7 serie' 0 0 18 36 19 9 1 0 1 2 

Total 0 14 79 149 so 24 2 4 4 6 
65-68 0 0 14 56 33 35 0 4 7 4 

PS 5 
69 0 0 7 62 21 8 0 4 3 2 

#398 
7 seriel 0 0 9 49 9 9 1 5 2 6 

Total 0 0 30 167 63 52 1 13 12 12 
65-68 0 0 0 29 108 77 3 5 2 3 

PS 6 
69 0 0 1 55 95 so 4 2 2 4 

#653 
7 serie~ 0 0 2 28 72 52 6 0 5 s· 

Total 0 0 3 112 275 179 13 7 9 12 
65-68 0 0 0 9 68 128 29 6 4 2 

PS 7 
#711 

69 0 0 0 2 29 133 54 9 1 8 
7 serie! 0 0 0 5 33 92 33 10 3 6 

Total 0 0 0 1 6 130 353 116 25 8 16 

PS 8 
65-68 1 0 0 0 5 87 46 29 6 4 
69 0 0 0 0 2 54 49 20 11 4 #503 
7 seriel 0 .0 0 0 2 37 46 17 1 2 

Total 1 0 0 0 9 178 141 66 18 10 

65-68 0 0 0 0 0 10 86 122 52 34 
PS 9 

69 0 0 0 0 l 3 75 107 53 39 
#933 

7 «F>ri F>< 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 115 73 42 
Total 0 0 0 0 1 14 210 344 178 115 

65-68 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 36 159 91 
PS 10 

#985 · 
69 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40 180 96 
7 series 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 23 165 101 

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 99 504 288 

Tape Tape Tape 
11 12 13 

0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 

6 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
1 0 0 
0 0 0 
2 1 Q_ 
3 1 n 
0 0 0 
3 0 0 
1 2 0 
4 2 0 
0 L. 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 , 
0 L. 1 
5 1 1 
0 0 0 

10 4 0 
15 5 1 

8 1 0 
5 1 1 
7 1 0 

20 3 1 

Tape Tape 
14 15 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 

0 0 
0 0 
n n 
n n 
0 0 
1 0 
0 0 
1 0 

0 0 
0 0 
() () 

() () 

0 0 
1 0 
1 0 
2 0 

5 1 
1 0 
1 1 
7 2 

~ 
~ 
00 

'o' 
~ 
g ..... 

-Q.. 
t-c 
& 
j 
:;t.. 
~ 
0 g 
..... a· 
~ 

2 
!"""' 

co -to 
._ 
c: 
l:l 

SD 
~ 
tD 

z 



Table 3. Cumulative Percentages of Matches of Each Week's Proofslips 
Received with Each Additional MARC II Tape Index 

Proofsl ' 
Cumulative \ of Tape Number 

1_P 
Tape 1 Tape 2 Tape 3 Tape 4 Tape 5 Tape 6 Tape 7 Tape 8 Tape 9 Tape 10 

PS 2 9.1 48,9 77.3 86.4 96.6 97 . 7 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.6 
ll 88 

PS 3 
2.6 19.3 55.1 77.2 !1497 88.5 92.3 93.7 94.0 94.6 94.6 

PS 4 o.o 4.1 27 . 4 71.2 85.9 92.9 ll340 93.5 94.7 95 .9 97.6 

PS 5 o.o 0 . 0 7.5 49 . 7 65.3 78.4 78.6 81.9 84.9 87.9 # 398 

PS 6 o.o o.o .4 17.6 59 .7 87.1 89.1 90.2 91.6 93.4 #653 

PS 7 o.o o.o 2.2 20.5 70 . 2 86.5 90.0 91.1 93.5 
11711 o.o 

PS 8 
.2 .2 .2 .2 2. :> 37 .4 65.4 78 . 5 8 2.1 84.1 #503 

PS 9 o.o o.o 0 . 0 o.o .1 1.6 24.1 61.0 80.0 92 . 4 
ll933 

PS 10 
1.1 11.2 62 . 3 91.6 

ll995 
o.o o.o 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 

-

Tape 11 Tape 12 Tape 13 Tape 14 Tape 15 ~ 
0 

(;l" 
98.6 98 . 6 98.6 98.6 98.6 

....... -s· 
9 4.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 94.6 

~ 
~ 
R.. 

97.6 97 . 6 97.6 97.6 97.6 
~ 
> 
i:J::j 

88.2 88.2 88.2 88.2 88 .2 

93.9 94.0 94 . 0 94.0 94.0 

CJ 

~ c;· 
~ ...... 

94.9 94.2 94.2 94 .4 94 . 4 t:::l 
/ 

~ 
<'+-
<.1:> ., 

84 . 1 84 .5 84. 7 84.7 84.7 --~ 
to< 

94.0 94.5 94 . 6 94.8 94.8 z 
tr1 

93 .6 93,9 94.0 94.7 94.9 
$)j 

~ 
0.. 

~ 
n 
G'J 
tr1 
tr1 

...... 

...... 
co 



Table 4. Cumulative Percentages of Matches of Each MARC II Tape Index 
with Each Additional Week's Proofslips Received 

Tape Cumulative \ of Proofslip Week 

Number 
PS 2 PS 3 PS 4 PS 5 PS 6 PS 7 PS 8 PS 9 PS 10 PS 11 

Tape 1 
1.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 

# 648 

Tape 2 
7.1 23.8 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 # 495 

Tape 3 · 5.1 41.1 57.1 63.2 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 
# 494 

Tape 4 
1.0 14.9 33 . 1 54.7 67.9 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 #791 

Tape 5 
1.2 8.3. 14.8 23.0 #768 

58.8 75.6 77.0 77.1 77.1 77.1 

Tape 6 0.1 1.9 4,0 a.5 
#1136 

24.2 55.4 71.0 72.3 72.3 72.4 

Tape 7 0.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 3.5 20.2 40.5 70.7 72.3 72.6 #694 

Tape 8 o.o 0,2 o.7 2.7 * 658 3.8 7.6 17.6 69.9 84.9 86.2 
Tape 9 o.o 0.3 o . a 2.1 3.1 4.0 6.1 26.0 82.5 86.0 #892 

Tape 10 
o.o o.o 0.7 2.0 3.3 5.0 6.2 18.5 49.8 79.5 

#922 
----- -- ---

PS 12 PS 13 PS 14 

3.4 3.4 3.4 

26.6 26.6 26.6 

63.7 63.7 63.7 

71.0 71.0 71.0 

77.1 77.1 77.1 

72.4 72.4 72.4 

72.6 72.6 72.6 

86.5 86.5 86.5 

86.3 86.3 86.3 

89.9 89.9 90.5 

PS 15 

3.4 

26.6 

63.7 

71.0 

77.1 

72.4 

72.6 

86.5 

86.3 

90 . 5 
~~-

f--1 
to 
0 

g 
~ ...... 

.Q.. 

~ 

1 
> 
~ 

8' 
g 
..... a· 
;;s 

2 
~ 

vo 
........... 
to 

<....t 
= ::I so 
f--1 
c:D 

~ 



\ 

Proofslip and MARC Arrival Dates/PAYNE and McGEE 121 

CONCLUSION 
The data collected to date indicate that the arrivals of MARC records 

generally precede those of the corresponding proofslips. Thus, MARC 
records seem to be timely enough to be used in book selection and order-
ing processes, where proofslips are now used, as well as to supply biblio-
graphic data for cataloging.