3159	----	5 Tails Wagging Dogs A funny thing happened on the way to the form. In the past decade, many libraries believed they were developing or using automated sys- tems to produce catalog cards, or order slips, or circulation control rec- ords. The trauma of AACR2 implementation has helped many to realize belatedly that they have, in fact, been building data bases. Libraries must relate their own machine-readable records to each other in a new way as they face new applications. Further methods of relating and using records from different libraries, and even different networks, are becoming necessities in our increasingly interdependent world. A narrow view of the process of creating records has often resulted in introduction of nonstandard practices that provide the required im- mediate result, but create garbage in the data base. In effect, letting the tails wag the dogs. For many years, John Kountz and the TESLA (Tech- nical Standards for Library Automation) Committee addressed this issue forcefully, but were as voices in the wilderness. The problems created are the problems of success. The expectations libraries have developed have outstripped their practices. Many libraries are only now seriously addressing the practices they have used to create data bases that already contain hundreds of thousands of records. Precisely because of its success, the OCLC system is a useful case in point. In general, OCLC has adhered closely to MARC standards. In call number and holding fields, national standards have been late forth- coming, and libraries have often improvised. Meeting the Procrustean needs of catalog cards has ofttimes blinded libraries to the long-term effects of their practices. Multiple subfield codes to force call number "stacking" and omission of periods from LC call numbers are two exam- ples of card-driven practice. Not following recommended OCLC practice of fully updating the rec- ord at each use has created archive tapes requiring significant manual effort to properly reflect library holdings. Variant branch cataloging practices create dilemmas. Some malpractices have resulted from attempts to beat pricing algorithms . Some, like retaining extraneous fields or accepting default options when they are incorrect, merely re- flect laziness or shortsighted procedures. While implementing systems in the present, libraries must keep a weather eye to the future. What new requirements will future systems place on records being created today? BRIAN AVENEY 
3160	----	6 Japanese Character Input: Its State and Problems Ichiko MORITA: Ohio State University, Columbus. Computer processing of information is highly advanced in japan, and it con- tinues to be researched and improved by the cooperative efforts of the govern- ment, private corporations, and individual scientists, who are among the best in the world. This paper introduces various approaches to the computer input of information currently developed in japan, and discusses the possibility of their applications to the processing of East Asian-vernacular language mate- rials in large research libraries in this country. Processing of catalog information through an on-line shared-cataloging system has become a part of American libraries' common practice, and its financial and temporal savings have been proven. However, there are some materials not yet considered appropriate for computer processing. The Library of Congress' plans for romanizing catalog information for all non-roman language materials and putting them on MARC tapes for quick distribution of information have been objected to by a large num- ber of specialists in the field. The opponents' reason has been that com- puterization of vernacular languages by means of transliteration is not satisfactory. Such materials are best handled in their own writing sys- tems (the languages in this category include Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hebrew, Arabic, and various languages in India). Those specialists in the field who see systems working for roman-alphabet materials general- ly agree that automated systems are very efficient and useful for their research. It would be best if non-roman language materials could be processed through computers using their own writing systems. As far as technology goes, it is possible to process such materials in their original form. Systems that have the capability of handling those languages directly have been developed; among the most advanced are the Japanese systems. Japan has overcome numerous difficulties in de- veloping systems that are capable of handling Japanese characters. Although automation of libraries is not as widespread as in the United States (due perhaps to a delay in the development of computers), some Japanese libraries have already a decade of experience with advanced Manuscript received August 1980; accepted December 1980. japanese Character Input/MORITA 7 systems. Many others have recently started to adopt them. Wide utiliza- tion of these systems seems to be just a matter of time. It will be beneficial to review Japanese methods and consider possible adaptation of them to our systems. In the following sections, various Japanese approaches to inputting the Japanese language are explained with an eye to future automation of non-roman language materials in this country. THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND THE COMPUTER It should be noted, first of all, that the Japanese language is an entire- ly different language from Chinese, although they are often confused be- cause they both use the same Chinese ideographs in writing. Each Chinese ideograph , or character, symbolizes a certain object or denotes a certain meaning. The Japanese use them in the Japanese language with its own pronunciation in the context of its own grammar, whereas the Chinese use them in the Chinese language with its own pronuncia- tion in the context of its own grammar. This means that a Chinese ideo- graph could mean the same thing in both languages, but be pronounced or read differently and used in different grammatical environments. The Chinese ideographs used in Japanese are referred to as Kanji, which are, to complicate the matter, used along with Japanese syllabaries called Kana. Kana, in two styles called Hiragana and Katakana, total about 170 characters. Depending on whether ,a Kanji is used with another Kanji or Kana, the reading of it varies. At different times one set of Kanji may be read in two or three different ways. The total number of Kanji is about 50,000. In comprehensive dic- tionaries, about 40,000 or more Kanji are included. Medium-sized ones, such as Ueda's Daijiten, include about 15,000; concise ones about 8,000 to 10,000. 1 According to several tests on frequency of Kanji occurrence made in various Japanese institutions, approximately 3,000 Kanji appear in high frequency, 3,000 are of moderate frequency, and several thousand more are of infrequent occurrence. As for geographical names, 2,279 Kanji will cover most of Japan and 1,500 Kanji will suffice to cover personal names, except for very unusual names. 2 Approximately 6,300 characters are needed for major newspapers such as The Asahi and The Nikkei. The trends in the use of Kanji are to simplify the characters them- selves, and not to use difficult Kanji with many strokes. In 1946, the Japanese government established 1,850 Kanji as those for daily use, 3 and today newspapers and official documents use only those Kanji, except for some personal and geographical names. The implication of this trend for computerization of Kanji is that, depending on the documents to be covered, the need in number and kind of Kanji varies. That is, institu- tions that deal with scientific or current information do not need as many Kanji as other types of institutions that handle documents cover- 8 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 ing longer periods and larger areas of knowledge . For example, Japan Information Center for Science and Technology, which mainly handles the latest scientific information, claims that with approximately 6,000 Kanji it can function satisfactorily. An example from the other extreme is the National Institute of Japanese Literature, whose collection covers older historical periods, during which a great number of Kanji were used and many Kanji went through changes, mostly simplification m style. The latter institute is constantly adding new Kanji to its system. It is obvious then that the first problem in the computerization of Japanese materials is the number and kind of Kanji to be included in the system. This is a problem of hardware. The other problem concerns software. When Japanese is written, its words are not divided as in English, for combination of Kanji and Kana helps visually to make sentences understandable without word division. Also, compound nouns are made by adding other words to a noun, so that, if a set of Kanji represents one noun, one can expand its meaning by adding another Kanji to it. Though word division has been a problem in transliteration and not new in computerization, both arbitrarily di- vided words and undivided words in particular become serious problems in the computer files and in the retrieval of information . A question may be raised as to why we need Kanji processing in spite of these problems; why isn't computer handling of alphanumerics and Kana, which is in use today, sufficient? The answer to this is mainly that Kanji possess a definite visual effect. Also, if only romanized languages or Kana alone are used, many homonyms may make the meaning am- biguous. While it is quite possible to write Japanese only in Kana or in the'"romanized forms, as proven by the systems in use, it is better, for efficiency and precision, to express the language in the way it is actually written. As for the problem of word division, study is in progress on methods of dividing words systematically and automatically, incorporating the latest research in the field of applied linguistics. This is more concerned with the development of software, and this paper will not delve into it. INPUTTING Various Japanese approaches to inputting Kanji and Kana are organized below into six major groupings according to different inputting devices. They are: (1) full keyboard, (2) component pattern input , (3) Kana keyboard, ( 4) stenotype, (5) optical character recognition, and (6) voice recognition . These six methods are further divided into subvariations as shown in table 1. 4 Full keyboard The main feature of this approach is use of a full character keyboard as the inputting device. The operator uses the full character keyboard japanese Character Input/MORITA 9 Table 1 . Input Systems Major Approaches Full Variations keyboard Kanji teletypewriter Subvariations Japanese typewriter Character location Coded-plate scanning Coded typeface Modified coded typeface Tablet style Electromagnetic Component pattern input Kana Electrostatic Photoelectric Training Characters/ Characters Needed Minute Accommodated Medium- Extensive Medium Medium- Small 40-100 30-50 30-70 2,300-4,000 2,205 2,863 2,200-3,000 3,000-4,096 2,800-4,000 2,800-4,000 keyboard Two-key stroke Location correspondence Extensive 60-120 4,096 Stenotype Optical character recognition Voice recognition Association memory Display selection Small 20-30 Kana-Kanji conversion Word conversion Sentence conversion 1,000-2,500 rather than codes or other symbols. The keyboard varies depending on models, usually consisting of frequently used Kanji and both sets of Kana, supplemented by Arabic numerals, Roman, Cyrillic, and Greek alphabets in upper and lower cases, often with italics, signs, and diacrit- ical marks. To each character, a two-byte binary code (expressed by a four-digit numeral) is assigned, so that when the inputter types a charac- ter the code for the character is punched on paper or cassette tape. Kanji Teletypewriter The oldest method for Kanji inputting, still widely in use, is the Kanji teletypewriter system or multishift system. One variation of this approach, developed by the National Diet Library at an early stage of its computerization, has 192 character keys, each having fourteen char- acters in three columns and five lines, as shown in figure 1. In addition, there are fourteen selection keys arranged in three columns and five rows on the lower left of the keyboard to correspond to the pattern of characters on each character key . When an operator strikes the charac- ter key B with the right hand and the selection key A with the left hand at the same time, the code for the character C is punched on the tape. 10 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 000 000 ooo 000 QOO \ ' \ \ \ \ :>'1":111l"JWIJ I '_''l'H.l-T tt1UL UM ~~i :f'i :t~ ;jl;lt'{>,'f r r_r,f rx 15 1 lf~ 1 1-E --····--j·-- ·· ·-- .. lf [l{rl I i'Yliilj f'li: ·r1 1JGt)f I *Y:nt : ii!J,ii¥1.1 I 9;j.;,~;1: ; ~!z1tt '?" ~- ~:.,;.· .-.t r •.. ~,, •. x ~.:r, r_ x ,r,; ,r;; I ~~i_i_ 1 if r. ---· - . - - -- L -··· ·- - r'i!..r':~ I tM~m~x <¥~1 t :k J~,] f:k {I~ ~ ri fR t1>/ ilM ~'!<. #.l'li!iii *t9.t !k IX X: . rEl ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ .II Character key B Character C 1rSelection key A Fig. 1. Kanji Teletypewriter Keyboard of the National Diet Library. Included on this keyboard are : Kanji Kana Western alphabets Numerals Symbols and marks Kanji pattern s Kanji components Space 2,006 90 144 20 210 40 139 Total 2,6506 By using shift keys on the upper left of the keyboard, Kana in both styles and alphabets in upper and lower cases can be input. For satisfac- Japanese Character Input!MORITA 11 tory operation, the keyers must be professionally trained, and it is said that one to three months are necessary for them to be fully trained and able to input an average of fifty to sixty Kanji per minute. This is not as fast as most other methods discussed. Japanese Typewriter The second of the full keyboard approaches is the Japanese typewriter method, which uses a modification of the standard Japanese typewriter with a tray filled with Kanji printing types. The operator finds a charac- ter in the tray and punches it by moving a metal handle as the type bar is punched down to print the character. This is rather primitive and different in its operation from the English typewriter, which uses the ten-finger touch method. There are four variations: Character Location Method. Kanji are arranged on a keyboard by their codes, so that when a key is punched, the Kanji is typed on regu- lar paper as if it had been done by a regular Japanese typewriter. At the same time, the code is automatically read from the location of the key and is punched on tape. Code-plate Scanning Method. Each type bar has a plate attached on its side, and the code for the character is marked on its plate . When a key is typed, the Kanji is printed on paper and the code from the plate is optically scanned at the same time. Coded Typeface Method. Each typeface is made with a character on the upper half and a code for it on the lower hale When a key is typed, both the character and code are printed. The code on the bottom half is optically scanned from the printed paper. Modified Coded Typeface Method. Instead of typing both characters and codes on the paper, this method prints only the characters on the front of the paper and, at the same time, prints a bar code on the back of the paper. The machine capable of doing this is complicated. The size of the character on a typeface can be bigger than in the variation above, and the bar code can be larger to make the scanning of the code easier and more precise. As the discussion of the four variations indicates, the Japanese type- writer offers the advantage of being able to monitor input at the time of keying. Since the Japanese typewriter has been in use for a long time in offices where a quantity of official documents are dealt with, and since ordinary Japanese typists can use this system without any additional training, the use of equipment similar in operation was considered advantageous . However, it should be noted that Japanese typewriters have never become as prevalent as English typewriters, and the de- mand for computers comes from more areas than just those where Japanese typewriters are used . For this reason, the use of Japanese typewriters is not as advantageous as its proponents claim . An obvious 12 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 disadvantage is its slow speed of operation-thirty to fifty characters per minute on the average. Another disadvantage is that the number of characters on the keyboard is limited to about 3,000. Tablet Style This method, also known as pen-touch method, was recently developed . Each character has a key, and characters are arranged in a certain order. The location of the characters on a matrix sheet determines the two-byte binary code, which consists of a two-digit numerical abscissa and two- digit numerical ordinate . The operator touches the key with a pen- shaped detector and the code for the character is punched on the paper tape. The operation is one-handed, requiring only a light touch of the key by a detector. Keys are on one flat keyboard and are color-coded by sections to make it easier for the operator to locate them. Light touch operation reduces operator fatigue. This method does not require spe- cial training. However, the number of Kanji on a keyboard of reasonable size is limited to approximately 3,500. By shifting, twice as many char- acters can be handled, though all characters are not indicated on the keyboard. Speed of input is not very high-thirty to seventy characters per minute. This system, already used in many libraries, is becoming increasingly popular because of its easy operation. There are three differ- ent technologies used: electromagnetic, electrostatic, and photoelectric. There are no differences in actual input operation for those electronical- ly different methods. Component Pattern Input Although not a full keyboard method, component pattern input is closely related to these methods. The idea behind this approach is that most Kanji are composed of one or more basic component units, two or more of which can be put together into one Kanji according to one predetermined pattern out of forty general patterns. The inputting device has keys for those forty patterns along with keys for individual components on a special key- board. To compose a Kanji, a key for an appropriate pattern is selected and typed, and components are chosen to fill each individually num- bered block of the selected pattern, following the established order as shown below. 7 Each pattern has a code, and so does each component . When a key is typed, the code is punched on a paper tape as shown in figure 2. There are cases where a Kanji with two components can be a component of another Kanji, as shown in the first and second examples in figure 2. A Kanji is constructed by punching at least three codes : one for a pattern and at least two for components. Then, a Kanji dictionary consisting of several thousand master-code combinations (see figure 3) is stored in a magnetic drum, and the several codes to compose a Kanji punched on paper or cassette tapes are converted through this diction- japanese Character lnput!MORITA 13 K&njl nol on Pattern a Componenl Parlo (radiula) lhe Keyboard• ;1§ *-D! [E] . f§ ---- . .J 2804 38D 2723 --·-- C od eo ~t§ !-.~f~~ --:~ . : .... .: . ... ! 00 "J * EJ 2806 3813 1638 1938 -- Codu t-t ;f:t:~ lm * ~t ~ ~ ~' ,,.~- ; u : __ ~~-; 4 2807 1638 1138 1138 1138 --- Cod eo ffe ~*,L; ~ [1@ * ;-1-1 y {! -l __ m1 ___.. 4 2807 1o3a 1817 142A 08Z4 ---- Cod eo Fig. 2 . Component Pattern Input. Z804 3813 Z7ZB 0000 0000 0000 8118 • ~-m Z806 3813 1638 193!1 0000 0000 B 118 -- ao Z607 1638 1138 1138 1138 0000 6117 -~ 1A Z807 1638 1817 l4ZA 08Z4 0000 9815 - .. t~ Fig. 3. Kanji Dictionary. ary to a two-byte binary code assigned to that particular Kanji. These are then handled as other Kanji with an individual code. Though this can be a stand-alone approach to inputting Kanji, the principle has been adopted by the National Diet Library to supplement the inputting of Kanji on the full keyboard Kanji teletypewriter. The National Diet Library uses this system when inputting Kanji that are not included in its keyboard. Instead of having a special separate keyboard, the Kanji teletypewriter of the National Diet Library inte- grates patterns and components as equivalents to other characters. Its keyboard includes forty patterns and approximately 140 components. This was the most elementary approach to computerize Kanji . Con- ceived in the early developmental stage of Kanji processing, it used one of the characteristics of Kanji, the composition from several components. In actual situations, this technique requires at least three key strokes for one Kanji and consumes time to locate the needed component on the 14 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 keyboard. Furthermore, it requires the complicated extra step of put- ting input codes through a Kanji dictionary to combine component codes into a code per Kanji. No library is currently using this system by itself. Kana Keyboard System The keyboard of a Japanese syllabary typewriter has adapted the con- ventional English typewriter keyboard and has standard roman alphabet keys that contain Katakana in shift (figure 4). Since the number of Kata- kana exceeds that of roman letters, the Katakana keys are extended to keys for numerals and punctuation marks. This means that this typewrit- er can be used either for Kana or roman letters by changing its mode. Fig. 4. Kana Typewriter Keyboard. Two-key Stroke Method This variation of the Kana keyboard system is referred to as the two- key stroke system, and uses Kana as codes not as letters . Roman letters can be used as codes, too. There are two different subvariations. They are: Location Correspondence. Keys are divided into two sections : one for right hand, and the other for left hand. If two keys are to be stroked, there will be four possible combinations of key strokes: (1) left hand twice, (2) left .and right, (3) right and left, and (4) right twice. The key- board is accompanied by a Kanji table in which characters are arranged in several blocks and in a certain order within each block. Each block, which contains twenty-six Kanji in a four-by-six arrangement, is made according to each combination of strokes: first block is left and left; second block is left, right, etc. Within each block, the ordinate consists of keys for the first stroke and the abscissa for the second . A Kanji which is at the intersection of the above indicates which keys are to be typed. When Kanji A is to be typed (see figure 5), since it is in block A indicating the stroke combination as left and left, the operator types A · and W by left hand. If Kanji B is to be typed, the operator types key A by left hand and key P by right. Each key has a byte code and a com- bination of two key strokes makes a composite, a two-byte binary code, for a Kanji. The bit may be changed by shifting, and different Kanji can Block A (For left, left) g j- .,;( '7-. (Q) (w) (E) (R) ~ ( 1) 0000 '! (Q) 00 00 4- (A) o• 00 ll) 0/0 0 0 (Z) ' ,. Kanji A japanese Character Input!MORITA 15 'IJ / (T) (Y) 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ~ (1) "' (Q) 4- (A) ''l (Z) Block B (For left, right) 7-.:::.. 7--e" o (U) (I) (0) (P) ($) (C) 000000 oooooo ooo.oo 0 0 0/0 0 0 ,. / / Kanji B Fig. 5. Kanji Table for Location Correspondence Method. be typed if another table is prepared for Kanji with different bits. Association Memory Method . In this method, each Kanji is given two Kana which usually represent a reading of that Kanji. The operator associates a Kanji to be input with two Kana assigned to that Kanji, and types them with two strokes using the Kana keys. Both of the key-stroke methods are economical as well as convenient because of the wide availability of Kana typewriters . Mainly for that reason, both of these systems . have been well accepted and are expected to grow further. Since this touch method does not require the operator to look for the character on the keyboard to input, it is the fastest to operate and is considered suitable for input in quantity. It is possible to input 60 to 120 characters per minute. The only drawback is that the operator must get acquainted with the arrangement of Kanji in the first variation, and must memorize all the associated Kana spelling for many Kanji in case of the second variation. In either case, the operator must be professionally trained. The Japan Information Center for Science and Technology, which in- dexes many scientific publications, employs a vendor who uses the loca- tion correspondence variation of this system for inputting information. Display Selection This also uses a Kana typewriter with a screen in front . When a word is typed in Kana, a group of Kanji with that sound are displayed on the screen. The operator chooses the right Kanji with a light pen-a slow but accurate operation. The operator does not have to be specially trained for this. Kana-Kanji Conversion In contrast to the conventional approach of full keyboard inputting, an entirely new method for inputting Kanji is gaining popularity as the 16 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 availability of sophisticated software increases. This uses a Kana type- writer keyboard to input Japanese in syllabary or romanized form, con- verting them to Kanji by software. There are two ways of conversion: one that converts word by word, and the other sentence by sentence. Stenotype The stenotype is a typewriterlike device. The operator must be able to take shorthand. When the stenotype is used, it punches words in paper tapes. Therefore, inputting is high speed. However, the operator must receive proper training. Optical Character Recognition This system, developing quickly and expected to gain wider use, can scan a maximum of 2,500 printed Kanji. 8 One variation connects a writ- ing tablet to a computer so that as the operator writes Kanji on the tab- let, the computer scans them in stroke order. This function of scanning by the stroke order is considered to be an advantage for processing some types of Japanese documents. The drawbacks are that the system is still very expensive, and the number of recognizable characters is few- er than 2,000. Voice Recognition This is an oral-visual system, in which the human voice is read by a computer. Obviously the most difficult to develop, this system is still in an experimental stage . However, a prototype has been demonstrated at various exhibitions, and the system apparently possesses great potential. Summary Pattern configuration and output devices for Japanese characters are basically the same as those for English. However, the pattern genera- tion of characters is mechanically more complicated than that of the ro- man alphabet, because Kanji has a more complicated structure than the roman alphabet and the number of components is greater. Each Kanji is represented by a two-byte binary code rather than one byte as in roman alphabet. Because of this, the efficiency of retrieval is low. Presently, hard copy and typesetting for printing of hard copy are the major output forms, and very little on-line retrieval of information with Kanji is in current operation. PROBLEMS PARTICULAR TO KANJI PROCESSING Among numerous problems in processing Kanji through computers, major ones are: (1) which Kanji are to be included; (2) how many charac- ters are to be handled; (3) what code should be assigned and how it should be arranged on the keyboard or table; and (4) how the Kanji not included on the keyboard should be treated. In the early stage of Kanji computer development, different institu- japanese Character Input/MORITA 17 tions handled the problems in ways best suited to their individual needs, according to the nature of the literature covered, the amount of literature processed, and the kinds of output needed . They ex- perimented with the then best available capabilities. As a result, the finished systems are all independent and mutually incompatible. Stan- dardization is obviously necessary for exchange of information among the systems. In order to set standards for selection of characters and assignment of codes, JIS (Japan Industrial Standard) C6226-1978 has been compiled by the Japan Association for Development of Information Processing. This is a table of characters designed for information exchange (a portion of which is shown in figure 6). It has a one-byte code as its abscissa and another as its ordinate. Characters are arranged so that the intersection of abscissa and ordinate determines a Kanji whose code consists of four numerals, two from the abscissa and two from the ordinate. Included in the table are Kana in both styles, Roman, Greek, and Cyrillic alphabets in upper and lower cases, diacritical marks, numerals, and punctuation marks, as follows: 1. Special characters 108 2. Numerals (Arabic) 10 3. Roman alphabets 52 4. Hiragana 83 5. Katakana 86 6. Greek alphabets 48 7. Cyrillic alphabets 66 8 . Kanji 6,349 Total 6~8029 In the first section of the table , numerals, alphabets., Kana, and special characters are grouped . In the second section, the total of 2, 965 fre- quently used Kanji are arranged as the first priority group, and an addi- tional 3,384 Kanji are selected as the second group 10 in the bottom half of the table. Kanji are printed in the preferred style for printing type- face. This table will resolve problems 1 to 3 mentioned above. Institu- tions that had arranged their own codes for Kanji, including the Nation- al Institute of Japanese Literature, are now automatically translating their own codes into JIS codes. In cases where needed Kanji are not included on the keyboard, han- dling varies. With the Japanese typewriter, because each Kanji is in- scribed on a typeface, only the Kanji on that typeface is printed when the type bar is stroked . Therefore , only Kanji that have typefaces can be input in this system, while some other handling is possible in other methods. While the number of characters that can be accommodated on keyboards is limited to 2,000 to 3,500, depending on the type of equip- 18 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 b7 D D DID D D D D 0 D 0 0 0 b6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ~ bs D D D D D 1 D 0 D D D 0 D D 2 - "' b4 D D D D 0 D 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 bJ D 0 D 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1- b2 D 1 1 D 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 D 0 bt 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 D 1 ~ 1 "'1 1- ~ b4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 b; b6 b5 b3 b2 bt 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 :·s P: I Jl r-f II ' lll-i . . ? I ~ ~ lJ ' 0 Ji' 1 • _; ' 1... ---' . . 0 1 D 0 1 0 1 0 2 ~ OIC'JI6 A. \l v * ' T -- i t 0 1 0 0 0 J1 1 3 0 1 0 I Q i 1 0 0 4 ... ..J.. ~.--. ) ;{_ I .z H tJ' /J{ ~ "> d) "' 7 }; 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 7 711 1 '/ rf .:r.. .X. ;;t ;t IJ IJ~ ~ 0 1 0 j 0 I 1 II 0 6 A!Bir t.IEIZ H 8 r KIA M N 0 1 0 j 0 1 1 I 1 I 7 A 6 1 8 rln E E )K 3 l1 i1 K JI 0 1 0 1 0 olol 8 0 1 ol1,oloi11 9 0 1 0 1 0 II! 0 10 0 I 1 0 1 0 1 ' 11 J. 0 1 ol 1 1JO 0 12 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 13 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 14 0 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 15 - r- · :!fi P.§. k ~ n -~ "' 1 t-'· ttr; j ;~ ;_,~ -ftt !ffi 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 5.P.. ' t ,u a. ').{ * _[§ ~c...· 0 \1 ' 1 0 0 0 1 17 v- I,"'- I ~~ ,., .. P-[ :tJI r'-· ft•- ;J;J I rr: 1fN .!Jfl ·~.C.~ >j(; ,>_l;;, , .~. lit (j • 1 -'f- J•--;;1 0/ !_11/ 0 0 1 0 18 tftl B.fltitti l~j [£}:\ £ fJil ~~ n ~;_rj :& !iii] :l~ j . f--""· I . --:-- - ---·-·· ~q.- ~~ t~r-i~ 1 Jf( fE .r.t: ''"' iF~~ rm 0 1 1 0 OJ1/l 19 IS •r ·1,. i \. 1,- El ;r-.L; j,~ ~ 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 20 5''5 ;\ J ....:: I Ji "'~ fn - . f I )(IJ • 'f-l- J!t. ret Jf~ ;flj /fJJ •WJ .;LJ: p~ n I 1 1 n 1 I n I 1 ?l ~ .J~ I M I ~ \.;!cr J:.Jt ~rr ~ i.Gi ~;J 14!.~ H:l :=r Fig. 6 . Code of th e japanese Graphic Character Set for Information Interchange. Japanese Character Input!MORITA 19 ment, character generators have the capability of outputting more than the number of characters on the keyboard. Figure 7 shows their rela- tionship. Characters that are in the generator but not on the keyboard must be frequently processed, because the number of characters needed for most documents could reach 6,000 to 6,500. Using a shift key to en- ter another mode is a fairly common technique for inputting uncommon Kanji. The keyboard may not have a character but, if the character generator has it, the code for that character can be input by shifting. For example, if a character on the keyboard has a code 0117, a bit is changed so the code 8117 can be typed by shifting and typing that key. If the code 8117 is assigned to another Kanji not on the keyboard but indexed in the dictionary, it can be input. This applies for the Kanji teletypewriter, tablet style, and the two-key stroke variations of the Kana typewriter. In the Kanji teletypewriter system used by the National Diet Library, the keyboard accommodates 2,650 characters, while its character gener- I I I I ,---- ...... ' / -'-- Fig. 7. Kanji Creating Capability. Outside system capability System capability Character generator capability Keyboard characters ator has the capability for 5, 717. Operators in the National Diet Library input Kanji that are not on the keyboard by using component pattern input method. Or, if the operator finds the Kanji code in the specially compiled dictionary in which codes for Kanji are indexed, a shift key is used to change the bit, thus creating the code for Kanji not on the keyboard. Most other tablet systems use code dictionaries. In the two- key stroke variations of Kana typewriters, tables of Kanji for second and third or more shifts can be built, especially when the location associa- tion method is used. The handling of Kanji that are not in character generators is more dif- ficult. Only the digital character generator, the kind that uses either dot or stroke, can add characters fairly easily. In the flying spot system, characters can be added, but it must be done professionally with an additional character cylinder and is very costly. The National Diet Li- brary, which now uses flying spot, limits addition of Kanji to a mini- mum. Because its output is solely in printed book form, the National Diet Library inputs a fill character for Kanji not in the system . When 20 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 the phototypeset masters are made, the fill characters are replaced by typeset characters . The use of a fill character suffices only when the out- put is phototypeset, because there is a step to replace fill characters by typeface. However, as long as the data base includes many fill charac- ters on the magnetic tapes, the on-line retrieval of information or later utilization of tapes becomes unsatisfactory . The National Institute of Japanese Literature uses a dot matrix and prints by wiredot impact . If a Kanji is not in the character generator, the institute's staff composes the Kanji in an enlarged dot matrix and creates the capability for printing in the generator. If the Kanji made in such a way is used only once, the Kanji pattern is not stored in the character generator, so that the generator does not reach its full capacity quickly. The enlarged dot composite for Kanji created in the institute is filed and indexed for future use. Most other institutions simply do not use those less commonly used Kanji, and substitute Kana for them . In addition to the problems common to any character output, such as size and number of dots, the problem of the space for Kanji in relation to other characters and the choice of vertical or horizontal printing of Japanese sentences with Kanji must be considered. Kanji have many strokes and, as mentioned before, are expressed by two-byte codes . Each Kanji needs a double space when displayed on screens or printed. When a Kanji is used with numerals or Kana, the Kanji part looks fine but the numerical part has too much space be- tween each numeral. Therefore, input of Kanji is done in a Kanji mode and input of Kana, roman alphabets, and numerals are in a Kana- numerical mode. In this way a multidigit figure looks like one whole figure rather than a line of one-digit figures . Some formal documents must be printed in the traditional vertical arrangement. To cope with this situation, some line printers have the capability to precompose a vertical page before printing it. There are multicolor CRTs · on the market that can be used for the retrieval of library-related information, e. g., main entry in red, series statement in yellow. One last problem that must be considered is that most of these sys- tems require trained operators, or else the operation is very slow. The information is edited and compiled by the editors and prepared for in- put in the form of worksheets. So are the revisions. At various stages of revising the text, the information must be printed, given to the editors, and revised . Further developments in simplifying input and revising texts for efficient flow are to be expected. APPLICATION OF KANJI SYSTEMS Processing of vernacular-language materials in their own writing sys- tems is considered vital for research libraries in this country. In adopt- japanese Character Input/MORITA 21 ing the Kanji systems in such libraries, there are three major factors that must be considered: the objectives and needs of the institution, the cost, and the personnel. First, the institution must know what it must accomplish by means of such a system. The needs may not be the same for all institutions . Is the system for retrieving catalog information, or for inputting catalog and other information? Is it for internal processing or patron use? Is it for a large bibliographic utility to distribute information to its subscribers, or for an individual institution to process its own information? Could the system be shared by the department of Asian studies in any way? The character set needs· of the institution are a major factor in choosing the system . Since input and output devices are different, i.e., one cannot input Kanji on a CRT and retrieve Kanji from the same CRT, the institution must consider how much it will need to input, or whether it can rely on available data bases. Some institutions may not need any input equip- ment if they utilize available data bases . If Japan MARC and other tapes are made accessible by a large bibliographic utility in this country, the institutions will be able to obtain bibliographic information in Kanji on the screen. If they want only catalog cards or a COM catalog, they will not need any equipment except the terminals supported by the utility. If they want to input, they must consider what form or forms of output they need, how to create the characters not included in the system, in addition to which system to choose. Second, cost is an important factor. Is the expense jl.lstified in terms of the other needs of the library? What can be accomplished per dollar spent? The Kanji systems are still expensive, though the cost will even- tually be reduced. How much can be spent and how much continuing support can be expected are factors that modify system expectations. The budget must include not only the one-time hardware cost , but also the software, maintenance, and personnel. Third, the availability of personnel will affect the choice of system. What degree of language expertise does the system require in each stage of operation, such as inputting, maintenance , and programming? Does it need terminal operators trained in those languages? What other personnel does the system need as far as language-related qualification is concerned? Apart from the three major factors discussed above, there are some technical aspects that must be adjusted to library situations in this coun- try. Since Japanese, Chinese, and Korean use the same Chinese ideo- graphs to different degrees and in different ways, libraries considering automated processing of these language materials are probably expected to handle all three languages by the same system, to say nothing about the other non-roman scripts. Problems will arise in selecting characters for inclusion in the system. As pointed out earlier with regard to 22 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Japanese character processing, there are simply too many characters for the present capacity of any computer. If Korean and Chinese languages are to be handled by the same computer, this problem multiplies. The Korean alphabet, called Hangul, would have to be included. Chinese has more characters than Japanese. Worse yet is the fact that some Kan- ji are simplified in different ways in Japan and China, so that they are neither recognizable nor interchangeable between them . It will be an enormous task to accommodate both in the same system. Another problem is the arrangement and indexing of Kanji. If a full keyboard, a Japanese typewriter keyboard, or two-key stroke system, especially its location association method by Kana typewriter, is consid- ered for Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, the arrangement of the char- acters must be indexed and accessed for the three languages, in addition to the multiple readings found in Japanese. For example, Kanji on the Japanese keyboard are usually arranged by the initial sound of the Japanese reading of the Kanji . This arrangement will be useless for Chinese and Korean, because Japanese readings are not the same as Chinese or Korean readings. The arrangement of Kanji on the keyboards must be on some new principle common to these languages. Even if the Kana-Kanji conversion is used, and roman alphabet-Kanji conversion software is adopted, software to handle those three languages must be developed. Such software would have to be highly sophisti- cated. The presence of many homonyms in Chinese will cause a great problem to the extent that the system relies on transliterated or roman- ized forms of the language . Recognition of the many identical spellings in different language contexts will be extremely difficult. The above discussion is based on what is currently available in Japan . The combination of existing inputting, generating, and outputting equip- ment developed by Japanese technology opens up various possibilities for us to build effective systems in this country . ACKNOWLEDGMENT This article is based on a study conducted in Japan as a Japan Foundation professional fellow, and as a visiting re search fellow of the Center for Research on Information and Library Science, University of Tokyo. REFERENCES l. National Institute of Japanese Lite rature, Implementation of a Computer System and a Kanji Handling System at NI]L (Tokyo: NIJL, 1978), p.16. 2. Toshio Ishiwata, "Kanji Shori Kenkyu ni Motomerareru Mono " ("Requirements for Study on Kanji Processing"] Computopia no.9 (1977) , p.35 . 3. Gendai Yoga no Kiso Chishiki , 1980 {Basic Knowledge on Current Terms , 1980] (Tokyo: Jiyukokuminsha, 1980), p .999. 4. Figures are taken from the following two sources and compiled by the author: Hase- gawa, Jitsur6. "Kanji Shari Sochi" ("Kanji Processing Devices"] ]aha Shari [In - formation Processing] 19, no.4:353 (April 1978). japanese Character lnput!MORITA 23 Sugai, Kazur6. "Kanji Nyii.-shutsuryoku Sochi mo Kaihatsu Doko" ["A Trend in De- velopment of Kanji Input-Output Devices"] Business Communication 16, no. 7:41 (1979). 5. Used for the pattern input mentioned in the following component pattern input system . 6. National Diet Library, Library Automation in the National Diet Library (Tokyo: The Library, 1979), p.4 . 7. Ibid., p.7 . 8. Asia Business Consultants is using an optical character recognition system that can scan handwritten Kana and numerals in a small scale to input and process catalog information for a library collection. 9. "Joh6 Kokan no Tame no Kanji Fug6 no Hy6junka" ["S tandarization of Kanji Code for Information Interchange"] Kagaku Gijitsu Bunken Siibisu [Scientific and Techni- cal Documents Service] no.50 (1978), p.29. 10. Ibid., p .28. Ichiko Morita is assistant professor in library administration and head, Automated Pro- cessing Division, the Ohio State University Libraries . EDITOR'S NOTES Most ]OLA readers are aware of significant delays in publication in the last volume. Susan K. Martin, a former editor of ]OLA, and Richard D. John- son, a former editor of College & Research Libraries , gave freely of their time and energy to bring the journal back on schedule. Mary Madden, Judith Schmidt, and the members of the Editorial Board under the lead- ership of Charles Husbands all worked closely with Sue and Richard in this effort. This was a second time around for Sue, who undertook a similar task when she assumed the JOLA editorship in 1972. The ]OLA readership and this editor owe debts of gratitude to Sue, Richard, and all the others who helped. We do not foresee major changes in the format of the journal as estab- lished principally under the editorships of Kilgour and Martin. We look for increased strength in our Book Reviews section under the editorship of David Weisbrod. The addition of Tom Harnish as assistant editor for Video Technologies indicates our recognition of the growing importance of video- based information systems. We encourage reader suggestions. W e welcome brief communications of successes or failures that might be of interest to other readers. Letters to the editor about any of our feature articles or communications are solicited. 
3161	----	24 Cost Analysis of an Automated and Manual Cataloging and Book Processing System Joselyn DRUSCHEL: Washington State University , Pullman. A comparative cost analysis of an automated network system (WLN) and a local manual system of cataloging and book processing at Washington State University Libraries indicates that the automated system is about 20 percent less costly than the manual system. A per-unit cost approach was used in calculating the monthly cost of each system based on the average number of items processed per month under the automated sys- tem. The process and the results of the analysis are presented in a series of charts which detail the tasks, items processed, unit and total monthly costs of both the manual and automated systems. The higher costs of the manual system were essentially staff costs. The Technical Services Division (TSD) of Washington State Universi- ty Libraries (WSUL) has had considerable experience in the use of auto- mated techniques in selected areas of technical processing. An in-house automated acquisitions system was developed and implemented in 1967; that in-house system was eventually replaced by the acquisitions compo- nent of the Washington Library Network (WLN) . Since November 1977, the Technical Services Division of WSUL has used the WLN bib- liographic component for data verification (searching) and cataloging of materials. Although the Library has generally known its total automation ex- penditures, it has lacked a more precise breakdown of cost data on auto- mated processing. Moreover, the library has practically no cost data on manual processing. This report deals only with the costs of using the WLN bibliographic system, not the WLN acquisitions component. An analysis was made of the total costs of both the automated and manual book processing systems. The objectives in undertaking the cost analysis were threefold: (1) to identify the essentially unknown costs of manual processing; (2) to provide more exact cost data on automated processing; and (3) to develop comparable data on the costs of each system . Manuscript received October 1980; accepted December 1980. Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 25 METHODOLOGY The methodology used in this cost analysis was a per-unit cost ap- proach. First, each process or task in which the staff were engaged in cataloging and book processing was identified. Second, the per-unit cost-e.g., staff, data base, materials-of each process was calculated. Finally, monthly costs were determined by multiplying the average number of items processed per month by the unit cost per task. The cost analysis charts (tables l(a)-l(e)-manual system; tables 2(a)-2(d)-automated system), which detail the tasks, items processed, and unit and total costs form the body of· the analysis. Equipment costs-purchase, lease, maintenance-were calculated separately, and are included in the summary cost data for each system (table 3). IDENTIFICATION OF PROCESSES The staff of the TSD Cataloging and Book Processing Unit perform the following functions: bibliographic verification, bibliographic record production, bibliographic record maintenance, the marking of materials, binding preparation and receipt (for most of the library system), and the preparation of book cards. Table I( a). Cost Analysis: Manual Cataloging and Book Processing System Staff Costs Per Process Item Bibliographic Searching IDC Microfiche Search (LC and CIP Copy) LT I (.084/min @ 3 min/item) $ .252 LT II (.094/min@ 3 min/item) .282 LT III (.117/min @ 3 min/item) .351 Subscription costs-IDC ($10,000/yr -'- 47,664 searches/yr = . 21/search) Microfiche Search Subtotal National Union Catalog, etc., Search LT I (.084/min@ 15 min/item) $1.26 LT II (.094/min @ 15 min/item) 1.41 LT III (.117/min@ 20 min/item) 2.34 LT III (.117/min@ 40 min/item) 4. 68 Subscriptions ($2, 940/yr -'- 15,300 searches/yr = .19/search) Manual Search Subtotal Bibliographic Searching Total Data Base Costs/ Item Subscription Costs/Item $ .21 .21 .21 $ .19 .19 .19 . 19 Materials Costs/Item Average Total Number Total Cost Processed Cost Per Per Per Item Month Month $ .462 2484 $1,148 244 557 .492 496 .561 992 $1.45 1.60 2.53 4.87 3972 $1,949 588 $ 853 169 270 418 1,058 100 487 1275 $2,668 5247 $4,617 26 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table l(b). Cost Analysis: Manual Cataloging and Book Processing System Ave rage Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Bibliographic Record Production-Processing and Products l. Cataloging with LC Microfiche Copy Type abbreviated fanfold (4-part 3x5 slips) Timeslip (.03/min@ min/item X 72) $ .803 $.02/ fanfold LT I (.084/min @ 10 min/item X 985) Check Series LT I (.084/min@ 2 min/item) .168 Revise fanfold Supervisor I (.126/min @ 3 min/item) .38 Check fanfold against book; separate fanfold LT II (.094/min@ 2 min/item x 540) .22 Supervisor I (.126/min @ 2 min/item x 517) Arrange and file shelflist copy of fanfold Timeslip (. 03/min @ 1.5 min/slip) .045 Revise shelflist filing of fanfold slips LT II (.094/min @ 1 min/slip) .094 Verify Authorities ( Subject and name ) (1057x4 ) Timeslip (.03/min@ 4 min/item) .12 Type multilith master for card production LT I (. 084/min @ 6 min/master) .504 .061 master Revise typed multilith master LT I (.084/min@ 3 min/master) .252 Run multilith masters Multilith Operator (.13/min@ 3.5 min/set) .455 (Cost of cards see below) Microfiche Copy Cataloging Subtotal $ 3.04 $ 081 $3.12 1057 $3,298 item 2. Cataloging with Modified Copy (NUC/ LC) Type fanfolds (4-part 3x5 slips ) LT I (.084/min@ 15 min/item) $ 1.26 $.021 fanfold Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 27 Table l(b) ( cont.) Check Series LT I (.084/min@ 2 min/item) .168 Revise fanfold Supervisor I (.126/min @ 5 min/item) .63 Review fanfold cataloging Librarian (.155/min @ 5 min/item) .775 Separate fan folds LT II (.094/min @ 30 sec/item) .047 . Arrange and file sheljlist copy of fanfold Timeslip (.03/min@ 1.5 min/slip) .045 Revise filing of shelflist copy LT II (.094/min @ l min/slip) .094 Verify authorities (984 x 4) Timeslip (.03/min@ 4 min/item) .12 Type multilith master for card production LT I (.084/min @ 6 min/master) .504 .06/ master Revise typed multilith master LT I (.084/min @ 3 min/master) .252 Run multilith masters Multilith Operator (.13/min @ 3. 5 min/set) .455 (Cost of oards see below) Modified Copy Cataloging Subtotal $ 4.35 $.08/ $4.43 984 $4,359 item 3. Original Cataloging Catalog material Librarian (. 155/min @ 60 min/item x 200) $ 9.60 Librarian (.205/min @ 60 min/item x 22) Revise cataloging Librarian (.205/min @ 5 min/item) 1.03 Type fan folds ( 4-part 3x5 slips) LT I (.084/min@ 15 min/item) 1.26 $.02/ fanfold Check Series LT I (.084/min@ 2 min/item .168 Revise fanfold Supervisor I (.126/min @ 5 min/item) .63 Separate fan folds LT II (.094/min @ 30 sec/item) .047 Arrange and file sheljlist copy of fanfold Timeslip (.03/min @ 1.5 min/item) .045 Revise filing of sheljlist copy LT II (.094/min @ 1 min/slip) .094 28 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table I(b) (c ont .) Staff Costs Per Process Item 4. Type multilith master for card production LT I (.084/min @ 6 min/master) .504 Revise typed master LT I (.084/min@ 3 min/master) .252 Run multilith master Multilith Operator (.13/min @ 3.5 min/set) .455 Original Cataloging Subtotal $14.085 Catalog Cards (7 cards/set @ .055/card) Subtotal Cataloging Total Miscellaneous Bibliographic Record Production Assign class numbers to theses Supervisor I (. 126/min @ 2 min/item) Assign subject headings for audio visual materials Librarian (.155/min @ 2 min/set) Type multilith masters for catalog cards for A-V materials LT I (.084/min @ 6 min/master) Revise multilith masters LT I (.084/min @ 3 min /master) Run multilith masters Multilith Operator (.13/min@ 3.5 min/set) (20 cards) Resolve problems; general supervision Supervisor I (7.56/hr x 52 hrs/mo) Librarian (9.32/hr @ 22 hrs/mo) Miscellaneous Bibliographic Record Production Subtotal Bibliographic Record Production Total $ .252 .31 .504 .252 .455 Data Base Costs/ Item Subscription Costs/Item Materials Costs/Item .06/ master (Cost of cards see below) Total Cost Per Item Average Number Total Processed Cost Per Per Month Month $. 081 $14.165 222 $ 3,145 item $.385/ set $.06/ master 1.10/ set $ .252 .31 .564 .252 1.555 4297 $ 1,6.54 2263 $12,456 30 30 30 30 30 8 9 17 8 47 393 205 $ 687 $13,143 Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 29 Table I( c). Cost Analysis: Manual Cataloging and Book Processing System Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Mate rials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/ Item C osts/ltem I tern Month Month Bibliographic Record Maintenance Count sets of cards and match against cataloging copy LT I (.084/min @ 2 sets/min) $ .042 $ .042 4297 $ 180 Type subject and added entries on card sets Timeslip (.03/min @ 3 min/set) .09 .09 4297 387 Revise card sets LT II (.094/min @ 3 min/set) .282 .282 2520 711 LT III (.117/min@ 3 min/set) .351 .35 1 1803 633 Type subject and name authority slips Timeslip (.03/min @ 1 min/slip) .03 .03 4526 136 File subject and name authority slips Timeslip (.03/min @: 1 min/slip) .03 .03 4526 136 Separate card sets LT I (.084/min@ 2 sets/min) .042 .042 4297 180 File subject catalog cards (2263x2) LT II (.094/m in @ 1 min/card ) .094 .094 4526 425 File AIT catalog cards (2263 x3 ) LT I (.084/min @ 1 min/card) .084 .084 6789 570 File shelflist cards (2) Timeslip (.03/min @ 1 min/card ) .03 .03 4526 136 Retoise subject card filing LT III (.117/min@ 1 min/card ) .117 .117 .4526 530 Retoise AIT card filing LT III (.117/min@ 1 min/card) .117 .117 6789 794 Revise sheljlist filing (2) LT II (.094/min @ 1 min/card ) .094 .094 2340 220 Supervisor I (.126/min @ 1 min/card ) .126 .126 2186 275 Alphabetize and date works/ips LT I (.084/min @ 4 slips/min) .021 .021 2263 48 Pull card sets (withdrawals and card corrections Timeslip (.03/min @ lO min/set) .30 .30 100 30 Revise card pulling ( 100 sets/month) Supervisor I (.126/min @ 2 min/set) .252 .252 100 25 Correct card sets (50 sets/month ) LT II (.094/min@ 5 min/set) .465 .465 50 23 Revise card corrections Supervisor I (.126/min @ 2 min/set) .252 .252 50 13 Process added copies (Record accession # on shelflist; record call # in book; type slip for marking) LT II (.094/min @ 15 min/item) 1.41 1.41 50 71 30 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table 1( c) (cont.) Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Process Item Locate materials in process LT II (.094/min @ 15 min/item) $1.41 Prepare books for binding decision Supervisor I (. 126/min @ 1 min/item) .126 General Supervision Librarian ($12.34/hr @ 65 hours/month) Bibliographic Record Maintenance Total Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item $1.41 . 126 Table I( d ) . Cost Analysis: Manual Cataloging and Book Processing System Staff Data Total Costs Base Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Marking Sort materials for processing (marking) OA II-Typing (.105/min@ 30 sec/item) $ .053 $ .053 Place materials on table OA 11-Typing (.105/min@ 20 items/min) .005 .005 Process materials (type and paste labels, pockets, & date due slips; type book cards) Timeslip (.03/min@ 20 min/item) .60 $.029/ .629 label ; pocket ; date due slip; book card Process materials with tab book cards (type and paste labels, pockets, & date due slips) Timeslip (.03/min @ 16 min/item) .48 .032/ .512 OA II-Typing (.105/min@ 16 min/item) 1.68 label; 1.712 pocket; date due slip; book card Processed Cost Per Per Month Month 50 $ 71 50 6 802 $6,402 Average Number Total Processed Cost Per Per Month Month 2263 $ 120 2263 ll 400 252 1555 796 308 527 Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 31 Table 1( d) (cont.) Keypunch bookcards LT I (.084/min @ 2.4 min/card) .201 Verify book cards LT III (.117/min@ 1.6 min/card) .187 Revise Processing LT I (.084/min @ 2 min/item) .168 LT III (. 117/min@ 2 min/item) .234 Sort materials for delivery OA II-Typing (.105/min@ 1.5 items/min) .07 Unpack bindery materials, pull slips LT I (.084/min @ 1 min/item) .084 Verify bindery slips; check price LT III (.117/min@ 2 min/item) General supervision, bindery account & statistical data LT III (7.04/hr@ 15 hrs/mo) Supervisor II (8.97/hr @ 128 hrs/mo) Librarian (12.34/hr @ 15 hrs/mo) Marking Total Cataloging and Book Processing Total .234 Table I( e). Total Monthly Costs (Summary ) Staff Costs Per Month $25,775 Data Base Costs/Month Subscription Costs Per Month $1,076 .201 1863 374 .187 1863 348 .168 1500 252 .234 763 179 .07 2263 158 .084 550 46 .234 550 129 106 1,148 185 $ 4,631 $28,793 Material Costs Per Month Total Cost Per Month $1,942 $28,793 Table 2(a). Cost Analysis: Automated Cataloging and Book Processing System Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Bibliographic Searching l. WLN Data Base Search Items searched, no Inquiry charges LT II (.094/min @ 1 min/item) Terminal use (4 @ .06) $ .094 $ .24 $ .334 2443 $ 816 Terminal use (3@ .06) .094 .18 .274 100 27 32 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table 2( a) (cont.) Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Items searched, Inquiry charges assessed LT II (.094/min@ 1 min/item) Inquiry (3 @ .069) .094 .39 .484 1429 692 Terminal use (3@ .06) Data Base Search Subtotal 3972 $1,535 2. National Union Catalog, etc. Search (Manual) LT II (.094/min @ 10 min/item ) .94 .31 1.25 508 635 Subscriptions ($1,860/yr + 6096 searches/yr) Manual Search Subtotal 508 $ 635 Bibliographic Searching Total 4480 $2, 170 Table 2(b ). Cost Analysis: Automated Cataloging and Book Processing System Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Bibliographic Record Production- Processing and Products l. Materials Cataloged Via WLN a. Cataloging with WLN Data base copy Attach holdings; order cards LT II (.094/min @ 6 min/item) $ .564 Data Base Costs Inquiry costs (no charge) Cost per record use $1.60 Cost per request .15 Shelllist cards (4 @ .055) .22 COM (cost pe r record ) .43 Terminal use (1 @ .06/use) .06 ------ WLN Data Base Copy Subtotal $ .564 $2.46 $3.024 1376 $4,161 b. Cataloging with CIP Copy Upgrade data base copy LT II (. 094/m in @ 11 min/item) $1.034 Revise upgraded copy Librarian (.155/min @ 5 min/item) .775 Attach holdings order cards LT II (.094/min @ 6 min/item ) .564 Table 2(b) (cont.) Data Base Costs Cost per record use Cost per request Shelflist cards (4 @ .055) COM (cost per record) Terminal use (1 @ .06/use) $1.60 .15 .22 .43 .06 CIP Copy Subtotal $2.373 $2.46 c. Cataloging with Modified Copy (e.g., NUC/LC copy) Prepare cataloging worksheets LT II (.094/min @ 15 min/item) $1.41 Revise cataloging worksheets LT II (.094/min @ 10 min/item) . 94 MARC TAG Worksheets Supervisor II (.15/min @ 15 min/item) 2.25 Revise MARC tagged worksheets Librarian (.155/min @ 8 min/item) 1.24 Input cataloging data; attach holdings; order cards Timeslip (.03/min @ 25 min/item) . 75 Revise data input and verify authorities Librarian (. 155/min @ lO min/item) 1.55 Data base costs Cost of input per record Cost of Authority checks (7 checks @ .069/entry) Shelflist cards (4 @ .055) COM (cost per record) Terminal use (7 @ .06/use) $ .14 .48 .22 .43 .42 Modified Copy Subtotal $8.14 $1.69 d. Original Cataloging Catalog and MARC Tag material Librarian (.155/min @ 60 min/item) $ 9.30 Revise Cataloging and MARC tagging Librarian (.205/min @ 5 min/item) 1.03 Input Cataloging data; attach holdings; order cards LT II (.094/mi n @ 25 min x 104) Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 33 $4.833 153 $ 739 $9.83 95 $ 934 34 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table 2(b ) (cont.) Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Timeslip (.03/min @ 25 min X 118) 1.49 Revise input; verify authorities Librarian (.155/min @ 10 min/item) 1.55 Data base costs Cost of input per record $ .14 Cost of authority checks (7 checks @ .069/entry) .48 Shelflist cards (4 @ .055) .22 COM (cost per record) .43 Terminal use (7 @ .06/use) .42 ----- Subtotal $13.37 $1.69 $15.06 222 $ 3,343 WLN Cataloging Total 1846 $ 9,177 2. Materials Cataloged via Other Methods a. Microform Cataloging from Publisher's Copy Review and revise copy; complete processing; revise card sets Librarian (.25/min@ 2. 7 min/item) $ .675 Xerox card sets (1 0 cards/set) Timeslip (.03/min @ 1 min/title) .03 $.551 set Microform Subtotal $ .705 $.551 $1.255 407 $ 511 set b. Cataloging Music Scores Catalog scores; prepare for card production; revise card sets Librarian (.25/min @ 28 min/item) 7.00 Xerox card sets (14 cards/se t) Timeslip (.03/min@ 2 min/title) .06 .77/ set Music Score Subtotal $ 7.06 $. 77/ $7.83 10 $ 78 set Non-WLN Cataloging Total 417 $ 589 Cataloging Total 2263 $9,766 Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 35 Table 2(b ) (cont .) 3. Miscellaneous Costs Assign class numbers to theses Supervisor II (.15/m in @ 2 min/item) $ .30 $ .30 30 $ 9 Retrieve "RUSH" monographs Supervisor II (. 15/min @ 15 min/item) 2.25 2. 25 75 169 Correct/update WLN data base information LT II (.094/min @ 10 min/item) Terminal use (1 @ .06/use ) .94 $.06 1.00 360 360 Assign Subject Headings for Audio Visual Materials Librarian (.155/min @ 2 min/set) .31 .31 30 9 File Subject Authority Slips for Microform Mat erials Librarian (.155/min @ 1.15 min/slip) .18 .18 55 10 Resolve Problems; General Supervision LT II (5 .68/hr x 13 hrs/mo) 74 Supervisor II (8. 97 hrs x 89 hrs/mo) 798 Librarian ($12. 34 hr x 52 hrs/mo) 642 Miscellaneous Costs Subtot~l $ 2,071 Bibliographic Record Production Total $11 ,837 Table 2(c). Cost Analysis: Automated Cataloging and Book Processing System Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Bibliographic Record Maintenance- TS D Collate card sets from WLN (7384 cards) LT I (. 083/min @ 30 sec/card) $ .042 $ .042 7384 $ 310 Insert card sets in books LT II (.094/min @ 1.6 min/item) Process New Books (1846 ) 1.51 . 151 1846 279 Review cards against books; add accession number and stamp date on shelflist card; carrect series (when needed); separate card sets and distribute Timeslip (.03/min @ 10 min/item) .30 .30 145 44 38 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table 2( c) (cont.) Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs/ Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month LT I (.083/ min @ 10 min/item) $.83 $ .83 1701 $1 ,412 Revise Book Processing (1846) LT III (.117/min@ 1 min/item) .117 .117 1846 216 File Central and Holland Sheljlist Timeslip (.03/min @ 1 min/card) .03 .03 4526 136 Revise Central and Holland Sheljlist LT I (.083/min @ 30 sec/card) .042 .042 4526 190 Separate and Alphabetize Microform Card Sets Timeslip (.03/min @ 1 min/set) .03 .03 2000 60 File Author/Title/Subject Microform Cards in General Catalog Timeslip (.03/min@ 1 min/card) .03 .03 2000 60 Revise Filing General Catalog LT III (.117/min@ 1 min/card) .117 .117 2000 234 Pull Card Sets (withdrawals and card corrections--40 setslmo) Timeslip (.03/min@ 10 min/set) .30 .30 20 6 LT I (.083/min @ 6 min/set) .498 .498 20 10 Revise Card Pulling LT III (.117/min@ 2 min/set) .234 .234 40 10 Correct Card Sets (20 sets/mo) LT I (.083/min@ 6 min/set) .498 .498 20 10 Revise Card Corrections LT III (.117/min@ 2 min/set) .234 .234 20 5 Process Added Copies (Record Accession number on shelflist; record call number in book; type slip for marking) LT I (.083/min @ 15 min/item ) 1.25 1.25 50 63 Locate Materials in Process LT I (.083/min@ 15 min/item) 1.25 1.25 33 41 Prepare Books for Bindery Decision LT III (.117/min @ 1 min/item) .117 .117 50 6 Supervise Staff and Timeslip LT III (7.04/hr @ 68 hrs/mo) 479 Librarian (12.34/hr@ 50.5 hrs/mo ) 623 Bibliographical Record Maintenance Total $4,194 Cost Analysis!DRUSCHEL 39 Table 2(d). Cost Analysis: Automated Cataloging and Book Processing System Average Staff Data Total Number Total Costs Base Cost Processed Cost Per Costs! Subscription Materials Per Per Per Process Item Item Costs/Item Costs/Item Item Month Month Marking Sort Materials for Processing ( Marking ) OA II-Typing (. 105/ min@ 30 sec/item) $ .053 $ .053 2263 $ 120 Place Materials on Table OA II- Typing (.105/min@ 20 items/min) .005 .005 2263 11 Process Materials (type and paste labels, pockets and date due slips; type book cards ) Timeslip (.03/min @ 16 min/item) .60 $.029/ .629 400 252 date due slip; label pocket ; Process Materials with Tab book card Book Cards (type and paste labels, pockets and date due slips) Timeslip (.03/min @ 16 min/item) .48 .032/ .512 1555 796 OA II-Typing (. 105/min @ 16 min/item) 1.68 date due 1.712 308 527 slip ; label; pocket ; book card Keypunch Bookcards LT I (.083/min @ 2.4 min/card) .20 .20 1863 373 Verify Book Cards LT III (. 117/min @ 1.6 min/card) . 187 .187 1863 348 Revise Processing LT I (.083/min @ 2 min/item) .166 .166 1500 249 LT III (.117/min@ 2 min/item) .234 .234 763 179 Sort Materials for Delivery OA II-Typing (.105/min@ 1.5 items/min ) .07 .07 2263 158 Unpack Bindery Materials; Pull slips LT I (.083/min @ 1 item/min) .083 .083 550 46 Verify Bindery Slips and Check Price LT III (. 117/min @ 2 min/item) .234 .234 550 129 General Supervision; Bindery Accounts and Statistical Data LT III (7.04/hr @ 36 hrs/mo) 253 Supervisor II (8.97/hr@ 128 hrs/mo) 1,148 Marking Total $ 4,589 Cataloging and Book Processing Total $22,790 40 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/ 1 March 1981 Table 2(e ) . Total Monthly Costs ( Summary ) Staff Costs Per Month $16,849 Data Base Costs/Month $5,480 Subscription Costs Per Month $157 Materials Costs Per Month $304 Total Cost Per Month $22 ,790 Table 3. Cataloging and Book Processing System: Summary Comparison Costs Manual System Category Costs/Month Staff Data Base Subscriptions Materials Equipment Total $25,775 1,076 1,942 462 $29 ,255/month Cost Comparison-Difference Manual $29,255/ month Automated $23,680/month Automated System Category Costs/Month Staff Data Base Subscriptions Materials Equipment Total $16,849 5 ,480 157 304 890 $23, 680/month $ 5,575/month/$66,900/year Since 1978 this unit, as well as all units in the Technical Services Division, have periodically analyzed unit activities, and recorded the data collected on Work Assignment/Staffing profile sheets (see table 4 for sample profile sheet). The primary purpose of the profiles was to de- velop a detailed account of work distribution throughout TSD in order to determine the staffing requirements necessary for each unit to main- tain an even workflow. In the cost analysis , the Cataloging and Book Processing (CBP) profile was used to identify each unit process, as well as to provide the basic data on the number and level of staff and the time required to perform each process . Additionally, for the automated system, the CBP profile sheets, together with WLN invoices (see figure · 1 for sample invoice) and WLN monthly activity reports (see figure 2 for sample activity report) were used to determine the average number of items processed per month . For example, since about 85 percent of the cataloging done in TSD is via WLN, it was possible to derive exact figures from WLN invoices for the average number of items cataloged per month. The WLN invoices also differentiated between data-base copy cataloging and original data entry . The CBP profile sheets were used to determine average number of non-WLN items cataloged. Using a combination of WLN invoice and profile data, a chart was constructed of the average number of items searched and cataloged per month under the automated system (see table 5) . In order to make costs comparable, an assumption was made that the same average number of items was searched and cataloged under the previous manual system and a similar chart was made for it (see table 6). In reality , the available staff under the manual system could not process the same amount of material per month. Cost Analysis/DRUSCHE L 41 Table 4 . Technical Services Division Work Assignment/Staffing Profile: November 1978 Unit: Cataloging and Book Processing. Subunit: LC Copy Editing . Tasks or Processes Average Number of Items Received for Processing Order card sets, check item { 2100/mo(monos ) agamst data base, enter holdings 63/mo(serials) Prepare worksheets 210/mo Prepare TS D series cards 126/mo Do series check 350/mo Average Time Per Item 6 min/item 6 min/item 10 min/item 2 min/item 2 min/item Update CIP records 134/mo 10 min/item . . . { 210/mo(mono) 25 min/item Input ongmal catalogmg data 211 ( · 1 ) 25 · /'t · mo sena s · mm 1 em Process "RUSH" monographs 168/mo 15 min/item Process corrections- 360/mo 10 min/item data base information Receive materials- sort series 2100/mo 3 items/min Resolve problems; NA NA locate materials Prepare and sort series 168/mo 8 min/item decisions materials Sort Mail NA NA STAFF COSTS Total Staff Hours Average Staff Available Number Hours at of Items Needed Level of Designated Processed Per Task Staff Level 10/hr {LTI 124.1 210/mo LT II 85 .9 10/hr 6.3/mo LT III 6.3 6/hr {LTI 17.5 35/mo LT II 17.5 30/hr 4.2/mo LT I 4.2 30/hr 11. 7/mo LT I 22.3 6/hr 22.3/mo LT II 22.3 2.4/hr 87.5/mo LT II 87.5 2.4/hr 8.75/mo LT III 8.75 4/hr 42/mo LT II 42 6/hr {LT II 30 60/mo Sup II 30 180/hr 11.6/mo LT II 11.6 NA {LT II 18.6 31.2/mo LT III 13 7.5/hr 22.4/mo LT III 22.4 NA 42/mo LT III 42 In the cost analysis of the automated system, the monthly wages for staff members of the Cataloging and Book Processing Un it were based on current monthly salaries (as of February 1980) plus estimated fringe benefits (2 1 percent). The total wages were added together for each level of staff and d ivided by the number of staff at that level to give an 0002 RBSBILL RPT B1041 AGENCY INVOICED - 0002 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVE RSITY HOLLAND LIBRARY PULLMAN WA 99164 ALLENE F SCHNAITTER SERVICES CHARGES COM CATLG PROCESSING W/S HOLD COM CATLG FICHE COPIES ONLINE-ATTACH SUM HOLD- COL 1 ONLINE-REQ CAT CARDS-CO L 1 ONLINE I NPUT OF BIB REC - COL 1 ONLI NE INQUIRY INTO DATABASE CATALOG CARDS WASHINGTON LIBRARY NETWORK CUSTOMER INVOICE **. * * ***** *** * ** *** ** ••• *** * *** * *INVOICED EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN* ACCOUNT NUMBER / SYSTEM * 4000 00 * RECURRING CHA~GES-BIB SYS T EM * ** *** ** * *** ** ** ** **** * ****** *** * QUANTITY UNITS 18 , 750 . 00 459.00 810.00 1,003.00 378.00 5 , 335 . 00 5,54 1. 00 @ 4¢ A TITLE @ 15¢ A COPY @$ 1. 60 RECRD @ 15¢ EACH @ 14¢ EACH @ 6.9¢ EACH @ 5.5¢ CARD TOTAL SERVICES CHARGES TOTAL CHARGES , F ig. 1. Washington Library Network Customer Invoice . BILLING DATE - 12/31/79 REF . INVOICE NO . - 000001311 PAGE NO . 0001 TOTAL CHARGES CREDITS NET CHARGES 750.00 68.85 1 , 296 . 00 150.45 52 . 92 368.11 304 . 75 2. 991.08 2. 991.08 750,00 68.85 1 , 296 . 00. 150.45 52 . 92 368.11 304 . 75 2,991.08 * 2,991. 08 * 42 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT TOR PERIOD 11/01/79 TO 11/30/79 LIBRARY TOTAL HOLDINGS HOLDINGS RECORDS CONTRIBUTION RCPS FROM ACQ ORDERS INQ UIRY AS OF 11/30/79 ADDED INPUT FACTOR 11/01 TO 11/28 CREATED TRANSACTIONS WaPaC 2, 0 59 38 . 0% 311 WaP1P 41,549 416 385 92.5% 588 1,472 6,607 WaPoH 33,801 566 89 15 . 7X 616 5,243 WaPS (WSU LIBRARY) 44 866 1 630 197 12 . 0% 2013 1 674 1 9 013 Fig . 2 . Washington Library Network Monthly Activity Report (selective sample ). average monthly wage . This average was then divided by 174 (the stan- dard figure for university staff hours per month) to determine the aver- age hourly rate . To calculate staff costs per minute, it was necessary to carry the per-minute costs to the third decimal to approximate the total dollars expended for staffing (see table 7) . No other indirect costs , e. g., breaks, annual leave, or holidays, were included in staff wages ; how- ever, in order to determine the staff hours available to perform the functions being analyzed, nonproductive hours or staff hours devoted to other ass ignments had to be calculated and deducted. These calculations were made according to the following formula : hours/year hours/year 120 hours/year hours/year 88 hours/year 96 hours/year committee assignment (varied) unit meetings (varied) breaks (standard) annual leave (varied) holidays (standard) sick leave (standardized) based on hours earned per month hours/year-:- 12 = __ hours/month The primary reasons for variation in the nonproductive hours were length of service and whether a staff member was faculty or classified . Staff costs under the manual system were based on current monthly wages; however, the number and level of staff are esse ntially that which existed at the time the manual system was function ing (see table 8). Timeslip costs were not based on the minimum hourly wage, since a large number of hours were work/study during the period of the analy- sis . The total hours worked were divided by the total monthly expendi- ture to derive the per-minute timeslip costs. No effort was made to re- construct actual timeslip costs under the manual system, but the same per-minute timeslip costs were used in order to avoid unnecessary skewing of staff costs under the manual system. DATA BASE COSTS The per unit costs of using the WLN bibliographic system, both for performing processes and securing products, were based on the 1979-80 Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 43 Table 5 . Typ e and Average Numb e r of Items Searched/Cataloged Per Month on Automated System (Based on WLN Invoice Data and CBP Work Assignment/Staffing Profile ) Not NUC Searched (WLN )/Month Found/Month Found/Month Searched/Month Book Approvals 600 420 (70%) 180 Firm Orders 700 406 (58%) 294 Form Approvals 244 (60%) Regular 162 (40%) New Acquisitions 295 90 (30% ) 205 (Re-searched) Precats 1380 414 (30%) 966 Documents 125 25 (20%) 100 50 Se rials 100 lO (10%) 90 30 RUSH 75 32 (42%) 43 43 Gifts 100 5 (5% ) 95 95 Monographic Series 300 120 (40%) 180 Originals 222 0 (0%) 222 222 Reinstates 75 7 (10%) 68 68 3972 1529 (38 .5%) 2443 508 Type and Quantity of Bibliographic Data Found in Data Base 1376 LC Copy 153 CIP Copy (10%) 1529 Type and Quantity of Original Data Entry Monographs 192 Se rials 30 NUC/ LC 95 Total 317 Total Mate rials Cataloged WLN Data Base Copy 1529 WLN Original Data Entry 317 Non-WLN Microform 407 Non-WLN Music lO 2263 WLN schedule of charges. The average number of items processed was derived from the WLN invoices. The per-record cost of the COM cata- log was calculated by taking the total costs of producing the COM cata- log from July 1979 to February 1980 and dividing these costs by the number of titles contained in the COM catalog. Although the WLN schedule of charges stipulates a charge of . 069 cents per data-base in- quiry, three kinds of processes allow a given number of inquiries with- out charge. Since not all allowable inquiries are always used for these processes, there are generally a number of inquiries which can be made without charges being assessed. Between July 1979 and February 1980, the average number of monthly inquiries for which there was a charge was 11,800; the average number per month for which there was no charge assessed was 8,044. For this reason, in the cost analysis of the automated system (table 2(a)), there appears a category "Items Searched, No Inquiry Charges" under the Bibliographic Searching section. 44 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 Table 6. Type and Average Number of Items Searched/Cataloged Per Month on Manual System (Based on CBP Work Assignment/Staffing Profile) Not NUC Searched (IDC)/Month Found/Month Found/Month Searched/Month Book Approvals 600 300 (50%) 300 Firm Orders 700 280 (40%) 420 420 New Acquisitions 295 59 (20%) 236 (Re-searched) Precats 1380 276 (20%) 1104 Documents 125 12 (10%) 113 113 Serials 100 5 (5%) 95 95 RUSH 75 23 (30%) 52 52 Gifts 100 5 (5%) 95 95 Monographic Series 300 90 (30%) 210 210 Originals 222 0 (0%) 222 222 Reinstates 75 7 (10%) 68 68 Total 3972 1057 (26.5%) 2915 1275 Type and Quantity of Materials Cataloged IDC Copy 1057 Modified Copy 984 Original Cataloging 222 2263 (Note: Part of the "no charge" inquiries are generated and used by the Acquisitions Unit and are therefore not included in this analysis.) Although the terminal service and line charges might simply have been added as a total amount to the data-base costs, it seemed more meaningful to distribute these costs on a per-use basis . The method used to distribute these charges was to identify each use of the biblio- graphic data base, and to divide the total monthly costs of terminals and lines by the total monthly units of use (see table 9). This method of dis- tributing terminal service and line charges not only provided per-unit terminal use costs, but also served to categorize kinds and quantity of data-base use. SUBSCRIPTION AND MATERIAL COSTS Subscription costs include only those bibliographic tools purchased for use in TSD for the purpose of bibliographic searching. As a result of the increased growth of the bibliographic data base, fewer tools are being used for searching under the automated system than under the manual system. Prior to the implementation of WLN, the library subscribed to bibliographic data (LC and CIP copy) on microfiche supplied by the In- formation Dynamics Corporation (IDC). The per-unit costs of all sub- scriptions are presented in the cost analysis charts (tables 1(a) and 2(a)). Material costs include only those materials unique to cataloging and book processing; general supplies, such as pencils and paper, are not in- cluded. The calculation of the per-unit cost of most materials is general- ly straightforward. It should be noted, however, that under the auto- mated system, products, i.e., materials, are included in the data-base Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 45 Table 7. Staff Costs: Automated Cataloging and Book Processing System Staff Costs/Month Classified Staff OA II LT I (4) LT II (4) LT III (2) Supervisor II (2) Faculty Catalogers (3Vz) (Monos) Unit Head Staff Costs/Minute Times lip OA II LT I (4) LT II (4) LT III (2) Supervisor II (2) Catalogers (3V2) Unit Head Total Staff Costs/month Timeslip----809 hrs @ $1,456/mo Special Projects Librarian Classified Staff Faculty Total (All Staff) Salaries Month $ 912 2,888 3,269 2,024 2,578 $4,691 1,774 Plus 21% (Fringe Benefits) $192 606 686 425 541 $985 373 $1,456/mo + 809 hrs = 1.80/hr + 60 = .03/min 1,104/mo + 174 = 6.34/hr + 60 = .105/min Costs/ Month $ 1,104 3,494 3,955 2,449 3,119 Subtotal $14,121 $ 5,676 2,147 Subtotal $ 7,823 3,494/mo + 4 = $874/mo + 174 = 5.02/hr + 60 = .083/min 3, 955/mo + 4 = $989/mo + 17 4 = 5. 68/hr + 60 = . 094/min 2,449/mo + 2 = $1,225/mo + 174 = 7.04/hr + 60 = .117/min 3,119/mo + 2 = $1,560/mo + 174 = 8.97/hr + 60 = .15/min 5,676/mo + 3.5 = $1,622/mo + 174 = 9.32/hr + 60 = .155/min 2,147/mo + 174 = 12.34/hr + 60 = .205/min $ 1,456 345* 14,121 7,823 $23,745 *Amount of time (wages) assigned to cataloging. costs, and only those materials used independent of the data base, e. g., book pockets and book cards, are listed as material costs on the charts. Under the manual system, due to the divisional arrangement of the li- brary system and the number of card catalogs being maintained, the for- mula for producing sets of cards for a single title was complex. For this reason, the costs and number of cards produced for the titles cataloged per month are listed as a separate line item. EQUIPMENT COSTS Equipment costs include only equipment unique to cataloging and book processing, i.e., required for processing or products. General equipment, such as desks, book trucks, typewriters, are not included. Equipment-Automated System During the period covered by the cost analysis, November 1977 to February 1980, the following equipment was purchased for the auto- mated system: 46 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 7 Bibliographic terminals 10 Modems or modem contention units 2 Printers Tax $24,360 5,433 6,500 $36,293 1,887 $38,180 Two pieces of equipment are currently being leased (maintenance included): Keypunch Verifier @$ 92.61 @ 101.12 $193. 73/month Summary of Monthly Equipment Costs Purchases (5-year amortization) $636.33 Maintenance 60.00 Leased equipment 193.73 $890.06/month Equipment-Manual System If the automated system had not been implemented, the following equipment would have been purchased during this period: 2 Card catalogs $ 3, 755 5 Kardex units 4,475 2 Lined ex units __ 2, 944 $11,174 Tax 581 $11,755 Although the anticipated life span of this equipment should be consider- ably greater than that of terminals and modems, it has also been amor- tized over a five-year period. The rationale for this period of amortiza- tion is that the rate of growth of the files for which the equipment is used results in the purchase of additional equipment equivalent to the expected replacement of electronic equipment. Therefore, the initial cost of these purchases amortized would have been $196/month. Since the multilith has been owned by the library for more than twenty years, its purchase price is not applicable to this analysis. How- ever, maintenance on the multilith is $72.24/month. Two pieces of equipment were being leased under the manual system (maintenance included): Keypunch Verifier @$ 92.61 @ 101.12 $193. 73/month Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 47 Summary of Monthly Equipment Costs Purchases (5-year amortization) $196.00 Maintenance 72.27 Leased equipment 193.73 $462.00/month SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The cost analysis clearly indicates that at Washington State University Libraries the automated cataloging and book processing system is less ex- pensive than its previous manual system . By using the bibliographic component of the WashiQgton Library Network, the library has reduced the costs of searching, cataloging, and record maintenance by almost 20 percent (see table 10-summary comparison costs by function). The higher costs of the manual system are essentially staff costs. Under that Table 8. Staff Costs: Manual Cataloging and Book Processing System (Based on the 1977 Staffing Levels at Current Staff Costs) Staff Costs/Month Classified Staff OA II- Typing LT I (11) LT II (3) LT III (5) Supervisor I (2) Supervisor II Offset Duplicator Operator Faculty Catalogers (3. 5) Unit Head Staff Costs/Minute Timeslip OA II-Typing LT I (11) LT II (3) LT III (5) Supervisor I (2) Supervisor II Offset Duplicator Operator Catalogers (3.5) Unit Head Total Staff Costs/Month Timeslip---1208 hrs @ $2,174/mo Classified Staff Faculty Total (All Staff) Plus 21% Salaries (Fringe Month Benefits) $ 912 $ 192 7,950 1,670· 2,434 511 5,060 1,063 2,175 457 1,289 271 1,135 238 Subtotal 4,691 985 1,774 373 Subtotal $2,174/mo -o- 1208 hrs. = 1.80/hr -o- 60 = .03/min. 1, 104/mo -o- 174 = 6.34/hr -o- 60 = .105/min Costs/ Month $ 1,104 9,622 2,945 6,123 2,632 1,560 1,373 $25,359 5,676 2,147 $ 7,823 9,622/mo -o- 11 = 875/mo -o- 174 = 5.03/hr -o- 60 = .084/min 2,945/mo -o- 3 = 982/mo -o- 174 = 5.64/hr -o- 60 = .094/min 6,123/mo -o- 5 = 1,225/mo -o- 174 = 7.04/hr -o- 60 = .117/min 2,632/mo -o- 2 = 1,316/mo -o- 174 = 7.56/hr -o- 60 = .126/min 1,560/mo -o- 174 = 8.97/hr -o- 60 = .149/min. 1,373/mo -o- 174 = 7.89/hr -o- 60 = .13/min 5,846/mo -o- 3.5 = 1,670/mo -o- 174 = 9.60/hr -o- 60 = .155/min 2, 147/mo -o- 174 = 12.34/hr -o- 60 = .205/min. $ 2,174 25,359 7,823 $35,356 48 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/ 1 March 1981 Table 9 . Bibliographic Data Base Use Per Month (One Unit = One Access to or Process in Data Base) Category Searching Cataloging (Data Base Copy) Cataloging (Original Data Entry ) Authority Verification (317 x 7) Bibliographic Changes/Corrections ILL, REF, General Total Units WLN Terminal Service and Telecommunication Line Charges/ Month 5 V2 terminals @ $140/mo = $770/mo 5V2 lines @ $40/mo = 220/mo $990/mo Quantity of Te rminal Use 10688 1529 3 17 2219 360 537 15650 $990 + 15650 = $.06/terminal use for Cataloging and Book Proce ssing System Table 10 . Catalo ging and Book Processing System : Summary Comparison Costs by Function (Ex- cluding Equipment Costs ) Function Manual System l. Bibliographic Searching 2. Bibliographic Record Production (Cost of Catalog Cards Distribution) LC copy cataloging Modified copy cataloging Original cataloging Misce llane ous 3. Bibliographic Record Maintenance 4. Marking Total Automated System l. Bibliographic Searching 2. Bibliographic Record Production (Cost of Catalog Cards Included) LC and CIP copy cataloging Modified copy cataloging Original cataloging Miscellaneous 3. Bibliographic Record Maintenance 4. Marking Total *Total of items listed below. tTotal of costs listed below. Number of Items 5247 [2263)* 1057 984 222 NA NA NA 4480 [2263 )* 1529 512 222 NA NA NA Costs Pe r Month $ 4 ,61 7 [$13, 143)t 4,092 5,021 3,343 687 6 ,402 4 ,631 $28 ,793 $ 2, 170 [$ll ,837)t 4,900 1,523 3 ,343 2,071 4 , 194 4 ,589 $22,790 system, eleven more staff and 1,365 more timeslip hours were needed per month to process the same amount of materials as is processed under the automated system . In fact, compared to the staff costs of both the manual and automated systems, the costs of equipment, data-base use (including products), terminal service, and telecommunication lines Cost Analysis/DRUSCHEL 49 of the automated system are a relatively small percentage (27 percent) of the total cataloging and book processing costs . This analysis serves to underscore a basic reality of the current library organization: personnel is one of its largest expenditures and staff-intensive systems are very costly . This cost analysis has not directly addressed the issue of the quality of processing and products of either the manual or automated systems. The analysis suggests, however, that the automated system is more efficient in terms of staff time . Moreover, the TSD staff has found that not only can more be done with fewer staff, but the automated system also pro- vides more accurate data and has the flexibility to accommodate with relative ease the many corrections and changes that must be made to the library's bibliographic files. Joselyn Druschel is assistant director for automation and technical support at the Wash- ington State University Libraries . She is currently chairing a staff task force which is developing specifications for the Libraries' on-line catalog. · 
3162	----	50 Communications How Long the Wait until We Can Call It Television Jerry BORRELL: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress , Washington , D.C* This brief article will review videotex and teletext. There is little need to define terminology because new hybrid systems are being devised almost constantly (hats off to OCLC's latest buzzword-Viewtel). Ylost useful of all would be an examination of the types of technology being used for information provision. The basic require- ment for all systems is a data base-i.e ., data stored so as to allow its retrieval and display on a television screen. The interac- tions between the computer and the tele- vision screens are means to distinguish technologies. In teletext and videotex a device known as a decoder uses data en- coded onto the lines of a broadcast signal (whatever the medium of transmission ) to generate the display screen. In videotex, voice grade telephone lines or interactive cable are used to carry data communica- tions between two points (usually 1200 baud from the computer and 300 baud or less from the decoder and th e television screen). In teletext the signal is broadcast over airwaves (wideband) or via a time-sharing system (narrowband). The numerous configurations possible make straightforward classification of syst e ms questionable. A review of the systems currently avail- able is useful to illustrate these terms, videotex and teletext. CompuServe, the Columbus, Ohio-based company, provides on-line searching of newspapers to about 4,000 users. Reader's Digest recently ac- quired 51 percent of The Source, a time- *The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the Library of Congress or of the Congressional Research Ser~ vice. sharing service that provides more than 100 different (nonbibliographic) data bases to about 5,000 users. The Warner and American Express joint project, QUBE (also Columbus-based), utilizes cable broadcast with a limited interactive capa- bility . It does not allow for on-demand provision of information ; rather, it uses a polling technique. Antiope, the French teletext system, used at KSL in St. Louis last year and undergoing further tests in Los Angeles at KNXT in the coming year, is only part of a complex data transmission system known as DIDon. Antiope is also at an experimental stage in France, with 2,500 terminals scheduled for use in 1981. CEEF AX and Oracle , broadcast teletext by the BBC and IBC in Britain, have an estimated 100,000 users currently. Two thousand adapted television sets are being sold every month . Prestel, BBC's videotex system, currently has approximately 5,000 users, half of whom are businesses. All other countries in Europe are con- ducting experiments with one of the tech- nologies. In Canada, Telidon, the most technically advanced system, has 200 users. Experiments involving Telidon are being conducted nationwide due to gov- ernment interest in telecommunications improvements. Telidon will also be used in Washington in the spring of 1981 for consumer evaluation. These cursory notes should indicate the breadth of interes t in alternative means of information provision. Video and electron- ic publishing newsletters (see references) keep track of the number of users and are the best way to keep informed of activities and developments. Several important trends are becoming evident. Perhaps the most evident is the realization that videography is being de- veloped in countries other than the U.S. as a result of strong support by the National Posts and Telecommunications (PTT) authorities . Until recently there was a feeling that the U.S. was technically be- hind Europe. What is now evident is that in the free market system of the U . S. manufacturers or other potential system providers have had insufficient impetus to provide videotex/teletext technology. The technology of information display (see Bor- rell, journal of Library Automation, V.13 (Dec. 1980), p.277-81) in the U.S. is an order of magnitude more sophisticated than in Europe. The point being that in the absence of strong PTT pressure, videography in the U . S. developed for specialized markets in which telecom- munications were not a central need. In the one area of great demand, teletext ser- vices for the hearing impaired, decoders were developed and have been employed for a number of years (about 25,000 are currently in use ). As the high cost of tele- communications bandwidth is eased by data compression, direct broadcasting by satellite, enhanced cable services, and fiber optic networks, then videotex and te letext will become available on a wide scale in the U.S. The Computer Inquiry II decision by the FCC involving reinterpretation of the Communications Act of 1934 has given AT&T permission to enter the data pro- cessing market . In fact, AT&T, in its third experiment with videotex, is taking such an aggressive stance that it seems to be doing everything that its critics have feared: providing updatable classified ads (dynamic yellow pages), allowing users to place information into the system mem- ory , and providing voice mail services- thereby taking on the newspapers, home computer manufacturers, and the U . S. Postal Service. In addition, banking ser- vices will be offered . As the largest com- pany in the U.S ., this stance cannot be ignored. AT&T supplies about 80 percent of the phone service in the U .S., and has the potential, if allowed , to become a broadcaster, data processor, publisher, and banker ; cross-ownership was never allowed up to this time . The trend toward specialized services provision is also exemplified by the Communications 51 French and British systems. Prestel , which was originally targeted for a home market, is now promoted with the tacit policy of being a special business service allowing financial and private data to be provided to subscribers. Sofratev, the marketers of the French teletext system, are acknowledging the importance of transactional markets in two ways, based on technology they have named "smart card," a credit card-size (in one configura- tion) plate with a built-in microprocessor or chip. The card will allow system users to access material that will have controlled readership. An example would be a maga- zine of financial data provided to those who need such information (or, more im- portantly, are willing to pay for it). In a more complex effort, the largest retailer in Paris will advertise material via teletext and system users will be able to make ac- quisitions with their smart card, which can be programmed with financial data. Nor is this the end of the effort by the French to market information display technology. The electronic phone directory, being offered by Bell in Austin , is repli- cated in a more modest way by the French, who plan to produce a six-by- eight-inch black-and,white display unit that will provide. phone directory informa- tion (both white and yellow pages) to all of France by the 1990s. Developed as part of the "Telerriatique" program of the .French government, the terminals represent to some (the parent company of The Source has tendered an offer for up to 250,000 of the terminals) a low-cost alternative for providing videotex to a mass market. The Tandy home computer in its videotex con- figuration seems to fill the same market slot. Perhaps the most disturbing trend, at least from a librarian's point of view, is the fact that contemporary data systems are being created which could benefit greatly from the experience of librarians and li- braries. For instance, research into the methods of access-keyword, phonetic and geographical-by the French is intended to pro:vide a flexible and easily used sys- tem for untrained persons searching for directory information, and is being per- formed by an advertising and yellow pages 52 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 publishing firm. With a feeling of deja vu I listened to an explanation of how difficult it is to develop a system for the novice; one proposed solution is to allow only the first four letters of a word to be entered (one of the search methods used at the Li- brary of Congress, which does suggest some cross-fertilization ). Whatever the trends, the reality is that librarians and information scientists are playing decreasing roles in the growth of information display technology. Hardware systems analysts, advertisers, and com- munications specialists are the main pro- fessions that have an active role to play in the information age. Perhaps the answer is an immediate and radical change in the training of library schools of today. Our small role may reflect our penchant to be collectors, archivists, and guardians of the information repositories . Have we become the keepers of the system? The demand today is for service, information, and en- tertainment. If we librarians cannot fulfill these needs our places are not assured. Should the American Library Associa- tion (ALA) be ensuring that libraries are a part of all ongoing tests of videotex-at least in some way-either as organizers, information providers, or in analysis? Con- sider the force of the argument given at the ALA 1980 New York Annual Confer- ence that cable television should be a medium that librarians become involved with for the future. Certainly involvement is an important role, but we , like the in- dustrialists and marketers before us, must make smart decisions and choose the proper niche and the most effective way to use our limited resources if we are to serve any part of society in the future. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Electronic Publishing Revietc. Oxford, En- gland : Learned Information Ltd . Quarterly . 2. Home Video Report . White Plains, New York : Knowledge Industry Publications. Weekly. 3. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electron- ics. New York: IEEE Broadcast, Cable, and Consumer Electronics Soc iety . Five tim es yearly. 4. International Videotex /Te letext News. Washington , D. C.: Arlen Communications Ltd. Monthly . 5. Videodisc/Teletext News. Westport , Conn.: Microform Revi ew. Quarterly. 6. Videoprint. Norwalk , Conn.: Videoprint. Two times monthly. 7. Viewdata/Videotex Report. New York: Link Resources Corp. Monthly. Data Processing Library: A Very Special Library Sherry COOK, Mercedes DUMLAO, and Maria SZABO: Bechtel Data Processing Li- brary, San Francisco, California. The 1980s are here and with them comes the ever broadening application of the computer. This presents a new challenge to libraries. What do we do with all these computer codes? How do we index the material? And most importantly, how do we make it accessible to our patrons or computer users? Bechtel's Data Processing Library has met these demands. The genesis for th e collection was Bechte l's conversion from a Honeywell 6000 computer to a Univac llOO in 1974. All the programs in use at that time were converted to run on the Univac system. It seemed a good time to put all of the computer programs together from all of the various Bechtel divisions into a controlled collection. The librarians were charged with the responsibility of enforcing standards and control of Bech- tel's computer programs. The major benefits derived from placing all computer programs into a controlled li- brary were: 1. Company-wide usage of the pro- grams. 2. Minimize investment in program de- velopment through common usage. 3. Computer file and documentation storage by the library to safeguard the investment. 4. Central location for audits of program code and documentation. 5. Centralized reporting on Bechtel programs . Developing the collection involved basic cataloging techniques which were greatly modified to encompass all the information that computer programs generate, includ- ing actual code, documentation, and list- 
3163	----	52 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/1 March 1981 publishing firm. With a feeling of deja vu I listened to an explanation of how difficult it is to develop a system for the novice; one proposed solution is to allow only the first four letters of a word to be entered (one of the search methods used at the Li- brary of Congress, which does suggest some cross-fertilization ). Whatever the trends, the reality is that librarians and information scientists are playing decreasing roles in the growth of information display technology. Hardware systems analysts, advertisers, and com- munications specialists are the main pro- fessions that have an active role to play in the information age. Perhaps the answer is an immediate and radical change in the training of library schools of today. Our small role may reflect our penchant to be collectors, archivists, and guardians of the information repositories . Have we become the keepers of the system? The demand today is for service, information, and en- tertainment. If we librarians cannot fulfill these needs our places are not assured. Should the American Library Associa- tion (ALA) be ensuring that libraries are a part of all ongoing tests of videotex-at least in some way-either as organizers, information providers, or in analysis? Con- sider the force of the argument given at the ALA 1980 New York Annual Confer- ence that cable television should be a medium that librarians become involved with for the future. Certainly involvement is an important role, but we , like the in- dustrialists and marketers before us, must make smart decisions and choose the proper niche and the most effective way to use our limited resources if we are to serve any part of society in the future. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Electronic Publishing Revietc. Oxford, En- gland : Learned Information Ltd . Quarterly . 2. Home Video Report . White Plains, New York : Knowledge Industry Publications. Weekly. 3. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electron- ics. New York: IEEE Broadcast, Cable, and Consumer Electronics Soc iety . Five tim es yearly. 4. International Videotex /Te letext News. Washington , D. C.: Arlen Communications Ltd. Monthly . 5. Videodisc/Teletext News. Westport , Conn.: Microform Revi ew. Quarterly. 6. Videoprint. Norwalk , Conn.: Videoprint. Two times monthly. 7. Viewdata/Videotex Report. New York: Link Resources Corp. Monthly. Data Processing Library: A Very Special Library Sherry COOK, Mercedes DUMLAO, and Maria SZABO: Bechtel Data Processing Li- brary, San Francisco, California. The 1980s are here and with them comes the ever broadening application of the computer. This presents a new challenge to libraries. What do we do with all these computer codes? How do we index the material? And most importantly, how do we make it accessible to our patrons or computer users? Bechtel's Data Processing Library has met these demands. The genesis for th e collection was Bechte l's conversion from a Honeywell 6000 computer to a Univac llOO in 1974. All the programs in use at that time were converted to run on the Univac system. It seemed a good time to put all of the computer programs together from all of the various Bechtel divisions into a controlled collection. The librarians were charged with the responsibility of enforcing standards and control of Bech- tel's computer programs. The major benefits derived from placing all computer programs into a controlled li- brary were: 1. Company-wide usage of the pro- grams. 2. Minimize investment in program de- velopment through common usage. 3. Computer file and documentation storage by the library to safeguard the investment. 4. Central location for audits of program code and documentation. 5. Centralized reporting on Bechtel programs . Developing the collection involved basic cataloging techniques which were greatly modified to encompass all the information that computer programs generate, includ- ing actual code, documentation, and list- ings . Historically, this information must be kept indefinitely on an archival basis . The machine-readabl e codes themselves are grouped together and maintained from the library's budget . Finally , a reference desk is staffed to answer questions from the en- tire user community. Documentation for programs is strictly controlled . Code changes are arranged chronologically to provide only the most current release of a program to all users. Historical information is kept and is cru- cial to satisfy the demands of auditors (such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion). Additionally, the names of people administratively connected with the pro- gram are recorded and their responsibilities Communications 53 defined (valuable in situations of liability for work complete d yesteryear). The backbone of the operation is a stan- dards manual that spells out and discusses the file requirements, documentation specifications, and control forms. This standard is made readily available throughout Bechtel. In addition, there are in-house education classes about the same document. Indeed, the Central Data Processing Library is the repository of computer in- formation at Bechtel. The centralization and control of computer programs elimi- nates the chaos that can occur if too many individuals maintain and use the same computer program . 
3356	----	Presidents It is with great pleasure that I bring you greetings as your LITA president. It is an honor to be the LITA president and to follow the very productive term of Tom Wilson. As you know, this column is an opportunity for the president to increase communication with the membership. As LITA president, I plan to concentrate my efforts on con- tinuing to capitalize on the association’s many strengths. Last year at LITA’s 2004 Town Meeting at ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, we built on the plan- ning efforts of Tom Wilson. To assist in the development of goals to support LITA’s developing vision statement, I gathered additional information for the next planning phase. I asked the Town Meeting’s more than eighty attendees to consider these three questions. 1. What do you like about LITA, its organizational structure, and its programs? 2. What services or products does LITA currently offer that you value? 3. What new services or products would increase LITA’s value to you? The attendees gathered at small tables and discussed the three questions. After the discussions, each table shared their answers. Here’s what they thought: 1. What do you like about LITA, its organizational structure, and its programs? � Easy to become involved � Inviting � Great networking � Forward thinking � Lack of bureaucracy � Flexibility � Enthusiasm of members � Encourages discussion � Openness to new members � Open structure 2. What services or products does LITA currently offer that you value? � lita_l � Regional institutes � Top Tech Trends � TER � National Forum � ITAL � LITA publications � Interest groups � Programming � Networking with knowledgeable people 3. What new services or products would increase LITA’s value to you? � Coordination with other divisions � Liaison at state levels � Mentoring (partnering with NMRT) � Leadership in advising libraries � Best practices and competencies � More standards involvement � More access of those not attending conference � Webcasts in one-to-two-hour sessions � Partnerships with vendors � More diversity in the organization � Conference reports � Use more leading-edge technology � More content on the Web site � More focus on technical issues � Blogging � Online newsletter � Announcement service � Mechanism for sharing information � Another electronic discussion list for tech how to’s � Tech reviews and recommendations � Online community support � RSS feed on the Web site � Stronger voice on technology and policy � Semiannual e-mail messages to all LITA members As you can tell from these comments, LITA provides many valuable services to our members, and to the asso- ciation at large. However, there are many opportunities for us to do more. To accomplish the goal of expanding our services and setting priorities, we have continued our emphasis on strategic planning activities. Along with Mary Taylor, LITA’s executive director, I attended several ALAAhead planning sessions last fall. Our participation in these meetings reinforced our commitment to the plan- ning processes we used to draft LITA’s goals and strate- gies for the next five years. This draft plan is scheduled for review by the LITA board during the 2005 ALA Midwinter Meeting. Additionally, LITA’s strategic plan will be discussed at the 2005 LITA Town Meeting, also during Midwinter Meeting. We look forward to finalizing our strategic plan by the 2005 ALA Annual Conference. I believe this plan will help us achieve our goals and be used to gauge our successes. In addition to our strategic planning process, LITA has made great strides in a number of significant areas. The LITA Web Advisory Task Force, chaired by Zoe Stewart Marshall, has been working to “establish policies govern- ing the LITA Web site’s content, responsibilities for its management, and an approval process for posting content 2 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 President’s Column Colby Mariva Riggs Colby Mariva Riggs is LITA President and Project Coordinator, Library Systems, University of California–Irvine. (continued on page 31) online.” They have implemented several process improve- ments already and will complete their work by the 2005 ALA Annual Conference. This past fall, Michelle Frisque, LITA Web Manager, conducted a survey of our members about the LITA Web site. Michelle and the Web Coordinating Committee are already working on a new look and feel for the LITA Web site based on the survey comments, and the result promises to be phenomenal. On top of all of the current activities, new vision state- ment, strategic planning, and the LITA Web site redesign, Mary Taylor and the LITA board worked with a graphic designer to develop a new LITA logo. After much delib- eration, the new logo debuted at the 2004 LITA National Forum with great enthusiasm. Many members com- mented that the new logo expresses the “energy” of LITA and felt the change was terrific. With your help, LITA had a very successful confer- ence in Orlando. Although there were weather and trans- portation difficulties, the LITA programs and discussions were of the highest quality, as always. The program and preconference offerings for the upcoming Annual Conference in Chicago promise to be as strong as ever. Don’t forget, LITA also offers Regional Institutes through- out the year. Check the LITA Web site to see if there’s a Regional Institute scheduled in your area. LITA held another successful National Forum in fall 2004 in St. Louis, “Ten Years of Connectivity: Libraries, the World Wide Web, and the Next Decade.” The three- day educational event included excellent preconferences, general sessions, and more than thirty concurrent ses- sions. I want to thank the wonderful 2004 LITA National Forum Planning Committee, chaired by Diane Bisom, the presenters, and the LITA office staff who all made this event a great experience. The next LITA National Forum will be held at the San Jose Marriott, San Jose, California, September 29–October 2, 2005. The theme will be “The Ubiquitous Web: Personalization, Portability, and Online Collaboration.” Thomas Dowling, chair, and the 2005 LITA National Forum Planning Committee are preparing another “must attend” event. Next year marks LITA’s fortieth anniversary. 2006 will be a year for LITA to celebrate our history, future, and our many accomplishments. We are fortunate to have Lynne Lysiak leading the Fortieth Anniversary Task Force activ- ities. I know we all will enjoy the festivities. I look forward to working with many of you as we con- tinue to make LITA a wonderful and vibrant association. I encourage you to send me your comments and sugges- tions to further the goals, services, and activities of LITA. 32. Terence Cavanaugh, “E-books and Accommodations: Is This the Future of Print Accommodation?” Teaching Exceptional Children 35, no. 2 (2002): 56–61. 33. Skip Pratt, “E-books and E-publishing: Ignore MS Reader and Palm OS at Your Own Peril,” Knowledge Download, 2002. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.knowledge-download.com/260802 -e-book-article. 34. Davina Witt, “Audience Profile and Demographics,” Mar./Apr. 2003. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.bookbrowse.com/ media/audience.cfm. 35. Geoff Daily, “Gameboy Advance: Not Just Playing with Games,” Econtent 27, no. 5 (2004): 12–14. 36. Associated Press, “Flexible E-paper on its Way,” Associated Press, 7 May 2003. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.wired.com/news. 37. Richard Mayer, Multimedia Learning (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 38. Sottong, “E-book Technology.” 39. AMC, “Film Facts: Read About Lost Films.”Accessed June 19, 2003, www.amctv.com/article?CID=1052. 40. Ronald Jantz, “E-books and New Library Service Models: An Analysis of the Impact of E-book Technology on Academic Libraries,” Information Technology and Libraries 20, no. 2 (2001): 104–15. 41. Susan Lareau, The Feasibility of the Use of E-books for Replac- ing Lost or Brittle Books in the Kent State University Library, 2001, ERIC, ED 459862. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, http://searcheric.org. 42. Eli Edwards, “Ephemeral to Enduring: The Internet Archive and Its Role in Preserving Digital Media,” Information Technology and Libraries 23, no. 1 (2004): 3–8. 43. Norm Parry, Format Proliferation in Public Libraries, 2002, ERIC, ED 470035,. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, http://searcheric.org. 44. David M. Levy, Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Docu- ments in the Digital Age (New York: Arcade Pub., 2001). 45. About Alan Lomax. Accessed Dec. 27 2004, www.alan -lomax.com/about.html. DISPELLING FIVE MYTHS ABOUT E-BOOKS | GALL 31 (President’s column continued from page 2) Art & Tech 24 EBSCO cover 2 LITA covers 3–4 Index to Advertisers 
3357	----	Editorial I think that writing editorials in my job as the new editor of Information Technology and Libraries (ITAL) is going to be a real piece of cake. All I have to do, dear readers, is to quote (with proper attribution) Walt Crawford, the title of whose book I repeat as the title of this, my inaugural edi- torial.1 And then quote other sages of our profession, using only as many of their words as is fitting and proper to make my editorials relevant to the concerns of our membership and readers and as few of my own words as I can to repay the confidence that the Library Information and Technology Association (LITA) has placed in me— and to avoid muddling the ideas of those to whom I shall be indebted. Those of you reading this will note that I have already fallen prey to the conceit of all scholarly journal editors: that their readers, of course, after surveying the tables of contents, dive wide-eyed first into the editorials. Of course. To paraphrase a technologist of an earlier era, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for” a new editor to take on the responsibility for the steward- ship of ITAL, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that” he “should declare the causes which impel” him to accept that responsibility and, fur- ther, to write editorials. I quote, of course, from the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence adopted by the “thirteen united States of America” July 4, 1776. In this, my first editorial, I, too, shall put forth for the examination of the members of LITA and the readers of ITAL my goals and hopes for the journal that I am now honored to lead. These goals and hopes are shared by the members of the ITAL editorial board, whose names appear in the masthead of this journal. ITAL is a double-blind refereed journal that currently has a manuscript acceptance rate of 50 percent. It began in 1968 as the Journal of Library Automation (JOLA), the jour- nal of the Information Science and Automation Division (ISAD) of ALA, and its first editor was Fred Kilgour. In 1978 ISAD became LITA, and in 1982, the journal title was changed to reflect the expanding role of information tech- nology in libraries, an expansion that continues to accel- erate so that ITAL is no longer the only professional journal within ALA whose pages are now dominated by our accelerating use of information technologies as tools to manage the services we provide our users and as tools we use ourselves to accomplish our daily duties. I write part of this editorial in the skies over the mid- dle section of the United States as I return home from the seventh National LITA Forum held in St. Louis, October 7–10. At the Forum, I heard presentations, visited poster sessions, and talked with colleagues from forty-four states and six countries who had something to say and said it well. I hope that some of them may submit manu- scripts to ITAL so that all the members of LITA and all the readers of the journal will profit as well from some of what the attendees of the Forum heard and saw. I attended the Forum forewarned by previous ITAL editors to carry plenty of business cards, and I went armed with a pocketful. I think I distributed enough that, if pieced together, their blank sides would provide sufficient writ- ing space for at least one manuscript! In an attempt to fulfill the Jeffersonian promise above, I hereby list a few of my goals for the beginning of my term as editor. I must emphasize that these goals of mine supplement but do not supplant the purposes of the jour- nal as stated on the first page and on the ITAL Web site (www.ala.org/lita/litapublications/ital/italinformation. htm); likewise, they do not supplant the goals of my pred- ecessors. In no particular order: I hope to increase the number of manuscripts received from our library and information schools. Their faculty and doctoral students are some of the incubators of new and exciting information technologies that may bear fruit for future library users. However, not all research turns up maps on which “X marks the spot.” Exploration is inter- esting, even vital, for the journey, for the search itself, and our graduate faculties and students have something to say. I hope to increase the submission of manuscripts that describe relevant sponsored research. In the earlier vol- umes, JOLA had an average of at least one article per issue, maybe more, describing the results of funded research. ITAL can and should be a source that information-technol- ogy researchers consider as a vehicle for the publication of their results. Two articles in this issue result from spon- sored research. In fact, I hope to increase the number of manuscripts that describe any relevant research or cutting-edge devel- opments. Much of the exploration undertaken by librari- ans improving and strengthening their services involves research or problems solved on both small scales and large. Neither the officers of LITA, the referees, the read- ers, nor I are interested in very many “how I run my library good” articles. We all want to read a statement of the problem(s), the hypotheses developed to explore the issues surrounding the problem(s), the research methods, the results, the assessment of the outcomes, and, when feasible, a synthesis of how the research methods or results may be generalized. I hope to increase the number of articles with multiple authors. Libraries are among society’s most cooperative institutions and librarians, members of one of the most cooperative of professions. The work we do is rarely that of solitary performers, whether it be research or the EDITORIAL | WEBB 3 Editorial: First Have Something to Say John Webb John Webb (jwebb@wsu.edu) is Assistant Director for Digital Services/Collections, Washington State University Libraries, Pullman, and editor of Information Technology and Libraries. (continued on page 21) __Problems with unauthorized people accessing the Internet through the wireless network __Problems with restricted parts of the network being accessed by unauthorized users __Other 3. How were security problems resolved? Benefits of Use of Network 1. What have been the biggest benefits of wireless tech- nology? Check all that apply. __User satisfaction __Increased access to the Internet and online sources __Flexibility and ease due to lack of wires __Has improved technical services (use for library functions) __Has aided in bibliographic instruction __Provides access beyond the library building __Allows students to roam the stacks while access- ing the network __Other 2. How would you describe current usage of the net- work? __Heavy __Moderate __Low 3. In your opinion, has this technology been worth the benefit-cost ratio thus far? __Yes __No __Not sure 4. What advice would you give to librarians consider- ing this technology? (Editorial continued from page 3) design and implementation of complex systems to serve our users. Writing about that should not be solitary either. I hope to publish think-pieces from leaders in our field. I hope to publish more articles on the management of information technologies. I hope to increase the number of manuscripts that provide retrospectives. Libraries have always been users of information technologies, often early adopters of leading-edge technologies that later become common- place. We should, upon occasion, remember and reflect upon our development as an information-technology profession. I hope to work with the editorial board, the LITA Publications Committee, and the LITA board to find a way, and soon, to facilitate the electronic publication of articles without endangering—but in fact enhancing—the absolutely essential financial contribution that the journal provides to the association. In short, I want to make ITAL a destination journal of excellence for both readers and authors, and in doing so reaffirm the importance of LITA as a professional division of ALA. To accomplish my goals, I need more than an excellent editorial board, more than first-class referees to provide quality control, and more than the support of the LITA officers. I need all LITA members to be prospective authors, prospective referees, and prospective literary agents acting on behalf of our profession to continue the almost forty-year tradition begun by Fred Kilgour and his colleagues, who were our predecessors in volume 1, num- ber 1, March 1966, of our journal. Reference 1. Walt Crawford, First Have Something to Say: Writing for the Library Profession (Chicago: ALA, 2003). WIRELESS NETWORKS IN MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES | BARNETT-ELLIS AND CHARNIGO 21 
3358	----	4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 The challenges encountered in building the International Children’s Digital Library (ICDL), a freely available online library of children’s literature are described. These challenges include selecting and processing books from different countries, handling and presenting multiple languages simultaneously, and addressing cultural dif- ferences. Unlike other digital libraries that present con- tent from one or a few languages and cultures, and focus on either adult or child audiences, ICDL must serve a multilingual, multicultural, multigenerational audience. The research is presented as a case study for addressing these design criteria; current solutions and plans for future work are described. T he Internet is a multilingual, multicultural, multi- generational environment. While once the domain of English-speaking, Western, adult males, the demo- graphics of the Internet have changed remarkably over the last decade. As of March 2004, English was the native language of only 35 percent of the total world online pop- ulation. As of March 2004, Asia, Europe, and North America each make up roughly 30 percent of Internet usage worldwide.1 In the United States, women and men now use the Internet in approximately equal numbers, and children and teenagers use the Internet more than any other age group.2 Creators of online digital libraries have recognized the benefit of making their content available to users around the world, not only for the obvious benefits of broader dissemination of information and cultural aware- ness, but also as tools for empowerment and strengthen- ing community.3 Creating digital libraries for children has also become a popular research topic as more children access the Internet.4 The International Children’s Digital Library (ICDL) project seeks to combine these areas of research to address the needs of both international and intergenerational users.5 ■ Background and Related Work Creating international software is a complex process involving two steps: internationalization, where the core functionality of the software is separated from localized interface details, and localization, where the interface is customized for a particular audience.6 The localization step is not simply a matter of language translation, but involves technical, national, and cultural aspects of the software.7 Technical details such as different operating systems, fonts, and file formats must be accommodated. National differences in language, punctuation, number formats, and text direction must be handled properly. Finally, and perhaps most challenging, cultural differ- ences must be addressed. Hofstede defines culture as “the collective mental pro- gramming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.”8 These groups might be defined by national, regional, ethnic, religious, gender, generation, social class, or occupation differences. By age ten, most children have learned the value system of their culture, and it is very difficult to change. Hofstede breaks culture into four components: values, rituals, heroes, and symbols. These components manifest themselves everywhere in software interfaces, from acceptable iconic representations of people, animals, and religious symbols to suitable colors, phrases, jokes, and scientific theories.9 However, as Hoft notes, culture is like an iceberg: only 10 percent of the characteristics of a culture are visible on the surface.10 The rest are subjective, unspoken, and unconscious. It is only by evaluating an interface with users from the target culture that designers can understand if their software is acceptable.11 Developers of online digital libraries have had to con- tend with international audiences for many years, and the MARC and OCLC systems have reflected this con- cern by including capabilities for transliteration and dia- critical characters (accents) in various languages.12 However, it is only more recently, with the development of international character-set standards and Web browsers that recognize these standards, that truly inter- national digital libraries have emerged. Greenstone, an The International Children’s Digital Library: A Case Study in Designing for a Multilingual, Multicultural, Multigenerational Audience Hilary Browne Hutchinson, Anne Rose, Benjamin B. Bederson, Ann Carlson Weeks, and Allison Druin Hilary Browne Hutchinson (hilary@cs.umd.edu) is a faculty research assistant in the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies and a Ph.D. student in the Department of Computer Science. Anne Rose (rose@cs.umd.edu) is a faculty research assistant in the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies. Benjamin B. Bederson (bederson@cs.umd.edu) is an Asso- ciate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies and Director of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory. Ann Carlson Weeks (acweeks@umd.edu) is Professor of the Practice in the College of Information Studies. Allison Druin (allisond@umiacs.umd.edu) is an Assistant Professor in the College of Information Studies and the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies. All authors are affiliated with the University of Maryland-College Park and the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory. open-source software project based in New Zealand, allows people to create online digital libraries in their native language and culture.13 OCLC recently completed a redesign of FirstSearch, a Web-based bibliographic and full-text retrieval service, to accommodate users with dif- ferent software, languages, and disabilities.14 Researchers at Virginia Tech redesigned CITIDEL, an online collec- tion of computer-science technical reports, to create an online community that allows users to translate their interface into different languages.15 Researchers have also realized that beyond accessibil- ity, digital libraries have enormous potential for empowerment and building community, especially in developing countries. Witten et al. and Downie describe the importance of community involvement when creating a digital library for a particular culture, both to empower users and to make sure the culture is accurately reflected.16 Even more than accurately reflecting a culture, a digital library also needs to be understood by the culture. Duncker notes that a digital-library interface metaphor based on a traditional physical library was incomprehen- sible to the Maori culture in New Zealand, who are not familiar with the conventions of Western libraries.17 In addition to international libraries, a number of researchers have focused on creating digital libraries for children. Recognizing that children have difficulty with spelling, reading, and typing, as well as traditional cate- gorization methods such as the Dewey Decimal System, a number of researchers have created more child-friendly digital libraries.18 Pejtersen created the BookHouse inter- face with a metaphor of rooms in a house to support dif- ferent types of searching.19 Külper et al. designed the Bücherschatz interface for children who are eight to ten years old using a treasure-hunt metaphor.20 Druin et al. designed the QueryKids interface for young children to find information about animals.21 Theng et al. used the Greenstone software to create an environment for older children to write and share stories.22 The ICDL project seeks to build on and combine research in both international and children’s digital libraries. As a result, ICDL is more ambitious than other digital library projects in a number of respects. First, it is designed for a broader audience. While the digital libraries already described target one or a few cultures or languages, ICDL’s audience includes potentially every culture and language in the world. Second, the content is not localized. Part of the library’s goal is to expose users to books from different cultures, so it would be counterpro- ductive to present books only in a user’s native language. As a result, the interface not only supports multiple lan- guages and cultures, but it also supports them simultane- ously, frequently on the same screen. Third, ICDL’s audience not only includes a broad group of adults from around the world, but also children from three to thirteen years of age. To address these challenges, a multidisciplinary, mul- tilingual, multicultural, and multigenerational team was created, and the development was divided into several stages. In the first stage, completed in November 2002, a Java-based, English-only version of the library was cre- ated that addressed the searching and reading needs of children. In the second stage, completed in May 2003, an HTML version of the software was developed that addressed the needs of users with minimal technology. In the third stage, completed in May 2004, the metadata for the books in the library were translated into their native languages, allowing users to view these metadata in the language of their choice. The final stage, currently in progress, involves translating the interface to different languages and adjusting some of the visual design of the interface according to the cultural norms of the associated language being presented. In this paper, the research is presented as a case study, describing the solutions imple- mented to address some of these challenges and plans for addressing ongoing ones. ■ ICDL Project Description The ICDL project was initiated in 2002 by the University of Maryland and the Internet Archive with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Today, the proj- ects continues at the University of Maryland. The goals of the project include: ■ creating a collection of ten thousand children’s books in one hundred languages; ■ collaborating with children as design partners to develop new interfaces for searching, browsing, reading, and sharing books in the library; and ■ evaluating the impact of access to multicultural materials on children, schools, and libraries. The project has two main audiences: children three to thirteen years of age and the adults who work with them, as well as international scholars who study chil- dren’s literature. The project draws together a multidis- ciplinary team of researchers from computer science, library science, education, and art backgrounds. The research team is also multigenerational—team members include children seven to eleven years of age, who work with the adult members of the team twice a week during the school year and for two weeks during the summer to help design and evaluate software. Using the methods of cooperative inquiry, including brainstorming, low- tech prototyping, and observational note taking, the team has researched, designed, and built the library’s category structure, collection goals, and searching and reading interfaces.23 THE INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S DIGITAL LIBRARY | HUTCHINSON, ROSE, BEDERSON, WEEKS, AND DRUIN 5 6 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 The research team is also multilingual and multicul- tural. Adult team members are native or fluent speakers of a number of languages besides English, and are working with school children and their teachers and librarians in the United States, New Zealand, Honduras, and Germany to study how different cultures use both physical and dig- ital libraries. The team is also working with children and their teachers in the United States, Hungary, and Argentina to understand how children who speak differ- ent languages can communicate and learn about each other’s cultures through sharing books. Finally, an advi- sory board of librarians from around the world advises the team on curatorial and cultural issues, and numerous volunteers translate book and Web-site information. ■ ICDL Interface Description ICDL has four search tools for accessing the current col- lection of approximately five hundred books in thirty languages: Simple, Advanced, Location, and Keyword. All are implemented with Java Servlet technology, use only HTML and JavaScript on the client side, and can run on a 56K modem. These interfaces were created dur- ing the first two development phases. The team visited physical libraries to observe children looking for books, developed a category hierarchy of kid-friendly terms based on these findings, and designed different tools for reading books.24 Using the Simple interface (figure 1), users can search for books using colorful buttons representing the most popular search categories. The Advanced interface (figure 2), allows users to search for books in a compact, text-link-based interface that contains the entire library- category hierarchy. By selecting the Location interface (figure 3), users can search for books by spinning a globe to select a continent. Finally, with the Keyword inter- face, users search for books by typing in a keyword. Younger children seem to prefer the simplicity and fun of the Location interface, while older children enjoy browsing the kid-friendly categories, such as Colors, Feelings, and Shapes.25 All of these methods search the library for books with matching metadata. Users can then read the book using a variety of book readers, including standard HTML pages and more elaborate Java-based tools developed by the ICDL team that present book pages in comic or spiral layouts (figures 4–6). In addition to the public interface, ICDL also includes a private Web site that was developed for book contributors to enter bibli- ographic metadata about the books they provide to the library (figures 7 and 8). Using the metadata interface, contributors can enter information about their books in the native language of the book, and optionally trans- late or transliterate this information into English or Latin-based characters. The design of ICDL is driven by its audience, which includes users, contributors, and volunteers of all ages from around the world—more than six hundred thou- sand unique visitors from more than two hundred coun- tries (at last count). As a result, books written in many different languages for users of different ages and cul- tural backgrounds must be collected, processed, stored, and presented. The rest of this paper will describe some of the challenges encountered and that are still being encountered in the development process, including selecting and processing a more diverse collection of books, handling different character sets and fonts, and addressing differences in cultural, religious, social, and political interpretation. Figure 2. ICDL Advanced Interface Figure 1. ICDL Simple Interface ■ Book Selection and Processing The first challenge in the ICDL project is obtaining and managing content. Collecting books from around the world is a challenge because national libraries, publish- ers, and creators (authors and illustrators) all have differ- ent rules regarding copyrights. The goal is to identify and obtain award-winning children’s books from around the world, for example, books on the White Ravens list, which are also made available to ICDL users (www. icdlbooks.org/servlet/WhiteRavens).26 However, unso- licited books are received, frequently in languages the team cannot read. As a result, members of the advisory board and various children’s literature organizations in different countries are relied on to review these books. These groups help determine whether books are relevant and acceptable in the culture they are from, and whether they are appropriate for the three-to-thirteen age group. These groups are eager to help; including them in the process is an effective way to build the project and the community surrounding it. In addition to collecting and scanning books, biblio- graphical metadata in the native language of the book (title, creator[s], publisher, abstract) are also collected via the Web-based metadata form filled out by the book con- tributors. It was decided to base the ICDL metadata spec- ification on the Dublin Core because of its international background, ability to be understood by nonspecialists, and the possibilities to extend its basic elements to meet ICDL’s specific needs (see www.icdlbooks.org/ metadata/specification for more details).27 Contributors who provide metadata have the option of translating them to English; they also can transliterate them to Latin characters, if necessary. Regardless of what language or Figure 5. ICDL Comic Book Reader Figure 3. ICDL Location Interface Figure 4. ICDL Standard Book Reader Figure 6. ICDL Spiral Book Reader THE INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S DIGITAL LIBRARY | HUTCHINSON, ROSE, BEDERSON, WEEKS, AND DRUIN 7 8 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 languages they provide, they are asked to provide infor- mation that they create themselves, such as the abstract, in a format that is easily understandable by children. Simple, short sentences make the information easy for children to read, and easier to translate to other languages. The metadata provided allow the team to catalog the books for browsing according to the various categories and to index the books for keyword searching. Even though translation to English is optional, the English- speaking metadata team needs the metadata in English in order to catalog the books. Since many contributors do not have the time or ability to provide all of this informa- tion, volunteers who speak different languages are relied on to check the metadata that get submitted, and translate or transliterate them as necessary. This method allows information to be collected from contributors without overwhelming them, and also helps build and maintain the volunteer community. ■ Handling Different Character Sets The metadata form allows contributors to provide infor- mation from the comfort of an operating system and key- board in their native language, but this flexibility requires software that can handle many different character sets. For example, English uses a Latin character set; Russian uses a Cyrillic character set; and an Arabic character set is used for Persian/Farsi. Fortunately, there exists a single character set called Unicode, an international, cross-plat- form standard that contains a unique encoding for nearly every character in every language.28 Unfortunately, not all software supports Unicode as yet. In the first stage of implementation in ICDL, metadata information was col- lected only in English, so Unicode compliance was not a problem. However, in the next phase of development, which included collecting and presenting metadata in the native language of all of the books, the software had to be adjusted to use Unicode because ICDL supports poten- tially every language in the world. The open-source MySQL database, recently upgraded to allow storage of Unicode data, was already in use for storing metadata. ICDL’s Web applications run on Apache HTTP and Tomcat Web servers, both of which are freely available and Unicode-compliant. However, both the Web site and the database had to be internationalized and localized to separate the template for metadata pres- entation from the content in different languages. A Unicode-compliant database driver was necessary for passing information between the database and the Web site. Both the public and metadata Web-site applications are written using freely available Java Servlet technology. The Java language is Unicode-compliant, but some adjustments had to be made to ICDL’s servlet code to force it to handle data using Unicode. To allow users to conduct keyword searches for books in the public interface, Apache’s freely available Lucene search engine is used to create indices of book meta- data, which can then be searched. Lucene is Unicode-com- pliant, but a separate index for each language had to be cre- ated, requiring users to select a search language. This requirement was necessary for two reasons: (1) to avoid confusion over the same words with different meanings (bra means good in Swedish); and (2) different languages have different rules for stopwords to ignore (the, of, a in English), truncation of similar words (cats has the same root as cat in English), and separation of characters (Chinese does not put white space between symbols). Lucene has text analyzers for a variety of languages that support these different conventions. For languages that Figure 8. ICDL Metadata Interface with Japanese Metadata Figure 7. ICDL Metadata Interface with Spanish Metadata Lucene does not support, ICDL volunteers translated English stopwords, and simple text analyzers were created by the team. Finally, HTML headers created by the Java servlets had to be modified to indicate that the content being delivered to users was in Unicode. Most current browsers and operating systems recognize and handle Web pages properly delivered in Unicode. For those that do not, help pages were created that explain how to configure com- mon browsers to use Unicode, and how to upgrade older browsers that do not support Unicode. By making the ICDL systems fully Unicode-compli- ant, contributors from all over the world can enter meta- data about books in an easily accessible HTML form using their native languages, and the characters are prop- erly transmitted and stored in the ICDL database. Volunteers can then use the same form to translate or transliterate the metadata as necessary. Finally, this infor- mation can be presented to our users when they look at books. For example the book Where’s the Bear? (Harris, 1997) is written in six different languages.29 The original metadata came in English, but ICDL volunteers trans- lated them to Italian, Japanese, French, Spanish, and German. Users looking at the preview page for this book in the library have the opportunity to change the display language of the book to any one of these languages using a pull-down menu (figures 9 and 10). Currently, only the book metadata language can be changed, but in the next stage of development, all of the surrounding interface text (navigation, labels) will be translated to different languages as well. The plan for doing this is to take a similar approach to the CITIDEL and Greenstone projects by creating a Web site where volunteers can translate words and phrases from the ICDL interface into their native language.30 Like the cre- ators of CITIDEL, the team believes that machine-based translation would not provide good enough results. Unfortunately, the resources do not exist for the team to do the translating themselves. Encouraging volunteers to translate the site will help enlarge and enrich the ICDL community. For languages that do not receive vol- unteer translation, translation services are an affordable alternative. ■ Character-Set Complications Several issues have arisen as a result of collecting multi- lingual metadata in many character sets. First, different countries use different formats for dates and times, so contributors are allowed to specify the calendar used when they enter date information (Muslim or Julian). Second, not only do different countries use different for- mats for numbers, the numbers themselves are also dif- ferent. For example, the Arabic numbers for 1, 2, 3 are Even though Java is Unicode-compliant, it treats numbers as Latin characters, necessitating the stor- ing of Latin versions of any non-Latin numbers used internally by the software for calculations, such as book- page count. A third issue is that some of the metadata, such as author and illustrator names, need to be transliterated so their values can be displayed when the metadata are shown in a Latin-based language. Ideally, the translitera- tion standards used for a language need to be consistent so that the same values are always transliterated the same way. Unfortunately, the team has found no practical way to enforce this, except to state the standard to be used in ICDL metadata specification. When different standards are used, it makes comparison of equal items much more difficult. For example, the same Persian/Farsi creator has been Figure 10. Where’s the Bear? in Japanese Figure 9. Where’s the Bear? in English THE INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S DIGITAL LIBRARY | HUTCHINSON, ROSE, BEDERSON, WEEKS, AND DRUIN 9 10 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 transliterated as both “Hormoz Riyaahi” and “Hormoz Riahi.” It cannot be assumed that a person is the same just because the name is the same (John Smith), and when a name is in a character set that the team cannot understand, this problem becomes more challenging. Finally, there was the question of how to handle dif- ferences in character-set length and direction in the inter- face. Different languages use different numbers of characters to present the same text. ICDL screens had to be designed in such a way that the metadata in languages with longer or shorter representations than the English version would still fit. The team anticipates having to make additional interface changes to accommodate longer labels and navigational aids when the remainder of the interface is translated. The fact also had to be considered that, while most lan- guages are read left to right, a few (Arabic and Hebrew) are read right to left. As a result, screens were designed so that book metadata were reasonably presented in either direc- tion. Currently, only the text is displayed right to left, but eventually the goal is to mirror the entire interface to be oriented right to left when content is shown in right-to-left languages. For the problem of how to handle the arrows for turning pages in right-to-left languages—since these arrows could be interpreted as either “previous” and “next” or “left” and “right”—“previous” and “next” were chosen for consistency, so they work the same way in left- to-right books and right-to-left books. ■ Font Complications While most current browsers and operating systems rec- ognize Unicode characters, whether or not the characters are displayed properly depends on whether users have appropriate fonts installed on their computers. For instance, a user looking at Where’s the Bear? and choosing to display the metadata in Japanese will see the Japanese metadata only if the computer has a font installed that includes Japanese characters. Otherwise, depending on the browser and operating system, he may see question marks, square boxes, or nothing at all instead of the Japanese characters. The good news is that many users will never face this problem. The interface for ICDL is presented in English (until it is translated to other languages). Since most operating systems come with fonts that can display English characters, the team has metadata in English (always presented first by default) for nearly all the books. Users who choose to display book metadata in another language are likely to do so because they actu- ally can read that language, and therefore are likely to have fonts installed for displaying that language. Furthermore, many commonly used software packages, such as Microsoft Office, come with fonts for many lan- guages. As a result, many users will have fonts installed for more languages than just those required for the native language of their operating system. Of course, fonts will still be a problem for other users, such as those with new computers that have not yet been configured with different fonts or those using a public machine at a library. These users will need to install fonts so they can view book metadata, and eventually the entire interface, in other languages. To assist these users, help pages have been created to assist users with the process of installing a font on various operating systems. ■ Issues of Interpretation While technical issues have been a major challenge for ICDL, a number of nontechnical issues relating to inter- pretation have also been encountered. First, until the interface has been translated into different languages, visual icons are crucial for communicating information to young children who cannot read, and to users who do not speak English. However, certain pictorial representations may not be understood by all cultures, or worse, may offend some cultures. For example, one icon showing a boy sticking out his tongue had to be redesigned when it was learned this was offensive in the Chinese culture. The team has also redesigned other icons, such as those using stars as the rating system for popular books. The original icons used five-sided stars, which are religiously signifi- cant, so they were changed to more neutral seven- or eight-sided stars. As the team continues to internationalize the inter- face, there will likely be a need to change other icons that are difficult to represent in a culturally neutral way when the interface is displayed in different languages. For instance, it is a real challenge to create icons for categories such as Mythology or Super Heroes, since the symbols and stories for these concepts differ by culture. Icons for such categories as Funny, Happy, and Sad are also com- plicated because certain common American facial and hand representations have different, sometimes offensive, meanings in different cultures. What is considered funny in one culture (a clown) may not be understood well by another culture. Different versions of such icons may have to be created, depending on the language and cul- tural preferences of users. The team relies on its multicul- tural members, volunteers, and advisory board to highlight these concerns. Religious, social, and political problems of interpre- tation have also been encountered. ICDL’s collec- tion develops unevenly as relationships are built with various publishers and libraries. As a result, there are currently many Arabic books and only a few Hebrew books; this has generated multiple e-mails from users concerned that ICDL is taking a political stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict. To address this concern, the team is currently working to develop a more balanced collec- tion. Many books published in Hong Kong are received from contributors in either Hong Kong or China who want their own country to be credited with publication. To address this concern, it was decided to credit the publication country as “Hong Kong/China” to avoid offending either party. Finally, some books have been received with poten- tially objectionable content. Some of these are historical books involving presentation of content that is now con- sidered derogatory. Some include subject matter that may be deemed appropriate by some cultures but not by oth- ers. Some include information that may be too sophisti- cated for children three to thirteen years of age in any culture. While careful not to include books that are inap- propriate for children in this age group, the team does not want to censor books whose content is subjectively offen- sive. Instead, such contributors are consulted to make sure they were aware of ICDL collection-development guidelines. If they believe that a book is historically or culturally appropriate, the book is included. A statement is also provided at the bottom of all the book pages indi- cating that the books in the library come from diverse cul- tures and historical periods and may not be appropriate for all users of the library. ■ Conclusions and Lessons Learned Designing a digital library for an international, intergen- erational audience is a challenging process, but it is hugely rewarding. The team is continually amazed with feedback from users all over the world expressing thanks that books are made available from their countries, from teachers who use the library as a resource for lesson plan- ning, from parents who have discovered a new way to read with their children, and from children who are thrilled to discover new favorite books that they cannot get in their local library. Thus, the first recommendation the team can make based on experience is that creating international digital-library resources for children is a rich and rewarding area of research that others should continue to explore. A second important lesson learned is that an interna- tional, intergenerational team is an absolute necessity. Simply having users and testers from other countries is not enough; their input is valuable, but it comes too late in the design process to influence major design changes. Team members from different cultural backgrounds offer perspectives that an American-only team simply would not think to consider. Similarly, team members who are children understand how children like to look for and read books, and what interface tools are difficult or easy, and fun or not fun. Enthusiastic advisors and volunteers are also a crucial resource. The ICDL team does not have the time, money, or resources to address all of the issues that surface, and advisors and volunteers are key resources in the development process. Bringing together as diverse a team as possible is highly recommended. The goals of educational enrichment and international under- standing in an international library make it an attractive resource for people to want to help, so assembling such a team is not as difficult as it sounds. Beyond the human resources, the technical resources involved in making ICDL an international environment necessitate the examination and adjustment of software and interfaces at every level. Unlike many digital libraries that only focus on one or a few languages, ICDL must be simultaneously multilingual, multicultural, and multi- generational. As a result, a third lesson is that freely avail- able and open-source technologies are now available for making the necessary infrastructure meet these criteria. With varying degrees of complexity, the team was able to get all the pieces to work together properly. The more dif- ficult challenge, unfortunately, falls on ICDL’s users, who may need to install new fonts to view metadata in differ- ent languages. However, as computer and browser tech- nologies advance to reflect more global applications, this problem is expected to lessen and eventually disappear. Having technical staff capable of searching for and inte- grating open-source tools with international support to handle these technical issues is highly recommended, as well as usability staff versed in the nuances of different operating systems and browsers. Finally, the more subjective issue of cultural inter- pretation has proven to be the most interesting chal- lenge. It is one that will likely not disappear as ICDL’s collection grows and the next stage of development is embarked on for translating the interface to support other languages and cultures. The fourth lesson learned is that culture pervades every aspect of both the visual design and the content of the interface, and that it is nec- essary to examine one’s own biased cultural assump- tions to ensure respect of others. However, with the enthusiasm that continues to be seen in the ICDL team members, advisors, volunteers, and users, future design challenges will be able to be addressed with their help. The final recommendation is to actively seek feedback from team members, volunteers, and users from differ- ent backgrounds about the cultural appropriateness of all aspects of your software. It may not be possible to address all cultures in your audience right away, but it is important to have a framework in place so that these issues are addressed eventually. THE INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S DIGITAL LIBRARY | HUTCHINSON, ROSE, BEDERSON, WEEKS, AND DRUIN 11 12 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 ■ Acknowledgments ICDL is a large project with many people who make it the wonderful resource that it has become. We thank them all for their continued hard work, as well as our many volunteers and our generous contributors. We would especially like to thank NSF for our Information Technology Research grant, and IMLS for our National Leadership grant. Without this generous funding, our research would not be possible. References 1. Internet World Stats. Accessed Mar. 9, 2005, www.internet worldstats.com 2. National Telecommunications and Information Adminis- tration (2004). “A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age.” Accessed Mar. 9, 2005, www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/index. html. 3. I. Witten et al., “The Promise of Digital Libraries in Devel- oping Countries,” Communications of the ACM 44, no. 5 (2001): 82–85; J. Downie, (2003). “Realization of Four Important Princi- ples in Cross-Cultural Digital Library Development,” Workshop Paper for JCDL 2003. Accessed Dec. 16, 2004, http://music -ir.org/~jdownie/jcdl03_workshop_downie_dun.pdf. 4. P. Busey and T. Doerr, “Kid’s Catalog: An Information Retrieval System for Children,” Youth Services in Libraries 7, no. 1 (1993): 77–84; U. Külper, U. Schulz, and G. Will, “Bücherschatz—A Prototype of a Children’s OPAC,” Information Services and Use no. 17 (1997): 201–14; A. Druin et al., “Designing a Digital Library for Young Children: An Intergenerational Partnership,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2001), 398–405. 5. A. Druin, “What Children Can Teach Us: Developing Dig- ital Libraries for Children with Children,” Library Quarterly (in press). Accessed Dec. 16, 2004, www.icdlbooks.org. 6. A. Marcus, “Global and Intercultural User-Interface Design,” in J. Jacko and A. Sears, eds., The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 2002), 441–63. 7. T. Fernandes, Global Interface Design (Boston: AP Profes- sional, 1995). 8. G. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991). 9. Fernandes, Global Interface Design. 10. N. Hoft, “Developing a Cultural Model,” in E. del Galdo and J. Nielsen, eds., International User Interfaces (New York: Wiley, 1996), 41–73. 11. J. Nielsen, “International Usability Engineering,” in E. del Galdo, and J. Nielsen, eds., International User Interfaces (New York: Wiley, 1996), 1–13. 12. C. Borgman, “Multimedia, Multicultural, and Multilin- gual Digital Libraries: Or, How Do We Exchange Data in 400 Languages?” D-Lib Magazine 3 (June 1997). 13. I. Witten et al., “Greenstone: A Comprehensive Open- Source Digital Library Software System,” in Proceedings of Digital Libraries 2000 (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2000), 113–21. 14. G. Perlman, “The FirstSearch User Interface Architecture: Universal Access for Any User, in Many Languages, on Any Platform,” in CUU 2000 Conference Proceedings (New York: Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, 2000), 1–8. 15. S. Perugini et al., “Enhancing Usability in CITIDEL: Mul- timodal, Multilingual, and Interactive Visualization Interfaces,” in Proceedings of JCDL ‘04 (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2004), 315–24. 16. Witten et al., “The Promise of Digital Libraries in Devel- oping Countries”; Downie, “Four Important Principles.” 17. E. Duncker, “Cross-Cultural Usability of the Library Metaphor,” in Proceedings of JCDL ‘02 (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2002), 223–30. 18. P. Moore, and A. St. George, “Children as Information Seekers: The Cognitive Demands of Books and Library Sys- tems,” School Library Media Quarterly 19 (1991): 161–68; P. Solomon, “Children’s Information Retrieval Behavior: A Case Analysis of an OPAC,” Journal of the American Society for Informa- tion Science and Technology 44, no. 5 (1993): 245–64; Busey and Doerr, “Kid’s Catalog,” 77–84. 19. A. Pejtersen, “A Library System for Information Retrieval Based on a Cognitive Task Analysis and Supported by an Icon- Based Interface,” ACM Conference on Information Retrieval (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1989), 40–47. 20. Külper et al., “Bücherschatz—A Prototype of a Children’s OPAC,” 201–14. 21. Druin et al., “Designing a Digital Library,” 398–405. 22. Y. Theng et al., “Dynamic Digital Libraries for Children,” in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2001), 406–15. 23. A. Druin, “Cooperative Inquiry: Developing New Tech- nologies for Children with Children,” in Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1999), 592–99. 24. J. Hourcade et al., “The International Children’s Digital Library: Viewing Digital Books Online,” Interacting with Comput- ers 15 (2003): 151–67. 25. K. Reuter and A. Druin, “Bringing Together Children and Books: An Initial Descriptive Study of Children’s Book Search- ing and Selection Behavior in a Digital Library,” in Proceedings of American Society for Information Science and Technology Conference (in press). 26. International Youth Library, The White Ravens 2004. Avail- able for purchase at. www.ijb.de/index2.html (accessed Dec. 16, 2004). 27. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Accessed Dec. 16, 2004, www.dublincore.org. 28. Unicode Consortium (2004). Accessed Dec. 16, 2004, www.unicode.org. 29. J. Harris, Where’s the Bear? (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1997). 30. Perugini et al., “Enhancing Usability in CITIDEL,” 315–24. 
3359	----	Hutchinson This study focuses on the adoption and use of wireless technology by medium-sized academic libraries, based on responses from eighty-eight institutions. Results indicate that wireless networks are already available in many medium-sized academic libraries and that respondents from these institutions feel this technology is beneficial. W ireless networking offers a way to meet the needs of an increasingly mobile, tech-savvy stu- dent population. While many research libraries offer wireless access to their patrons, academic libraries serving smaller populations must heavily weigh both the potential benefits and disadvantages of this new technol- ogy. Will wireless networks become essential components of the modern academic library, or is this new technology just a passing fad? Prompted by plans to implement a wireless network at the Houston Cole Library (HCL) (Jacksonville State University’s [JSU’s] library), which serves a student enrollment close to ten thousand, this study was conducted to gather information about whether libraries similar in size and mission to HCL have adopted wireless technology. The study also sought to find out what, if any, problems other libraries have encountered with wireless networks and how successful they have perceived those networks to be. Other ques- tions addressed include level of technical support offered, planning, type of equipment used to access the network, and patron-use levels. � Review of Literature A review of the literature on wireless networks revealed a number of articles on wireless networks and checkout pro- grams for laptop computers at large research institutions. Seventy percent of major research libraries surveyed by Kwon and Soules in 2003 offered some degree of wireless access to their networks.1 No articles, however, specifically addressed the use of wireless networks in medium-sized academic libraries. Many articles can also be found on wireless-network use in medical libraries and other insti- tutions. Library instruction using wireless classrooms and laptops has been another subject of inquiry as well. Breeding wrote that there are a number of successful uses for wireless technology in libraries, and a wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) can be a natural extension of existing networks. He added that since it is sometimes difficult to install wiring in library buildings, wireless is more cost effective.2 A yearly survey conducted by the Campus Computing Project found that the number of schools planning for and deploying wireless networks rose dramatically from 2002 to 2003. “For example, the portion of campuses reporting strategic plans for wireless networks rose to 45.5 percent in fall 2003, up from 34.7 percent in 2002 and 24.3 percent in 2001.”3 The use of wireless access in academia is expected to keep growing. According to a summary of a study con- ducted by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR), the higher-education community will keep investing in the technology infrastructure, and institu- tions will continue to refine and update networks. The move toward wireless access “represents a user-centered shift, providing students and faculty with greater access than ever before.”4 In an article on ubiquitous computing, Drew provides a straightforward look at how WLANs work, security issues, planning, and the uses and ramifications of wire- less technology in libraries. He suggests, “Perhaps one of the most important reasons for implementing wireless networking across an entire campus or in a library is the highly mobile lifestyle of students and faculty.” The use of wireless will only increase with the advent of new portable devices, he added. Wireless networking is the best and least expensive way for students, faculty, and staff to take their office with them wherever they go.5 The circulation of laptop computers is a frequent topic in the available literature. The 2003 study by Kwon and Soules primarily focused on laptop-lending services in academic-research libraries. Fifty percent of the institu- tions that responded to their survey provided laptops for checkout. The majority indicated moderate-to-high use of laptop services. Positive user response and improved “public reputation, image, and relations” were the great- est advantages reported with laptop circulation. The major disadvantages associated with these services were related to labor and cost.6 A study of laptop checkout service at the Mildred F. Sawyer Library at Suffolk University in Boston revealed that laptop usage was popular during the fall semester of 1999. Students checked out the computers to work on group projects. A laptop area was set aside on one library floor to provide wired Internet access for eight users. However, students wanted to use the laptops any- where, not one designated place. The wired laptop areas were not popular, Dugan wrote, adding that “Few stu- dents used the wired area and the wires were repeatedly stolen or intentionally broken.” An interim phase involved providing wireless network cards for checkout Wireless Networks in Medium-sized Academic Libraries: A National Survey Paula Barnett-Ellis and Laurie Charnigo Paula Barnett-Ellis (pbarnett@jsucc.jsu.edu) is Health and Sciences Librarian, and Laurie Charnigo (charnigo@jsucc .jsu.edu) is Education Librarian at Houston Cole Library, Jacksonville State University, Alabama. WIRELESS NETWORKS IN MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES | BARNETT-ELLIS AND CHARNIGO 13 14 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 to encourage patrons to use their own laptops, and, when a wireless network was put into place in the fall of 2000, demand exceeded the number of available laptops for checkout.7 � Method A survey (see appendix) was designed to find out how many libraries similar in size and mission to HCL have adopted wireless networks, the experiences they have encountered in offering wireless access, and, most impor- tantly, whether they felt the investment in wireless tech- nology has been worth the effort.8 The National Center for Education Statistic’s Academic Library Peer Com- parison Tool, a database composed of statistical informa- tion on libraries throughout the United States, was used to select institutions for this study. A search on this data- base retrieved eighty-eight academic libraries that met two criteria: full-time enrollments of between five thou- sand and ten thousand, and classification by the Carnegie Classification of Higher Education as Master’s Colleges and Universities I.9 The survey was administered to those thought most likely to be responsible for systems in the library; they were selected from staff listings on library Web sites (Lib- rary Systems Administrator, Information Tech-nology [IT] staff). If such a person could not be identified, the survey was sent to the head of library systems or to the library director. The survey was divided into the following sections: implementation of wireless network, planning and instal- lation stages, user services, technical problems, and bene- fits specific to use of network. Surveys were mailed out in March 2004. An Internet address was provided in the cover letter if participants wished to take the survey online rather than return it by mail. An e-mail reminder with a link to the online survey was sent out three weeks after the initial survey was mailed. All letters and e-mails were personal- ized, and a self-addressed stamped envelope and a ball- point pen with the JSU logo were included with the mail surveys. In the e-mail reminder, the authors offered to share the results of the project with anyone who was inter- ested, and received several enthusiastic responses. � Results A total of fifty-three completed surveys were returned, resulting in a response rate of 60 percent. The over- whelming majority (85 percent) responded that their library offered wireless-network access. Even if the thirty-five surveys that were not returned had reported that wireless networks were not available, more than 50 percent would still have offered wireless networks. Survey results also pointed to the newness of the tech- nology. Only four of the fifty-three institutions have had wireless networks for more than three years. The major- ity (73 percent) has implemented wireless networks just within the last two years. When asked to identify the major reasons for offer- ing wireless networks to their patrons, the three responses most chosen were: (1) to provide greater access to users; (2) the flexibility of a network unfettered by the limitations of tedious wiring; and (3) to keep up with technological innovation (see table 1). Least signif- icant factors in the decision to implement wireless net- works were cost; use by library faculty and staff; to aid in bibliographic instruction; and use for carrying out technical services (taking inventory). Somewhat to the authors’ surprise, wireless use in bibliographic instruc- tion was not high on the list of reasons for installing a wireless network, identified by only 9 percent of respon- dents. The benefits of wireless for library instruction was stressed in the literature by Mathias and Heser and Patton.10 In addition to obtaining an instrument for gauging how many libraries similar in scope and size to HCL have implemented wireless networks and why they chose to do so, questions on the survey were also designed to gather information on planning and imple- mentation, user services, technical problems, and per- ceived benefits. � Planning and Implementation Although Tolson mentions that some schools have used committees composed of faculty, staff, and students to look into the adoption of wireless technology, responses from this survey indicated that the majority (60 percent) of the libraries did not form committees specifically for the planning of their wireless networks.11 In addition, 49 percent of the libraries took fewer than six months to plan for implementation of a network, 37 percent required six months to one year, and 15 percent reported more than one to two years. Actual time spent on instal- lation and configuration of wireless networks was rela- tively short, 98 percent indicating less than one year (see table 2 for specific times). One of the most important issues to consider when planning to implement a wireless network is extent of coverage—where wireless access will be available. Survey responses revealed varying degrees of wireless coverage among institutions. Twenty percent had cam- pus-wide access, 55 percent had some level of coverage throughout the entire library, 37 percent provided a lim- ited range of coverage outside the building, and 20 percent offered access only in certain areas within the library. According to a bulletin published by ECAR, institutions vary in their approaches to networking depending on enrollment. Smaller colleges and univer- sities with fewer than ten thousand students are “more likely to implement campuswide wireless networks from the start. Larger institutions are more likely to implement wireless technology in specific buildings, consistent with a desire to move forward at a modest pace, as resources and comfort with the technology grow.”12 Questions on the survey also queried respon- dents about the popularity of spaces in the library where users access the library’s wireless network. Answers revealed that the most popular areas for wireless access are study carrels, tables, and study rooms. Nineteen per- cent indicated that accessing wireless networks in the stacks is popular. Of particular concern to HCL, a thirteen-story build- ing, was how the environment of the library would accommodate a wireless network. A thorough site sur- vey is important to locate the best spots within the library to install access points and to determine whether there are architectural barriers in the building that might interfere with access. The majority of survey respon- dents indicated that the site survey conducted in their library for a wireless network was carried out by their academic institution’s IT staff (59 percent). While library staff conducted 35 percent of site surveys, only 17 per- cent were conducted by outside companies. � User Services An issue to be addressed by libraries deciding to go wireless is whether laptop computers should also be provided for checkout in the library. After all, it might be hard to justify the usefulness of a wireless network if users do not have access to laptops or other hardware with wire- less capabilities. While one individual reported working at a “laptop university” in which campuswide wireless networking exists and all students are required to own laptops, not all college stu- dents will have that luxury. In order to provide more equal access to students, checking out laptops has become an increasingly com- mon service in academic libraries. Seventy percent of this survey’s respondents whose institutions offered wireless access also made lap- tops available for checkout. Comments made throughout the survey seemed to imply that while checking out laptops to patrons is an invaluable complement to offering wireless access, librar- ians should be prepared for a myriad of hassles that accompany laptop checkout. Wear and tear of laptops, massive battery use, cost of laptops, and maintenance were some of the biggest problems reported. One partici- pant, whose institution decided to stop offering laptops for checkout to patrons in the library, wrote, “It required too much staff time to maintain and we decided the money was better spent elsewhere. The college now encourages students to purchase a laptop [instead of] a full-sized PC.” One participant worried that the rising use of laptops in his library would lead to the obsolescence of its more than one hundred wired desktops, writing, “Our desktops are very popular and we think having them is one of the reasons our gate count has increased in recent years. What happens when everyone has a laptop?” The number of laptops checked out in the libraries varied. The majority of libraries had purchased between one and thirty laptops available for checkout (see table 3). Three institutions had more than forty-one laptops avail- able for checkout. One library could boast that it had sixty laptops available for checkout with twelve pagers to notify students waiting in line to use laptops. When asked about the use of laptops in libraries, 46 percent Table 1. Main Reasons for Implementing a Wireless Network in Absolute Numbers and Percentages Reasons for Implementing Total Number of Percent of Responses a Wireless Network Responses out of Total Number Provide greater access to users 36 67 Flexibility (no wires, ease in setting up) 29 54 To keep up with or provide technological innovation 28 52 Campuswide initiative 21 39 Requests expressed by users 16 30 Provide greater online access due to shortage of computers-per-user in the library 15 28 Other 7 13 Offer network access outside the library building 6 11 Aid in bibliographic instruction 5 9 For use by library faculty and staff 5 9 Low cost 5 9 To carry out technical services (such as inventory) 4 7 WIRELESS NETWORKS IN MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES | BARNETT-ELLIS AND CHARNIGO 15 16 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 observed moderate use, while 32 percent reported heavy use of laptops. Only 3 percent indicated that they hardly ever noticed use of laptops in the library. For those stu- dents who chose to bring their own laptop to access the library’s wireless net- work, half of the institu- tions surveyed required students to purchase their own network-interface cards for their laptops, while 19 percent allowed students to check them out from the library. In addition to laptops, personal digital assis- tants, (PDAs) were listed by 37 percent of respon- dents as devices that may access wireless networks. One librarian indicated that cell phones could access the wireless net- work in his library. Fifty- six percent of respondents indicated that users are able to print to a central printer in the library from their wireless device. An important consid- eration for implementing a wireless network is how users will authenticate. Authentication protocol is defined by the Microsoft Encyclopedia of Networking as “any protocol used for validating the identity of a user to determine whether to grant the user access to resources over a net- work.”13 Authentication methods listed by the institutions surveyed varied greatly and the authors could not identify all of them. Methods mentioned were Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), virtual private net- work (VPN), and Media Access Control (MAC) addresses, Bluesocket, Remote Authentication Dial in User Service (RADIUS), pluggable Graphical Identification and Authentication (pGINA), Protected Extensive Authen- tication Protocol (PEAP), and e-mail logins. Out of the thirty-nine responses to this question, seven individuals indicated that they do not require any type of authentica- tion at the present. Although some individuals noted that they are planning to enable some type of authentication in the future, one participant suggested that there were ethi- cal issues involved in requiring users to authenticate. This person argued that “anonymous access to information is valued” and praised his institution’s current policy of allowing “anyone who can find the network” to use it. A concern about offering wireless network access in the library is how library staff will be prepared to handle the flood of technical questions that are likely to ensue. The level of technical support offered to users varied among the institutions surveyed. More than half of the respondents indicated that users receive help specifically from IT staff or from the campus computer center. Thirty- nine percent of users received help from the reference desk, while 19 percent received help from circulation staff. Thirty-three percent of the responding institutions offered technical help from a Web site, while 7 percent indicated that they did not offer any type of technical support to users. Technical Problems The technical problems most often encountered with wire- less networks centered on architectural barriers that cause black-outs or slow-spots where wireless access fails. This confirms the importance of carrying out thorough site sur- Table 2. Total Length of Time Taken to Completely Configure and Install the Wireless Network Time to Install and Total Number of Percent of Responses Configure Wireless Network Responses out of Total Number Less than one month 12 28 One to two months 11 26 More than two months to four months 10 23 More than four months to six months 4 9 More than six months to one year 5 12 More than one year 1 2 Table 3. Total Number of Laptops Available for Checkout in the Library Total Laptops Total Number of Percent of Responses Available for Checkout Responses out of Total Number One to five 8 26 Six to ten 5 16 Eleven to fiften 1 3 Sixteen to twenty 5 16 Twenty-one to thirty 8 26 Thirty-one to forty 1 3 More than forty 3 10 veys and testing prior to installation of access points. Site surveys may be carried out by companies specially equipped and trained to determine where access points should be installed, the most appro- priate type of antennae (directional or omnidirec- tional), and how many access points are needed to provide the greatest amount of coverage. Con- figuration of the network was the second most highly reported problem associated with installing wireless networks, seem- ing to suggest the need for librarians to coordinate their efforts and rely on the knowledge provided by the IT coordinator (or simi- lar type of personnel) within their institution. Lack of technical support available to users, slow speed, and authentication were also indicated as technical problems most encountered (see table 4). Integrating the wireless network with the existing wired network was the least-mentioned problem associated with wireless networks. Although security problems, particularly concerning Wired Equivalency Protocol (WEP) vulnerabilities, have been pointed out as one of the major drawbacks of a wire- less network, the majority of users had not as yet experi- enced security problems. Although one participant wrote, “Don’t be too casual about the security risks,” another individual wrote, “Talk to your networking department,” as many of them are overly worried about security. Perceived Benefits Respondents reported that the number-one benefit of offering wireless access was user satisfaction. Giving patrons the ability to use their laptops anywhere in the library and do multiple tasks from one machine is simply becoming what more and more users expect. The second- largest benefit revolved around flexibility and ease of use due to the lack of wires. Thirty-five percent indicated that allowing students to roam the stacks while accessing the network was a significant benefit. Although a few studies have suggested the promise of wireless networks for aid- ing bibliographic instruction, only 9 percent of respon- dents indicated this as a benefit of wireless technology. Use of wireless technology for instruction, it might be recalled, was not a significant factor noted by respondents in the decision to implement a wireless network. Likewise, use of this type of network to carry out technical services (such as inventory) was also low on the scale of benefits. Seventy-three percent of users claimed that wireless net- works have thus far been worth the cost-benefit ratio. While 70 percent indicated moderate to heavy use of the wireless network, 27 percent reported low usage. When asked what advice they would give to others considering adopting wireless networks in their libraries, the overwhelming majority of responses were positive, recommending that HCL take the plunge. As one indi- vidual wrote, “Offer it and they will come. It has really increased the usage of our library.” Other individuals noted that it is simply necessary to offer wireless access to keep up with technological innovation, and that students expect it. The most significant warning, however, revolved around checkout and maintenance of laptops, which, from the results of this survey, seems be both a big advantage and a headache. Several individuals echoed the importance of doing site surveys to test bandwidth limitations and access. One particularly energized partic- ipant, using multiple exclamations for emphasis, shared a plethora of advice. “Throttle connection speeds! Allow only http access! Block ports and unnecessary protocols! Secure your network and disallow unauthenticated users! Use access control lists! Establish policies that describe WIRELESS NETWORKS IN MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES | BARNETT-ELLIS AND CHARNIGO 17 Table 4. Technical Problems Encountered Problems Total Number of Percent of Responses Encountered Responses out of Total Number Architectural barriers 15 28 Configuration problems 12 22 Not enough technical help available to users when needed 10 19 Slow speed 10 19 Authentication problems 10 19 Blackouts 6 11 Problems installing drivers 6 11 Security problems 6 11 Difficulty signing on 6 11 Problems with operating systems 5 9 Other 3 6 Problems integrating the wireless network with an existing wired network 2 4 18 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 [wireless fidelity] Wi-Fi risks and liabilities on your part!” Useful advice on wireless-access implementation gleaned from this survey fell under the following categories: � Be aware of slower speed � Create a policy and guide for users � Do it because more users are going wireless, it is nec- essary to keep up with technological innovation, and because students love it � Provide plenty of access points � Install access points in appropriate places � Ensure continuous connectivity by allowing overlap between access points � Purchase battery chargers and heavy-duty laptops with extended warranties � Get support from IT staff for planning and mainte- nance � Offering wireless will increase library usage � Perform or have an expert perform a careful site sur- vey and do lots of testing to locate dead or slow spots in the library due to architectural barriers � Enable some type of authorization � Be aware of security concerns � Although the majority of participants’ networks (70 percent) support 802.11b (which allows for through- put up to 11 megabits per second), a few participants suggest using the 802.11g standard (up to 54 megabits per second) because it is “the fastest” and “backwards compatible to 802.11b” � Conclusion Though it is a relatively new technology, this study found that a surprisingly large number of medium-sized aca- demic libraries are already offering wireless access. Not only are they offering wireless access, but they are also pro- viding patrons with laptops for checkout in the library. Although actual use of the network by patrons was not determined through survey responses (as individuals were only asked about their observations of network use), the comments and answers were overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic about this new technology. Problems that have been encountered with wireless networks largely revolve around configuration, slow speed, and laptop checkout. Although much of the literature focuses on secu- rity issues that accompany wireless networking, few indi- viduals reported problems with security. College and university students, like the rest of soci- ety, are becoming increasingly mobile. More often, they want access to library networks and the Internet wher- ever they happen to be studying or working on group projects, not merely in computer labs or designated study areas. The majority of the libraries in this study are accommodating these students’ needs by offering wire- less access. According to Breeding, wireless networking is a rapidly growing niche in the networking world, and mobile computer users will become a larger and larger part of any library’s clientele.14 To encourage patrons to continue visiting them, academic libraries, large and small, should attempt to meet the demand for wireless access if at all possible. References and Notes 1. Myoung-ja Lee Kwon and Aline Soules, Laptop Computer Services: SPEC Kit 275 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries Office of Leadership and Management Services, 2003), 11. 2. Marshall Breeding, “The Benefits of Wireless Technolo- gies,” Information Today 19, no. 3 (Mar. 2002): 42–43. 3. Kenneth C. Green, “The Campus Computing Project.” Accessed Mar. 3, 2004, www.campuscomputing.net/. 4. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, “Respondent Summary: Wireless Networking in Higher Education in the U.S. and Canada.” Accessed Dec. 4, 2003, www.educause.edu/ ir/library/pdf/ecar_so/ers/ERS0202/ekf0202.pdf. 5. Wilfred Drew, “Wireless Networks: New Meaning to Ubiquitous Computing,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 29, no. 2 (Mar. 2003): 102–106. 6. Kwon and Soules, Laptop Computer Services, 11, 15–17. 7. Robert E. Dugan, “Managing Laptops and the Wireless Networks at the Mildred F. Sawyer Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27, no. 4 (Jul. 2001): 295–98. 8. Questions on the survey did not distinguish as to whether wireless network installations were initiated by IT or library personnel. 9. National Center for Education Statistics, “Compare Acad- emic Libraries.” Accessed Mar. 10, 2004, http://nces.ed.gov/ surveys/libraries/academicpeer/. 10. Molly Susan Mathias and Steven Heser, “Mobilize Your Instruction Program with Wireless Technology,” Computers in Libraries 22, no.3 (Mar. 2002): 24–30; Janice K. Patton, “Wireless Computing in the Library: A Successful Model at St. Louis Com- munity College,” Community & Junior-College Libraries 10, no. 3 (Mar. 2001): 11–16. 11. Stephanie Diane Tolson, “Wireless Laptops and Local Area Networks.” Accessed Dec. 11, 2003, www.thejournal.com/ magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=3536. 12. Raymond Boggs and Paul Arabasz, “Research Bulletin: The Move to Wireless Networking in Higher Education.” Accessed Dec. 4, 2003, www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0207.pdf. 13. Mitch Tulloch, Microsoft Encyclopedia of Networking (Red- mond, Wash.: Microsoft Pr., 2002), 122. 14. Marshall Breeding, “A Hard Look at Wireless Networks,” Library Journal 127, no. 12 (Summer 2002): 14–17. 1. Has a wireless network been implemented in your library? __Yes __No 2. If your library has not adopted wireless networking, are you currently planning or seriously considering it for the near future? __Yes (Please skip to question 4) __No (Please fill out questions 2 and 3 only) 3. What are your primary concerns about implement- ing a wireless network? Check all that apply. __The technology is still new __Unsure of its benefits __No need for one __Questions regarding security __Cost __Would not be able to provide technical support that might be needed __Funds must primarily support other types of tech- nology at the moment __Have not noticed many users with laptops in the library __Slow speed of wireless networks __Other 4. How long has a wireless network been implemented in your library? __Fewer than 6 months __6 months to 1 year __More than 1 to 2 years __More than 2 to 3 years __More than 3 years 5. What were the main reasons for implementing a wireless network? Check all that apply. __Provide greater access to users __Campuswide initiative __Offer network access outside the library building __Provide greater online access due to shortage of computers per user in the library __Flexibility (no wires, ease in setting up) __Requests expressed by users __Low cost __To keep up with or provide technological innovation __To carry out technical services (such as inventory) __Aid in bibliographic instruction __For use by library faculty and staff __Other 6. Please describe the coverage of your network. Check all that apply. __Campuswide __Library building and limited range outside the library building __Inside the library (all areas) __Select areas within the library 7. What areas of the library are most popularly used for access to the wireless network? Check all that apply. __Reference and computer media center areas __In the stacks __Librarians and staff offices __Carrels, tables, reading or study rooms __Area outside the library building 8. Please list standards your wireless network supports. Check all that apply. __802.11b __802.11a __802.11g __Bluetooth __Other Planning and Installation 1. Was a committee established to plan the implemen- tation and service of the wireless network? __Yes __No 2. How long did it take to plan for implementation of the wireless network? __Fewer than 6 months __6 months to 1 year __More than 1 to 2 years __More than 2 years 3. How long did it take to install and configure the net- work? __Less than a month __1 to 2 months __More than 2 to 4 months __More than 4 to 6 months __More than 6 months to 1 year __More than 1 year 4. Who performed the site survey? Check all that apply. __An outside company or contractor Appendix. Survey: Implementation of Wireless Networks WIRELESS NETWORKS IN MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES | BARNETT-ELLIS AND CHARNIGO 19 20 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 __Institution’s own information technology coordi- nator or computer staff __Library staff with technical expertise __No site survey was conducted 5. If the site surveyor was an outside company or con- tractor, please list their company name and whether you would recommend them. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ User Services 1. How are users authenticated? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Does the library check out laptops to users (for either wired or wireless use)? __Yes __No 3. If laptops are available for checkout, do they have wireless capability? __Yes __No 4. How many laptops do you have for checkout? __One to five __Six to ten __Eleven to fifteen __Sixteen to twenty __Twenty-one to thirty __Thirty-one to forty __More than forty 5. How would you describe use of laptops in your library on the average day? __Heavy—very noticeable use of laptops __Moderate use of laptops __Low use of laptops __Not sure __Hardly even notice laptops are used 6. How do users obtain wireless cards for the network? Check all that apply. __Check out from library __Purchase from library __Purchase from the campus computer center __Must purchase on their own 7. If the library checks out wireless cards, how many were purchased for checkout? __One to five __Six to ten __Eleven to fifteen __Sixteen to twenty __Twenty-one to twenty-five __Twenty-six to thirty __More than thirty 8. What type of technical support does the library pro- vide to users? Check all that apply. __Help from reference or help desk __Help from the information technology staff or campus computer center __Circulation staff __Other library staff __From a Web site __No technical help is provided to users 9. Has the library created a policy for the use of wire- less networks? __Yes __No 10. Are users able to print from the wireless network in the library? __Yes __No 11. Which of the following may access the wireless net- work? Check all that apply. __Laptops __Desktop computers __PDAs __Cell phones __Other Technical Problems 1. What technical problems have you or your users encountered? Check all that apply. __Blackouts __Architectural barriers __Slow speed __Problems integrating the wireless network with an existing wired network __Configuration problems __Security problems __Authentication problems __Problems with operating systems __Difficulty signing on __Not enough technical help available to users when needed __Problems installing drivers __Other 2. Have you experienced security problems with the network? Check all that apply. __Have not experienced any security problems __Problems with unauthorized people accessing the Internet through the wireless network __Problems with restricted parts of the network being accessed by unauthorized users __Other 3. How were security problems resolved? Benefits of Use of Network 1. What have been the biggest benefits of wireless tech- nology? Check all that apply. __User satisfaction __Increased access to the Internet and online sources __Flexibility and ease due to lack of wires __Has improved technical services (use for library functions) __Has aided in bibliographic instruction __Provides access beyond the library building __Allows students to roam the stacks while access- ing the network __Other 2. How would you describe current usage of the net- work? __Heavy __Moderate __Low 3. In your opinion, has this technology been worth the benefit-cost ratio thus far? __Yes __No __Not sure 4. What advice would you give to librarians consider- ing this technology? (Editorial continued from page 3) design and implementation of complex systems to serve our users. Writing about that should not be solitary either. I hope to publish think-pieces from leaders in our field. I hope to publish more articles on the management of information technologies. I hope to increase the number of manuscripts that provide retrospectives. Libraries have always been users of information technologies, often early adopters of leading-edge technologies that later become common- place. We should, upon occasion, remember and reflect upon our development as an information-technology profession. I hope to work with the editorial board, the LITA Publications Committee, and the LITA board to find a way, and soon, to facilitate the electronic publication of articles without endangering—but in fact enhancing—the absolutely essential financial contribution that the journal provides to the association. In short, I want to make ITAL a destination journal of excellence for both readers and authors, and in doing so reaffirm the importance of LITA as a professional division of ALA. To accomplish my goals, I need more than an excellent editorial board, more than first-class referees to provide quality control, and more than the support of the LITA officers. I need all LITA members to be prospective authors, prospective referees, and prospective literary agents acting on behalf of our profession to continue the almost forty-year tradition begun by Fred Kilgour and his colleagues, who were our predecessors in volume 1, num- ber 1, March 1966, of our journal. Reference 1. Walt Crawford, First Have Something to Say: Writing for the Library Profession (Chicago: ALA, 2003). WIRELESS NETWORKS IN MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES | BARNETT-ELLIS AND CHARNIGO 21 
3360	----	BarnettEllis 22 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 The MetaScholar Initiative of Emory University Libraries, in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Southern Culture, the Atlanta History Center, and the Georgia Music Hall of Fame, received an Institute of Museum and Library Services grant to develop a new model for library-museum-archives collaboration. This collaboration will broaden access to resources for learning communities through the use of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI- PMH). The project, titled Music of Social Change (MOSC), will use OAI-PMH as a tool to bridge the widely varying metadata standards and practices across museums, archives, and libraries. This paper will focus specifically on the unique advantages of the use of OAI- PMH to concurrently maximize the exposure of metadata emergent from varying metadata cultures. T he MetaScholar Initiative of Emory University Libraries, in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Southern Culture, the Atlanta History Center, and the Georgia Music Hall of Fame, received an Institute of Museum and Library Services grant to develop a new model for library-museum-archives col- laboration to broaden access to resources for learning communities through the use of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH).1 The collaborators of the project, entitled Music of Social Change (MOSC), are creating a subject-based virtual col- lection concerning music and musicians associated with social-change movements such as the civil-rights strug- gle. This paper will specifically focus on the advantages offered by OAI-PMH in amalgamating and serving meta- data from these institutional sources that are significantly different in kind.2 There has been a great deal of discussion within the library community as to the possibilities OAI-PMH holds for harvesting, aggregating, and then disseminat- ing research metadata. However, in reality, only a few of institutions (be they museum, archives, or libraries) have actually begun to utilize OAI-PMH to this end. There are some practical, historical barriers to implementing any shared system for distributing metadata across institu- tions that are, more than in degree, different in kind. One of these significant differences is of metadata cultures and practices. Libraries have traditionally incrementally assigned metadata at an item level within their collection(s). The strength of this model is that at least a minimal amount of metadata is assigned to a very high percentage of items within the collection. The challenge of such a system is that for such metadata records to interoperate within a shared database and through a common interface (for example, the traditional union catalog), the metadata fields have been quite rigidly defined compared to those within archival and museum environments. Due to tradi- tion as well as the sheer volume of items collected by libraries, metadata at an item level are not greatly detailed or contextualized. Often, items within library collections lack robust relationary mapping to other items within or outside of the collection, as is done, for exam- ple, in archival processing. Content contextualization is highly valued by archival metadata practices and culture as the central tenet of metadata creation. Items at a subcollection level almost always have metadata derivative from and defer- ential to that of the collection-level metadata. The great benefit of archival practices in metadata assignment is a contextualization of content that reflects the background, the topographic place in time and space of a given por- tion of a collection and its organic, emergent relationship to the whole. The weaknesses of this model are a great inconsistency in description details and variables (at the collection and subcollection levels), as well as very dis- parate levels of granularity within the hierarchy of the structure of a collection at which metadata are assigned. Such disparities among institutional types feed an unnec- essary level of misunderstanding by libraries of the meta- data culture and aims of archives as well as those of museums. Museums often have very skeletal documented (as opposed to undocumented) metadata about their collec- tions or objects therein. Often museums are not funded to make metadata on their collections freely available. It is common, in fact, for curatorial staff to view metadata as intellectual property to which they serve as gatekeepers, reflecting a professional value placed upon contextualiz- ing materials for users. This is done on a user-by-user or exhibition-by-exhibition basis, depending on user back- ground or the thesis of a given exhibition. Additionally, museums perceive information on the aboutness of their collections to be a class of capital with which they can always potentially cost-recover or generate income. Within the culture of museums, staff have traditionally been disinclined to make their collections available in an unmediated manner. Additionally, there has been resist- ance to documenting information about collections in a systematic way. There is even greater resistance to adher- ing to any prescriptions on metadata as would be required for compliance with even the most minimally structured database. Such regulation would discriminate The MOSC Project: Using the OAI-PMH to Bridge Metadata Cultural Differences across Museums, Archives, and Libraries Eulalia Roel Eulalia Roel (eulalia.roel@gmail.com) is Coordinator of Informa- tion Resources at the Federal Reserve, Atlanta. against the nuanced information required for each and every object within a collection. � Why OAI-PMH to Bridge These Cultures? OAI-PMH was selected by the MOSC project as a means to bridge some of these substantial disparities. The proto- col is often mistakenly assumed to function only with metadata expressed as unqualified Dublin Core (DC). In fact, the protocol functions with any metadata format expressed by Extensible Markup Language (XML); this is the minimal requirement for content to serve metadata through OAI-PMH. This includes those formats that have been well received by institutions other than libraries, such as XML Encoded Archival Description (EAD) as it is used in archives. As per 4.2 of the OAI-PMH Guidelines for Repository Implementers, Communities are able to develop their own collec- tion description XML schemas for use within description . . . elements. If all that is desired is the ability to include an unstructured textual descrip- tion, then it is recommended that repositories use the Dublin Core description element. Seven existing schemes are: Dublin Core, Encoded Archival Description (EAD), the eprints schema, RSLP collec- tion description schema, UDDI/WSDL, MARC21, and the branding schema.3 The OAI protocol has often been partnered with unqualified DC metadata, as this is the most minimal metadata structure necessary for participation in an OAI harvesting system. Not only are these DC fields unquali- fied, no fields are actually required. No structure or regu- lations are codified outside of requiring metadata contributors to adhere to this unqualified metadata schema. Therefore, the OAI protocol requires minimal technology support and resources at any given contribut- ing site (such support varying more widely across insti- tutions than even their metadata practices themselves). This maximizes flexibility in metadata contribution, as well as maximizing interoperability between the collec- tive data pool from which a user can search. Granted, this unregulated framework does come at a cost of inconsis- tency in metadata detail and quality. However, the great advantage of such nominal requirements is that they enable contributors with mini- mal metadata-encoding practices to participate in the metadata collaborative. Following is an example of a record as it may appear in the MOSC collection: <record> <header> <identifier>oai:atlantahistorycenter.com:10 </identifier> <datestamp>2003-03-31</datestamp> <setSpec>south:blues</setSpec> <setSpec>south:mississippi-delta-region </setSpec> </header> <metadata> <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc=”http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/ oai_dc/” xmlns:dc=”http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/” xmlns:xsi=”http://www.w3.org/2001/ XMLSchema-instance” xsi:schemaLocation=”http://www.openarchives.org/ OAI/2.0/oai_dc/http://www.openarchives.org/ OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd”> <dc:title>Long Hall Recordings</dc:title> <dc:creator>Morris, William</dc:creator> <dc:subject>Blues</dc:subject> <dc:description>..</dc:description> <dc:description>Comment: sound amateur recording </dc:description> <dc:date>2003-05-16</dc:date> <dc:type>sound recording</dc:type> <dc:identifier>http://atlantahistorycenter.com/ porcelain/10</dc:identifier> </oai_dc:dc> </metadata> </record> Additionally, with no fields required by the DC schema, institutions can have absolute discretion as to what metadata are exposed if this is a concern (as may be for privacy considerations for archives or for intellectual- property concerns for museums). However, one of the great strengths of implement- ing OAI-PMH is that, while the threshold for regulat- ing metadata is low, the protocol can also handle any metadata format expressed by XML, including data formats significantly more structured than DC; for example, EAD, Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and TEI Lite-defined documents. Scholars are then able to access these scholarly objects via one point, while still being able to collectively access and utilize all metadata objects available in all collections, from the most to the least robust. The aim of the MOSC project participants in selecting OAI-PMH is to maximize participation from fairly dis- parate kinds of organizations, with equally disparate kinds of metadata cultures and practices. In comparison to other, currently available methods of metadata aggre- gation, OAI-PMH is maximally forgiving of discordant metadata suppliers. Thereby, the hope is, metadata con- tributions are maximized. Concurrently, the protocol THE MOSC PROJECT | ROEL 23 24 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 allows for highly robust metadata formats. As the cost for inclusion in aggregated systems, in some cases metadata objects are stripped down. This need is eliminated when OAI-PMH is utilized. The use of the protocol allows for the inclusion of objects consisting of the most skeletal unqualified Dublin Core elements, while still accommo- dating the most complicated metadata objects. Optimally, this is a means to achieve a critical mass of contributed resources that will enable end users to utilize the MOSC project as the premier site and a primary resource for information on materials about music and musicians associated with social-change movements. � Acknowledgment The author would like to express her sincerest gratitude to the Institute of Museum and Library Services for fund- ing the Music of Social Change Project. References 1. “MetaScholar: An Emory University Digital Library Research Initiative,” Emory University Libraries Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, http://metascholar.org/; “The Center for Southern Culture,” University of Mississippi Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, www.olemiss.edu/depts/south/; “Atlanta History Center,” Atlanta History Center Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, www.atlantahistorycenter.com/; “Georgia Music Hall of Fame,” Georgia Music Hall of Fame Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, www.gamusichall.com/home.html; “Institute of Museum and Library Services: Library-Museum Collaboration,” Institute of Museum and Library Services Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, www.imls.gov/grants/l-m/index.htm. 2. “Implementation Guidelines for the Open Archives Ini- tiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting,” Open Archives Initia- tive Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, www.openarchives.org/ OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html#Introduction. 3. “4.2 Collection and Set Descriptions,” Open Archives Ini- tiative Web site. Accessed Sept. 1, 2004, www.openarchives.org/ OAI/2.0/guidelines-repository.htm#setDescription. 
3361	----	Roel Some considered 2000 the year of the e-book, and due to the dot-com bust, that could have been the format’s high- water mark. However, the first quarter of 2004 saw the greatest number of e-book purchases ever with more than $3 million in sales. A 2002 consumer survey found that 67 percent of respondents wanted to read e-books; 62 per- cent wanted access to e-books through a library. Unfortunately, the large amount of information written on e-books has begun to develop myths around their use, functionality, and cost. The author suggests that these myths may interfere with the role of libraries in helping to determine the future of the medium and access to it. Rather than fixate on the pros and cons of current ver- sions of e-book technology, it is important for librarians to stay engaged and help clarify the role of digital docu- ments in the modern library. A lthough 2000 was unofficially proclaimed as the year of the electronic book, or e-book, due in part to the highly publicized release of a Stephen King short story exclusively in electronic format, the dot-com bust would derail a number of high-profile e-book endeavors. With far less fanfare, the e-book industry has been slowly recovering. In 2004, e-books repre- sented the fastest-growing segment of the publishing industry. During the first quarter of that year, more than four hundred thousand e-books were sold, a 46 percent increase over the previous year ’s numbers.1 E-books continue to gain acceptance with some readers, although their place in history is still being deter- mined—fad? great idea too soon? wrong approach at any time? The answers partly depend on the reader ’s perspective. The main focus of this article is the role of e-book technologies in libraries. Libraries have always served as repositories of the written word, regardless of the particular medium used to store the words. From the ancient scrolls of Qumran to the hand-illuminated manuscripts of medieval Europe to the familiar typeset codices of today, the library’s role has been to collect, organize, and share ideas via the writ- ten word. In today’s society, the written word is increasingly encountered in digital form. Writers use word processors; readers see words displayed; and researchers can scan countless collections without leaving the confines of the office. For self-proclaimed book lovers, the digital world is not necessarily an ideal one. Emotional reactions are common when one imagines a world without a favorite writing pen or the musty-smelling, yellowed pages of a treasured volume from youth. One of the battle lines between the traditional bib- liophile and the modern technologist is drawn over the concept of the e-book. Some see this digital form of written word as an evolutionary step beyond printed texts, which have been sometimes humorously dubbed tree-books. Although a good deal of attention has been generated by the initial publicity regarding newer e-book technolo- gies, the apparent failures of most of them has begun to establish myths around the concept. Abram points out that the relative success of e-books in niche areas (such as reference works) is in direct contrast with public opinion of those purchasing novels and popular literature through traditional vendors.2 Crawford paraphrases Lewis Carroll in describing this confusion: “When you cope with online content about e-books, you can believe six impossible things before breakfast.”3 Incidentally, this article will attempt to dispel a mere five of the myths about e-books. The future of e-books and the critical role of libraries in this future are best served by uncovering these myths and seeking a balanced, reasoned view of their potential. A 2002 consumer survey on e-books found that 67 percent of respondents wanted to read an e-book, and 62 percent wanted that access to be from a library.4 Underlying this position is the assumption that the ideas represented by the written word are of paramount importance to both writers and readers. It is also assumed that libraries will continue their critical role in collecting, organizing, and sharing information. � Myth 1—E-books Represent a New Idea That Has Failed Many libraries have invested in various forms of e-book delivery with mixed results.5 Sottong wisely warns of the premature adoption of e-book technology, which he dubs a false pretender as a replacement to printed texts.6 However, the last five years are but a small part of a longer history, and presumably, a still longer future As is often the case with computer jargon, the term e-book has emerged and gained currency in a very short amount of time. However, the concept of providing writ- ten texts in an electronic format has existed for a long time, as demonstrated by Bush’s description of the Dispelling Five Myths about E-books James E. Gall James E. Gall (james.gall@unco.edu) is Assistant Professor of Educational Technology at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley. DISPELLING FIVE MYTHS ABOUT E-BOOKS | GALL 25 26 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 memex.7 The Gutenberg Project put theory into practice by converting traditional texts into digital files as early as 1971.8 Even if the e-book merely represents the latest incar- nation of the concept, it does so tenuously. Books in their present form have a history of hun- dreds of years, or thousands if their parchment and papyrus ancestors are included. This history is rich with successes and failures of technology. For example, Petroski presents an interesting historical examination of the problem of storing books when the one book–one desk model collapsed under the proliferation of available texts.9 Similarly, a determination on the success or failure of e-books, or digital texts, based upon a relatively short period of time, is fraught with difficulty. Rather, it is important to look at recent developments as merely a next step. The technology is clearly not ready for uncriti- cal, widespread acceptance, but it is also deserving of more than a summary dismissal. � Myth 2—E-books Are Easily Defined The term e-book means different things depending on the context. At the simplest, it refers to any primarily textual material that is stored digitally to be delivered via elec- tronic display. One of the confusing aspects of defining e- books is that in the digital world, information and the media used to store, transfer, and view it are loosely cou- pled. An e-book in digital form can be stored on CD–ROM or any number of other media and then passed on through computer networks or telephone lines. The device used to view an e-book could be a standard computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or an e-book reader (the dedicated piece of equipment on which an e-book can be read; con- fusingly, also referred to as an e-book). Technically, virtu- ally any computing device with a display could be used as an e-book reader. From a practical point of view, our eyes might not tolerate reading great lengths of text on a wire- less phone, and banks will not likely provide excerpts of Chaucer during ATM transactions. Another important factor in defining e-books is the actual content. A conservative definition is that an e-book is an electronic copy or version of a printed text. This appears to be the predominant view of publishers. Purists often maintain that a true e-book is one that is specifically written for that format and not available in traditional printed form.10 This was one of the categories of the short- lived (2000–2002) Frankfurt E-book Awards. Of course, the multitude of textual materials that could be delivered via the technology exceeds these definitions. Magazines, primary-source documents, online commentaries and reviews, and transcripts of audio or video presentations are just a short list of nonbook materials that are finding their way into e-book formats. One can note with some sense of irony that the technology behind the Web was originally designed as a way for scientists to disseminate research reports.11 Despite the Web’s popularity, reading research reports makes up an exceedingly small percent- age of its use today. Although there is a continuing effort to reach a com- mon standard for e-books (see www.openebook.org/), the current marketplace contains numerous noncompati- ble formats. This noncompatibility is the result of both design and competitive tradeoffs. In the case of the for- mer, there is a distinct philosophical difference between formats that attempt to retain the original look and navi- gation of the printed page (such as Adobe’s popular PDF files) versus those that retain the text’s structure but allow variability in its presentation (as best exemplified by the free-flowing nature of texts presented as HTML pages). This difference can also be seen in the functionality built around the format. Traditional systems provide readers with familiar book characteristics such as a table of con- tents, bookmarks, and margin notes, a view that could be named bibliocentric. The alternative is one that takes more advantage of the new medium and could be labeled tech- nocentric, and can most easily be seen in the extensive use of hyperlinking.12 The simplest use of hyperlinking pro- vides an easy form of annotating texts and presenting related texts. On the other extreme, hyperlinks are used in the creation of nonlinear texts in which the followed links provide a unique context for building meaning on the part of the reader.13 It is interesting to note that a prelimi- nary study of e-book features found that the most desir- able features tended to reflect the functionality of traditional books and the least desirable features pro- vided functionality not found there.14 Competitive tradeoffs are a critical issue at the current point of e-book development. The current profit models of publishing entities and copyright concerns of authors seem naturally opposed to e-book formats in which texts were freely shared, duplicated, and distributed. For example, the Open Ebook Forum is the most prominent organization devoted to the development of standards for e-book tech- nologies. In late 2004, their Web site listed seventy-six cur- rent members. Although the American Library Association is a member, it is one of only six members representing library-oriented organizations. In comparison, thirty-five members (or 46 percent) are publishing organizations, and thirteen (or 17 percent) are technology companies.15 The number of traditional publishers versus technology compa- nies on this list may suggest that a bibliocentric view of e- books would be more favored. This also appears to confirm one media prediction that traditional publishers would continue to dominate efforts with this new medium.16 However, the limited representation of libraries in this endeavor is troubling (despite the disclaimer of using an admittedly rough metric for measuring impact). It is clear that many industry formats attempt to limit the ability to distribute materials by keying files so that they may only be viewed on one device or a specific installed version of the reader software. This creates technological problems for entities like libraries that attempt to provide access to infor- mation for various parties. The concept of fair use of copy- righted materials has to be reexamined under an entirely new set of assumptions. Another irony is that the availabil- ity of free, public-domain materials in e-book format can be viewed as negative by the publishing industry. After invest- ing considerable time and effort in developing e-book tech- nology, publishers would prefer that users continue purchasing new e-book material rather than spend time reading the vast library of free historical material. Many of these content issues are currently being played out in courts and the marketplace, particularly with regard to digital music and video.17 Although one can humorously imagine the so-called problems associ- ated with a population obsessed with downloading and reading great literature, the precedents set by these pop- ular media will have a direct impact on the future of dig- ital texts. Despite the labor required to scan or key entire print books into digital formats, there have been some reports of this type of piracy.18 Other models for the dis- semination of digital intellectual property that are not determined by traditional material concerns of supply and demand will continually be attempted. For example, Nelson predicted a hypertext-publishing scheme in which all material was available, but royalties were dis- tributed according to actual access by end users.19 Theoretically, such a system would provide a perfect bal- ance between access and profitability. In Nelson’s words “Nothing will ever be misquoted or out of context, since the user can inquire as to the origins and native form of any quotation or other inclusion. Royalties will be auto- matically paid by a user whenever he or she draws out a byte from a published document.”20 � Myth 3—E-books and Printed Books Are Competing Media Many, if not most, published articles regarding e-books fol- low classic plot construction; the writer must present a pro- tagonist and an antagonist. Bibliophiles place the printed page as the hero and the e-book as the potential bane of civ- ilization. Proulx, one such author, was quoted as saying, “Nobody is going to sit down and read a novel on a twitchy little screen—ever.”21 Technologists cast the e-book as the electronic savior of text, replacing the tired tradition of the printed word in the same way the printed word replaced oral traditions. Hawkins quotes an author who claims that e-books are “a meteor striking the scholarly publication world.” His slightly more restrained view was that e-books had the potential “to be the most far-reaching change since Gutenberg’s invention.”22 Grant places this metaphorical battle at the forefront by titling an article “E-books: Friend or Foe?”23 Before deciding which side to take, consider whether this clash of media is an appropriate metaphor. This author has introduced samples of current e- book technology in graduate classes he has taught. When presented with the technology as part of the coursework, students quickly declare their allegiances. Bibliophiles most often suggest that the technology will never replace the love of curling up with a good book. The technologists will ask how many pages can be stored in the device and then fantasize about the types of libraries they can carry and the various venues for reading that they will explore. However, after a few weeks in using the devices, both groups tend to move to a middle ground of practical use. At that point, the dis- cussion turns to what materials are best left on the printed page (usually described as pleasure reading) and what would be useful in e-book format (reference works, course catalogs, how-to manuals). Other instruc- tors have reported similar patterns of use.24 At this point, the observation is largely anecdotal, but it does call into question the perceived need for a decisive referendum on the value of e-books. The issue is not whether e-books will replace the printed word. The con- cern of librarians and others involved in the infrastruc- ture of the book should be on developing the proper role for e-books in a broader culture of information. Unless this approach is taken, the true goal of libraries—dissem- inating information to the public—will suffer. The gap between bibiliophile and technologist approaches can already be seen in the materials available in e-book for- mat. The publishing industry in general treats the e-book as just another format, releasing the same titles in hardcover, book-on-tape, and e-book at the same time. On the opposite end of the spectrum, technologists have adopted various e-book formats for creating and transfer- ring numerous reference documents. Given their prefer- ences, it is easy to find e-book references on UNIX, HTML coding, and the like, but there is a scarcity of materials in philosophy, history, and the arts. Librarians seem the most appropriate group for devel- oping shared understanding. Publishers and e-book hard- ware and software manufacturers need to be concerned with the bottom line. Libraries, by design, are concerned with the preservation of information and its continued dissemination long after the need to sell a particular book has passed. The hobby of creating and transferring texts to digital form is idiosyncratic and unorganized when viewed from the highest levels. Libraries not only contain expertise in all areas of human endeavor, but also have strategies for categorizing and maintaining information in productive ways. In short, libraries are the best line of defense for maintaining the value of the printed page and promoting the value of digital texts. DISPELLING FIVE MYTHS ABOUT E-BOOKS | GALL 27 28 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 � Myth 4—E-books Are Expensive A common complaint about e-books is that they are expensive. On the surface, this seems clear. Dedicated e- book readers seemed to bottom out at around $300, and a new bestseller in e-book format is priced about the same as the hardcover edition. Add the immediate and long- term costs of rechargeable batteries and the electricity needed to power them, and the economic case against the e-book appears closed. What if we turn the same critical eye to the printed page? The manufacture and distribution of printed texts is highly developed and astounding. When Gutenberg succeeded in putting the Christian Bible in the hands of the moneyed public, he surely could not have compre- hended the billions of copies that would eventually be distributed. Even with the wealth of printed material at hand, one must still consider the high cost of the system. The law of supply and demand rules books as a tangible product. The most profitable books are those that will reach the most readers. Specialized texts have limited audiences and, therefore, will usually be priced higher. This produces problems for both groups. Popular texts must be printed in high quantities and delivered to vari- ous outlets. Unfortunately, the printed page does have maintenance costs. Sellen and Harper point out that the actual printing cost is insignificant compared with the cost of dealing with documents after printing. They cite one study that indicated that United States businesses spend about $1 billion per year designing and printing forms, but spend an additional $25 to $35 billion filing, storing, and retrieving them.25 Books are no different; as any librarian knows, it costs money to maintain a collec- tion and protect texts from the environment and the effects of age. In the retail arena, the competition is fiercer. Books that do not sell are removed in favor of those that do. It is estimated that 10 percent of texts printed each year are turned to pulp, although, fortunately, many are recycled.26 The BBC reported that more than two million former romance novels were used in the construction of a new tollway.27 With more specialized texts, the problem is not wealth, but scarcity. If a text is not profitable, it will probably become out of print. This is often synonymous with inaccessible. From the publisher’s perspective, it is only cost-effective to commit to a printing when the demand is high enough. A library is a good source of out- of-print texts, provided that it has been funded appropri- ately to acquire and maintain the particular works that are needed. E-books are not a panacea. Other innovations, such as on-demand publishing, may be part of the answer in solving the economic issues regarding collections. However, e-books can help alleviate some of these issues. E-books are easily copied and distributed, which is a boon to the researcher and information consumer. In many cases, the goal is the access to information, not the possession of a book. It could also benefit the author and publisher if appropriate reimbursement systems are put into place. As previously described, Nelson originally envisioned his online hypertext system, Xanadu, with a mechanism for royalties based on access—a supply-and- demand system for ideas, not materials.28 The systems used to manage access to digital materials continue to increase in complexity and have spawned a whole new business of Digital Rights Management (DRM).29 Exam- ples include Reciprocal (www.reciprocal.com), Over- Drive (www.overdrive.com), and netLibrary (www.net library.com). Libraries are the specific target of netLibrary, which promotes an E-Books-on-Demand project that allows free access for short periods of time.30 The creation of a standard Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for published materials may also help online publishers and entities like libraries manage their digital collections more easily.31 Online music systems, such as Apple’s iTunes (www. itunes.com), strike a workable balance between quick- and-easy access to music and a workable, economic model for reimbursing artists. E-books also have appeal for special audiences who already require assistive tech- nologies for accessing print collections.32 Having discussed the hidden costs of printed texts, another important economic issue of e-books to examine is a current trend in usage. Despite the availability of ded- icated e-book readers, the largest growth in e-book usage is surely in nondedicated devices. E-book–reading soft- ware is available for personal computers, laptops, and PDAs. According to one source, Microsoft had sold four million PocketPC e-book-enabled devices, and had two million downloads of the MS Reader for the personal computer; Palm had sold approximately 20 million e- book-enabled devices; and Adobe had more than 30 mil- lion Acrobat readers downloaded.33 These numbers alone indicate some 24 million reader-capable PDAs, and 32 million reader-capable PCs, for a total of 56 million devices. Although it is difficult to find data on actual use, one online bookseller reported some data on e-book use from an audience survey.34 Although 88 percent had pur- chased books online, only 16 percent had read an e-book (11 percent using a PC, 3 percent on a handheld device, and 2 percent on both). It is presumed that in most cases this equipment was purchased for other reasons, with e- book reading being a secondary function. As such, it would be unfair to include the full cost of this equipment in any calculation of the cost of providing information in an e-book format. If so, the cost of providing artificial lighting in any building where reading takes place would need to be calculated as part of the cost of the printed page. The potential user base for the e-book rises as more computers and PDAs are sold, decreasing the need for special equipment. This does not mean that the dedicated e-book reader is obsolete. By most commercial accounts, the Apple Newton was a failure. Its bulky size and awk- ward interface were the subject of much ridicule. However, it did introduce the concept of the PDA. The success of the Palm line of products owes much to the proof of concept provided by the Newton. The makers of the portable Gameboy videogame system are reposition- ing it for multimedia digital-content delivery, and plan to pilot a flash-memory download system for various con- tent types, including e-books.35 Innovative products such as e-paper are already developed in prototype form.36 They are likely to lead to another wave of dedicated e-book readers or provide e-book–reading potential embedded in other consumer applications. � Myth 5—E-Books Are a Passing Fad It is trendy to list the failures of past media (such as radio, film, and television) in impacting education despite great initial promise.37 However, all those media are still with us after having found particular niches within our cul- ture. If the e-book is viewed as just an alternative format, comparisons with past experiences of library collections containing videotapes, record albums, and such are not appropriate.38 However, if e-books are viewed as a tool or way to access information, the questions change. Instead of asking how digital formats will replace print collec- tions, we can ask how will an e-book version extend the reach of our current collection or provide our readers with resources previously unavailable or unaffordable. When trying to locate a research article, one is generally not concerned with whether the local library has a loose copy, bound copy, microform, microfiche, or even has to resort to interlibrary loan. As long as the content is acces- sible and can be cited, it can be used. Electronic access to journal content is becoming more common. Perhaps dry journal articles do not conjure up the same romantic visions of exploring the stacks that may hinder greater acceptance of e-books. A parallel can be drawn to the current work of film- restoration experts. The medium of film has reached an age where some of the earliest influential works no longer exist or are in a condition of rapid deterioration. According to one film site, more than half of the films made before 1950 have already been lost due to decay of existing copies.39 The work of restoration involves finding what remains of a great work in various vaults and collections. Often, the only usable film is a second- or third-generation copy. From digitized copies, cleaning, color correction, and other painstaking work, a restored and—it is hoped—complete work emerges. Ironically, once this laborious process is completed, a near-extinct classic is suddenly available to millions in the form of a DVD disc at a local retailer. What if the same attitude was taken with the world’s collections of printed materials? Jantz has described potential impacts of e-book technology on academic libraries.40 Lareau conducted a study on using e-books to replace lost books at Kent State University, but found that limited availability and high costs did not make it feasible at the time.41 Project Gutenberg (www.gutenberg.net) and the Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu) are two examples of schol- ars attempting to save and share book content in elec- tronic forms, but more efforts are needed. Unfortunately, the shift to digital content has also contributed to the sheer volume of content available. Edwards has recently discussed issues in attempting to archive and preserve digital media.42 The Web may be suffering from a glut of information, but the content is highly skewed toward the new and technology oriented. In a few years, we may find that nontechnology–related endeavors are no longer rep- resented in our information landscape. � Conclusion The e-book industry is currently dominated by commer- cial-content providers, such as Franklin, and software companies, most notably Adobe, Palm, and Microsoft. Traditional print-based publishers have also maintained continued interest in the medium. It is assumed that these publishers had the capital to weather the ups and downs of the industry more so than new publishers dedicated solely to e-book delivery. Although the contributions and efforts of these organizations are needed, the future of e-book content should not be left to their largesse. When the Rocket e-book device was initially released, a small but loyal following of readers contributed thou- sands of titles to its online library. Some of these titles were self-published vanity projects or brief reference doc- uments, but many were public-domain classics, painstak- ingly scanned or keyed in by readers wishing to share their favorite reads. When Gemstar purchased Rocket, the software’s ability to create non-purchased content was curtailed and the online library of free titles dismantled. Apparently, both were viewed as limiting the profitability of the e-book vendor. However, Gemstar recently made notice of discontinuing their e-book reading devices, one would assume due to a lack of profitability. This can be seen as a cautionary tale for libraries, which often define success by number of volumes available and accessed rather than units sold. Committing to a technology that concurrently requires consumer success can be problematic. Bibliophile and technologist alike must take respon- sibility for the future of our collective information resources. The bibliophile must ensure that all aspects of DISPELLING FIVE MYTHS ABOUT E-BOOKS | GALL 29 30 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 human knowledge and creativity are nurtured and allowed to survive in electronic forms. The technologist must ensure that accessibility and intellectual-property rights are addressed with every technological innova- tion. Parry provides three concrete suggestions for pub- lic libraries in response to new media demands: continue to acknowledge and respond to customer demands, revisit the library’s mission statement for currency, and promote or accelerate shared agreements with other institutions to alleviate the high costs of accumulating resources.43 The proper frame of mind for these activities is suggested by Levy: We make a mistake, I believe, when we fixate on par- ticular forms and technologies, taking them in and of themselves, to be the carriers of what we want to embrace or resist. . . . It isn’t a question, it needn’t be a question, of books or the Web, of letters or e-mail, of digital libraries or the bricks-and-mortar variety, of paper or digital technologies. . . . These modes of oper- ation are only in conflict when we insist that one or the other is the only way to operate.44 In the early 1930s, Lomax dragged his primitive audio-recording equipment over the roads of the American South to capture the performances of numer- ous folk musicians.45 At the time, he certainly didn’t imag- ine that at one point in history someone with a laptop computer sitting in a coffee shop with wireless access could download the performances of Robert Johnson from iTunes. However, without his efforts, those unique voices in our history would have been lost. It is hoped that the readers of the future will be thanking the library professionals of today for preserving our print collections and enabling their access digitally via our primitive, but evolving, e-book technologies. References 1. Open E-book Forum, “Press Release: Record E-book Retail Sales Set in Q1 2004,” June 4, 2004. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.openebook.org. 2. Stephen Abram, “E-books: Rumors of Our Death Are Greatly Exaggerated,” Information Outlook 8, no. 2 (2004): 14–16. 3. Walt Crawford, “The White Queen Strikes Again: An E-book Update,” Econtent 25, no. 11 (2002): 46–47. 4. Harold Henke, “Consumer Survey on E-books.” Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.openebook.org. 5. Sue Hutley, “Follow the E-book Road: E-books in Aus- tralian Public Libraries,” APLIS 15, no. 1 (2002): 32–37; Andrew K. Pace, “E-books: Round Two,” American Libraries 35, no. 8 (2004): 74–75; Michael Rogers, “Librarians, Publishers, and Ven- dors Revisit E-books,” Library Journal 129, no. 7 (2004): 23–24. 6. Stephen Sottong, “E-book Technology: Waiting for the ‘False Pretender,’” Information Technology and Libraries 20, no. 2 (2001): 72–80. 7. Vannevar Bush, “As We May Think,” Atlantic Monthly 176, no. 1 (1945): 101–108. 8. Michael S. Hart, “History and Philosophy of Project Gutenberg.” Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.gutenberg.net/ about.shtml. 9. Henry Petroski, The Book on the Bookshelf (New York: Vin- tage, 2000). 10. Steve Ditlea, “The Real E-books,” Technology Review 103, no. 4 (2000): 70–73. 11. Tim Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor (New York: HarperCollins, 1999). 12. James E. Gall and Annmari M. Duffy, “E-books in a Col- lege Course: A Case Study” (presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference, Atlanta, Ga., Nov. 8–10, 2001). 13. George P. Landow, Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Con- temporary Critical Theory and Technology (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr., 1997). 14. Harold Henke, “Survey on Electronic Book Features.” Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.openebook.org. 15. Open E-book Forum, “Press Release: Record E-book Retail Sales Set in Q1 2004.” 16. Lori Enos, “Report: E-book Industry Set to Explode,” E-commerce Times, 20 Dec. 2000. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www. ecommercetimes.com/story/6215.html. 17. Luis A. Ubinas, “The Answer to Video Piracy,” McKinsey Quarterly no. 1. Accessed Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www .mckinseyquarterly.com. 18. Mark Hoorebeek, “E-books, Libraries, and Peer-to- Peer File-Sharing,” Australian Library Journal 52, no. 2 (2003): 163–68. 19. Theodor H. Nelson, “Managing Immense Storage,” Byte 13, no. 1 (1988): 225–38. 20. Ibid., 238. 21. Jacob Weisberg, “The Way We Live Now: The Good E- book,” New York Times, 4 June 2000. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.nytimes.com. 22. Donald T. Hawkins, “Electronic Books: A Major Publish- ing Revolution. Part 1: General Considerations and Issues,” Online 24, no. 4 (2000): 14–28. 23. Steve Grant, “E-books: Friend or Foe?” Book Report 21, no. 1 (2002): 50–54. 24. Lori Bell, “E-books Go to College,” Library Journal 127, no. 8 (2002): 44–46. 25. Abigail J. Sellen and Richard H. Harper, The Myth of the Paperless Office (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pr., 2002). 26. Stephen Moss, “Pulped Fiction,” Sydney Morning Herald, 29 Mar. 2002. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.smh.com.au. 27. BBC News, “M6 Toll Built with Pulped Fiction,” BBC News UK Edition, 18 Dec. 2003. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, http:// news.bbc.co.uk. 28. Nelson, “Managing Immense Storage.” 29. Michael A. Looney and Mark Sheehan, “Digitizing Edu- cation: A Primer on E-books,” Educause 36, no. 4 (2001): 38–46. 30. Brian Kenney, “netLibrary, EBSCO Explore New Models for E-books,” Library Journal 128, no. 7 (2003). 31. Stephen H. Wildstrom, “A Library to End All Libraries,” Business Week (July 23, 2001): 23. online.” They have implemented several process improve- ments already and will complete their work by the 2005 ALA Annual Conference. This past fall, Michelle Frisque, LITA Web Manager, conducted a survey of our members about the LITA Web site. Michelle and the Web Coordinating Committee are already working on a new look and feel for the LITA Web site based on the survey comments, and the result promises to be phenomenal. On top of all of the current activities, new vision state- ment, strategic planning, and the LITA Web site redesign, Mary Taylor and the LITA board worked with a graphic designer to develop a new LITA logo. After much delib- eration, the new logo debuted at the 2004 LITA National Forum with great enthusiasm. Many members com- mented that the new logo expresses the “energy” of LITA and felt the change was terrific. With your help, LITA had a very successful confer- ence in Orlando. Although there were weather and trans- portation difficulties, the LITA programs and discussions were of the highest quality, as always. The program and preconference offerings for the upcoming Annual Conference in Chicago promise to be as strong as ever. Don’t forget, LITA also offers Regional Institutes through- out the year. Check the LITA Web site to see if there’s a Regional Institute scheduled in your area. LITA held another successful National Forum in fall 2004 in St. Louis, “Ten Years of Connectivity: Libraries, the World Wide Web, and the Next Decade.” The three- day educational event included excellent preconferences, general sessions, and more than thirty concurrent ses- sions. I want to thank the wonderful 2004 LITA National Forum Planning Committee, chaired by Diane Bisom, the presenters, and the LITA office staff who all made this event a great experience. The next LITA National Forum will be held at the San Jose Marriott, San Jose, California, September 29–October 2, 2005. The theme will be “The Ubiquitous Web: Personalization, Portability, and Online Collaboration.” Thomas Dowling, chair, and the 2005 LITA National Forum Planning Committee are preparing another “must attend” event. Next year marks LITA’s fortieth anniversary. 2006 will be a year for LITA to celebrate our history, future, and our many accomplishments. We are fortunate to have Lynne Lysiak leading the Fortieth Anniversary Task Force activ- ities. I know we all will enjoy the festivities. I look forward to working with many of you as we con- tinue to make LITA a wonderful and vibrant association. I encourage you to send me your comments and sugges- tions to further the goals, services, and activities of LITA. 32. Terence Cavanaugh, “E-books and Accommodations: Is This the Future of Print Accommodation?” Teaching Exceptional Children 35, no. 2 (2002): 56–61. 33. Skip Pratt, “E-books and E-publishing: Ignore MS Reader and Palm OS at Your Own Peril,” Knowledge Download, 2002. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.knowledge-download.com/260802 -e-book-article. 34. Davina Witt, “Audience Profile and Demographics,” Mar./Apr. 2003. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.bookbrowse.com/ media/audience.cfm. 35. Geoff Daily, “Gameboy Advance: Not Just Playing with Games,” Econtent 27, no. 5 (2004): 12–14. 36. Associated Press, “Flexible E-paper on its Way,” Associated Press, 7 May 2003. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, www.wired.com/news. 37. Richard Mayer, Multimedia Learning (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 38. Sottong, “E-book Technology.” 39. AMC, “Film Facts: Read About Lost Films.”Accessed June 19, 2003, www.amctv.com/article?CID=1052. 40. Ronald Jantz, “E-books and New Library Service Models: An Analysis of the Impact of E-book Technology on Academic Libraries,” Information Technology and Libraries 20, no. 2 (2001): 104–15. 41. Susan Lareau, The Feasibility of the Use of E-books for Replac- ing Lost or Brittle Books in the Kent State University Library, 2001, ERIC, ED 459862. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, http://searcheric.org. 42. Eli Edwards, “Ephemeral to Enduring: The Internet Archive and Its Role in Preserving Digital Media,” Information Technology and Libraries 23, no. 1 (2004): 3–8. 43. Norm Parry, Format Proliferation in Public Libraries, 2002, ERIC, ED 470035,. Accessed Dec. 27, 2004, http://searcheric.org. 44. David M. Levy, Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Docu- ments in the Digital Age (New York: Arcade Pub., 2001). 45. About Alan Lomax. Accessed Dec. 27 2004, www.alan -lomax.com/about.html. DISPELLING FIVE MYTHS ABOUT E-BOOKS | GALL 31 (President’s column continued from page 2) Art & Tech 24 EBSCO cover 2 LITA covers 3–4 Index to Advertisers 
3362	----	Mitchell Multimedia will have a profound effect on libraries during the next decade. This rapidly developing technology per- mits the user to combine digital still images, video, anima- tion, graphics, and audio. It can be delivered in a variety of finished formats, including streaming video on the Web, video on DVD/VCD, embedded digital objects within a Web page or presentation software such as PowerPoint, utilized within graphic designs, or printed as hardcopy. This article examines the elements of multimedia creation, as well as requirements and recommendations for imple- menting a multimedia facility in the library. T he term multimedia, which some may remember being used in the early 1970s as the name for slide shows set to music, now is used to describe “a num- ber of diverse technologies that allow visual and audio media to be combined in new ways for the purpose of communicating.”1 Almost all personal computers sold today are capable of viewing multimedia; many can, with minor modifications, also create multimedia. One of the most important features of multimedia is its flexibility. Multimedia creation has several distinct ele- ments—inputs, processes performed on those inputs, and outputs (see figure 1). Each element can be described as follows. � Inputs—New video can be recorded, or existing video, stored on a hard disk, CD/DVD, or tape can be imported. The same is true of audio, with the added flexibility of creating soundtracks or sound effects later, during the editing process. Digital still images can be used, either shot on a camera or cre- ated by scanning an existing picture. Digital artwork or animated sequences created in other software also can be brought in. � Processing—Regardless of the source, these digital inputs are loaded into the editing software. At this stage, the user will select and arrange the images and sounds, and the software may permit special effects to be created. In addition, the editing software may compress the file so that it is easier to use than the large file sizes used in raw video and audio recording. � Outputs—At this point, the user has more choices to make. The new multimedia file can be sent to a pro- gram that will encode it for a streaming video in any one of a variety of popular formats, such as Windows Media, RealMedia, or ClipStream. Then it can be mounted on a Web site (either a regular page or within courseware such as WebCT or Blackboard), or the file could be burned onto a CD or DVD, or it could be used within presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint. Or the output file from the editing process could be encoded and embedded so that it is an Avatar running as part of a Web page with a product such as Rovion Bluestream. The pos- sibilities are nearly endless. All of this is made possible by advances in technology on a variety of fronts. One of the happy anomalies in tech- nology is that greater performance is frequently accom- panied by lower costs. This is certainly the case with much of the activity surrounding multimedia. The fol- lowing factors have fostered advances in multimedia: � increase in processing power and decrease in cost of computer hardware; � quality and affordability of video equipment; � compression of multimedia files; � consumer broadband Internet access; and � current multimedia editing software The first two technology factors concern the equip- ment involved in multimedia production. Leading off is the familiar, ever-increasing speed of processors and improved memory and hard-drive space, all delivered for less money. This trend is something that many people take for granted, but a reality check is sometimes in order. The processor in the typical desktop machine on adver- tised special today is approximately forty-four times as fast as the first Pentium processor sold ten years ago, and is equipped with sixteen times as much RAM and 117 times as much hard-drive space—at 20 percent of the cost of the old machine (not even adjusted for inflation!). The second factor is the incredible quality available in con- sumer-market video equipment at reasonable costs. While the images produced with consumer-grade video would not play well at the local megaplex movie theater, they look very good on the small screens found on com- puters, televisions, and classroom projectors. The third factor is that tremendous compression of multimedia files can be achieved during the editing process. An incoming raw-video file (in the standard .avi format) can be compressed with editing, encoding, and dedicated third-party compression software to an incred- ible 1 to 2 percent of its original size, and it will still retain very good quality as a digital object on the Web and in other desktop viewing applications. The fourth factor is extremely critical for the success of multimedia Web applications. Home access is shifting away from dial-up access to broadband, with its greatly increased transfer rates. Half of all United States homes with Internet access are already using broadband, and the 32 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 Gregory A. Mitchell (mitchellg@utpa.edu) is Assistant Director, Resource Management at the University of Texas—Pan American Library, Edinburg, Texas. Distinctive Expertise: Multimedia, the Library, and the Term Paper of the Future Gregory A. Mitchell forecast is for steady increase in these numbers.2 Although not all broadband is created equal, it is all sig- nificantly faster than dial-up access. The final technology factor concerns the software that is currently available to the multimedia Web developer. A developer can achieve some quite professional results with even the most basic products, and then can grow into more complex software that supports increasing lev- els of expertise. Once again, this software is being sold in the price range that typical consumers can afford. � Small Really Is Beautiful Creating a multimedia lab in the library need not be a large, complex undertaking. In fact, it can be very low cost and as simple as a single workstation. So it is scalable, allowing the library to start small and build in complexity and cost as time, money, and human resources will permit. At the bare-bones minimum, a multimedia lab would consist of a workstation with the software necessary for acquiring, editing, and outputting the files. For practical purposes, though, the workstation should be equipped with a network connection, a CD/DVD burner, a scanner, and a webcam with microphone. Another very useful option is an analog-digital bridge device, which enables the capture of analog input (such as VHS tape) into digital files for the editor. To achieve better-quality video when shoot- ing original content, a digital-video camera, tripod, wireless microphone, and portable light kit would be recom- mended. Since more time typically is spent at the editing station than with the camera, the lab can be expanded with additional workstations before investing in another camera. Experience at the author’s institution has shown that it is possible to operate a lab with ten workstations and only three video cameras and three still cameras. Finally, output from the editing process will likely be printed, so a photo- quality printer is another convenient option. This illustrates that the entry into multimedia work need not be a large expense, especially if an existing work- station and any other equipment is already available. If a fairly recent workstation is available to dedicate to the proj- ect, the library’s total startup cost could range from $200 to $1,000. Not many new library services can be launched for as little as that. Rather than dwell on equipment specifica- tions, as that is not the intent of this discussion, the reader may consult the excellent tutorials available from Desktop Video and PC Magazine’s online product guide.3 Finally, the creation of a studio is a worthwhile option. Although some video will need to be shot on location, many times it is possible to set up and shoot in just one place. A studio is the best place in which to work because it is a controlled environment. It does not need to be large or complicated, and a quiet office or study room can be set up with little effort and expense. The studio gives the users control over the sound and the lighting, and involves minimal setup time for projects. � The Research Paper of the Future Multimedia has begun to attract attention in the library community. Joe Janes, chair of Library and Information Science at the Information School at the University of Washington and the person responsible for developing the Internet Public Library, recently stated he foresees a growing role for multimedia in the library. It will replace much of the traditional, text-based communication that people are accustomed to. For example, multimedia proj- ects can become the research paper of the future for stu- dents.4 It is the media in which many library customers will be working. Experience from the author’s institution with creating a multimedia lab would seem to confirm his observation. During the first year and a half of operation, use of the lab has steadily increased (see figure 2). � Collaboration The multimedia lab opens the doors to collaborative opportunities with faculty and students from a variety of disciplines across campus. This is because multimedia, like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or other elec- tronic information and communication technologies, is a tool and is not discipline-specific. As important as it is to make the connection with faculty, this media is some- thing with which the students will frequently lead the Figure 1. Multimedia Creation Process DISTINCTIVE EXPERTISE: MULTIMEDIA, THE LIBRARY, AND THE TERM PAPER OF THE FUTURE | MITCHELL 33 34 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 way. They are, after all, the MTV generation, and multi- media has an incredible appeal to their visual orienta- tion. Faculty themselves have used it to augment their Web-based courses as well as traditional classroom instruction. The author ’s library has even initiated a multimedia résumé service for graduating students. The students can record a video introduction of themselves, encode this as a Rovion Bluestream Avatar, and post it with their résumés on the Web. This creates a much stronger impression than a standard résumé, hopefully giving the students an edge in promoting themselves on the job market. Even more impressive is the variety of projects that are created in the lab by the students. One might expect to see interest from students in art and communications classes, but students come from many other disciplines as well. For example, business students have effectively used multimedia in their graduate-school business-plan presentations, while biology students like to use the graphics capabilities to study close-ups of slides. Education students have employed it to produce multi- media instructional aids, and a sociology student put together a presentation on underserved, low-income neighborhoods. The library supplies the facility and instruction—only the imagination of students is needed. Libraries have always been involved in the students’ research and writing process, by providing content, instruction, and facilities for producing the final research product. The same is true in the multimedia environment, although implementing a multimedia lab calls for some new skills for librarians. These include familiarity with basic principles of videography, learning how to use the cameras and other equipment, and gaining some mastery of the editing and encoding software. � Why Put It in the Library? In addition to the research-paper analogy, the author believes that librarians can point with pride to the values and value that libraries offer their communities. It is a central and neutral location—not in one department’s or college’s turf. Libraries are conveniently open for many hours per week. Many of the information resources that students might use to prepare the presentation are in the library. And librarians have a professional ethic that drives them to provide instruction and assistance for the services the library offers. Since multimedia production does have a learning curve and most new users need help in mastering the technology, it does not fit very well with the typical 24/7 drop-in computer lab that the campus information technology (IT) often operates. This is a good opportunity for librarians to recognize some of their strengths and capitalize on them. In addition, this can be a breath of fresh air for librar- ians. Here is an opportunity to learn about something new and creative. Most people find that they have less room for creativity as time goes by.5 With a multimedia lab in the building, it will offer the librarians the oppor- tunity to create multimedia productions for the library, besides assisting students and faculty with their projects. � Potential Problems There are some obstacles to overcome, of course. They need not be seen as major, but it is best to be realistic when beginning any new venture. It is almost always a good idea to start small, with a pilot project that will yield valuable lessons before venturing into anything big. � Equipment—Define what specifications are needed, see what is already available to use or borrow, then figure out what you will actually need to buy. � Software—Check out the variety of software for edit- ing and production; think about how you want to begin using multimedia (primarily on the Web, in presentation software such as PowerPoint, as stand- alone videos on CDs and DVDs). � Money—If funding permits, a library can invest sev- eral thousand dollars in a high-end multimedia com- puter, associated peripherals such as a color printer and one or more scanners, and a software suite to meet initial anticipated demands for multimedia creation and editing. If funding is scarce, you may want to investigate what existing equipment could be used in support of a pilot project. � Location—This needs some space of its own, accessi- ble to students and monitored by staff. Although the Figure 2. University of Texas—Pan American Library Multimedia Lab Usage editing workstation could be in an area with other computers, a quiet area is needed for shooting video so that there will not be interference from noise and unwanted foot traffic through the shots. � Staffing and training—A multimedia lab is not a good candidate for self-service. Librarians and staff who will provide the service need to learn how to use the equipment and software. Make sure that they all have an acceptable level of competence and confi- dence so that the library can shine with its new serv- ice, but expect that everyone will need to continue to learn and grow in their proficiency. If your library plans to produce its own multimedia sessions as well, it would be a good investment to attend a class on television or video production. � Hours—How many hours per week will the new service be available? If it is the entire time the library is open, be prepared to train plenty of staff. Repeat users will need less help as their skills increase (by the way, some of these students can be great work- study employees). � Instruction—Plan to offer formal orientation and instruction sessions to faculty and their classes. If your lab is small, this is challenging, but it can be accomplished with some creativity. For example, a general instruction session on concepts can be done in a classroom, followed up by a series of small groups working by appointment for the applied- learning component in the multimedia lab. The author and a colleague have even done instruction outside the library using laptops and cameras, creat- ing a de facto mobile studio. � Copyright—If there are already VCRs or photo- copiers in the library, you have had to deal with this issue. The Pan American Library at University of Texas does not allow people to use its lab to copy movies, which is a request that surely will come to you, and we post the usual copyright notices just as we do at our photocopiers. For some excellent infor- mation on copyright, visit the American Library Association Web site (www.ala.org). � Evaluation—Plan on at least basic evaluation of the service. This can include an assessment of the effec- tiveness of the instruction sessions, a survey of satis- faction with the lab itself, a questionnaire on the intended uses of the multimedia projects, demo- graphic data on the students, or other student input. Logs of the number of uses and peak-demand peri- ods are extremely useful for planning and for justify- ing further expenditures and staffing requests. � Flexibility for the future—Whatever you do in a pilot phase, always keep in mind that you want to keep an open mind—you are trying to learn from the experience so that you can make good decisions for the direction of this new service. It may not go exactly the way you originally thought, because of serendipity, or changes in technology, or very strong demand from some segments of the campus instead of others, or other environmental factors. � Conclusion Benefits to the library from the multimedia lab are many. One of the most important benefits is that it keeps the library involved in the process of academic communica- tion, as the medium of the communication changes with technology. By being involved in this evolving medium at its early stages, the library is poised to pounce on oppor- tunities to employ it to the benefit of the library in instruc- tion and content delivery. The library also would position itself on campus as a key player in IT and the leading local expert in the growing field of multimedia. Since multime- dia is a tool that crosses the entire range of subject disci- plines on campus, it opens the doors of faculty to collaborate with librarians in exciting new ways. Just as many campuses already have learning and collaborative communities that grew around their Web courseware or GIS endeavors, so too can one develop around multime- dia. The appendix offers a list of multimedia Web sites to consider. Libraries are more than warehouses of books and periodicals. As more and more of our resources have been made available electronically, and indeed more of higher education has moved to electronic delivery, many libraries have been faced with declining gate counts, cir- culations, and reference statistics. As someone observed, we are victims of our own success. So what is the role of the library? We are intrinsically involved in the process of instruction, academic research, and communication. As Kling observed, “One important strategic idea is that libraries configure their IT services and activities to emphasize the distinctive expertise of their librarians rather than simply concentrate on the size and character of the documentary collection.”7 It is imperative therefore that libraries pick out the new trends that will allow them to excel by capitalizing on their traditional strengths. References 1. Scala, Inc. Multimedia Directory. Accessed Apr. 21, 2004, www.scala.com/multimedia/multimedia-definition.html. 2. Nielsen/NetRatings as of June, 2004. Accessed Aug. 10, 2004, www.websiteoptimization.com/. 3. About.com, DVT101. Accessed Apr. 15, 2004, http:// desktopvideo.about.com/library/weekly/aa040703a.htm; “Anatomy of a Video Editing Workstation,” PC Magazine. Accessed Apr. 16, 2004, www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1264650 ,00.asp. DISTINCTIVE EXPERTISE: MULTIMEDIA, THE LIBRARY, AND THE TERM PAPER OF THE FUTURE | MITCHELL 35 36 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 4. College of DuPage, “Joe Janes and Colleagues: Preparing for the Future of Digital Reference,” a satellite broadcast from the College of DuPage, 16 Apr. 2004. 5. Sandra Kerka, Creativity in Adulthood (Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education, ERIC Digest No. 204, ED429186, 1999). 6. American Library Association, “Copyright Issues, Primer on the Digital Millennium.” Accessed May 10, 2004, www.ala .org/ala/washoff/WOissues/copyrightb/dmca/dmcprimer.pdf. 7. Rob Kling, “The Internet and the Strategic Reconfigura- tion of Libraries,” Library Administration & Management 15, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 144–51. Appendix. For Further Reading: A Multimedia Web-Site Tour The following is a sampling of some of the most popular and interesting multimedia software, with examples of com- pleted productions. This is not an official endorsement of any one product over another, whether listed here or not. A look at these sites will, however, give the reader an idea about the power and possibilities of multimedia communica- tions. Adobe (www.adobe.com) The well-known makers of some of the most powerful and popular editing software packages for graphics and video. Camtasia (www.camtasia.com) Easy to use, this is a good example of the type of software that does screen capture and recording, which is handy for producing online tutorials. Clipstream (www.clipstream.com) An excellent example of the type of newer encoding software that achieves incredible compression of video and delivers it over the Web with no viewer or plug-ins required for the user. FinalCut Pro (www.apple.com/finalcutpro) A perennial favorite among the Mac crowd, this software is relatively easy to learn and lets the developer achieve dra- matic results. Flashants (www.flashants.com) A handy program that converts Flash animation into .avi video format so that you can integrate animated sequences into a video production. Macromedia (www.macromedia.com) The makers of Flash and Director, which are some of the most popular graphics, animation, and mulitimedia editing tools in the business. Pinnacle (www.pinnaclesys.com) What FinalCut Pro is to the Mac, this package is for the PC environment. Easy to use, yet sophisticated in the results achieved. Rovion (www.rovion.com) Rovion Bluestream is an encoder that enables the creation of Avatar characters to appear live on your Web page. A plug- in is required for the user, but this approach definitely gets attention. Serious Magic (www.seriousmagic.com) An award-winning software package that allows you to turn a workstation into a studio, complete with teleprompter capability, sound effects, graphics, and editing. University of Texas—Pan American Library (www.lib.panam.edu/libinfo/media.asp) Links to multimedia projects at the author’s institution, including productions made by staff and students. 
3363	----	Communication Design and Development of a Himalayan Studies Information System for India: A Proposed Model Anil Singh The ever-increasing need for information, with its complexity and escalating costs; the enormous growth in publications, and the emergence of subject specialization have com- pelled librarians to share resources through information networks and systems. This paper describes the necessity of networking among the Himalayan Studies and Research Centers in India, allowing the sharing of information originating from the Himalayan Studies Information System (HIMIS). The paper also discusses in brief the definition of information systems, as well as the objectives and needs of a proposed HIMIS. The recent advancements in the com- puter, communications, and net- working technologies have brought about three paradigm shifts. There is the shift of information resources from print to electronic media, the shift in the role of information providers from passive to proactive, and the shift from manual to auto- mated information delivery. This has presented library and information professionals with a tremendous challenge, that of playing a proactive role not only in their routine activi- ties (acquisition, processing, and dis- semination), but also in the actual learning process of their clientele. Library and information profession- als have to learn to scan, filter, inter- pret, analyze, repackage, and deliver information from a variety of sources in ways that are meaningful to their users.1 Himalaya, the greatest physical feature of the earth, is not only an integral part of history and heritage, but it has also assumed the form of a social, cultural, and geo-political real- ity that cannot be ignored or underes- timated. This mountain range makes an enormous contribution to our contemporary life, even as it influ- enced our history and mythology. Furthermore, this influence promises to extend even to the future.2 The Himalayas have always remained a source of fascination and inspiration for people from all walks of life, and have been deemed by the peoples of the subcontinent to be the cradle of human civilization. The variety of cultures, terrains, forest physiographies, flora, and fauna of this region has lured the intelli- gentsia of the world since time immemorial. In recent years, how- ever, the Himalayas have become the focus of attention of scientists and government alike. Efforts are under- way for a better understanding of its highly complex environmental and ecological systems, and to bring about an all-around development of the region, which has remained backward throughout the centuries.3 There has been a tremendous explosion of data and information in recent years, particularly in the field of Himalayan resources, with an increase in the number of research and development institu- tions at the national and interna- tional level. While most of these research institutions and universi- ties possess excellent libraries and information centers, there is at pres- ent no information network by which coordination and sharing of resources could be effected for the mutual benefit of each of the exist- ing libraries. Because there is little access to the right information at the right time, it has become difficult for one single organization to collect the data and information that are required by policy makers, adminis- trators, and research scientists. The other scientific departments of the government of India have already started planning to begin informa- tion networking in their respective areas. Some of these projects are completed and others are in the process of implementation.4 During the last decades, India has been active in setting up information systems and networks, and consider- able progress has been achieved in this area (figure 1). Since most of the infor- mation related to the Himalayas is scattered in different research-and- studies centers all over India, there is a need to develop a Himalayan Studies Information System (HIMIS). HIMIS will be a computer-communication network for linking various libraries and information centers of research and development (R&D) institutions, universities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working on the Himalayas. The system, therefore, has to take into account the specific infor- mation requirements of each develop- ment sector so far as its relevance to the Himalayas is concerned. Defining Information Systems The purpose of an information sys- tem is to provide accurate and rele- vant information to users at the right time and at the appropriate level of detail. This will help ensure that the corporate information resource is uti- lized fully.5 Buckingham defines an informa- tion system as a system which assembles, stores, processes, and delivers informa- tion relevant to an organization (or to society), in such a way that the information is accessible and useful to those who wish to use it, including managers, staff, clients, and citizens. An Anil Singh (rathoreas@hotmail.com) is Professional Assistant, Division of Lib-rary, Documentation and Information, National Council of Educational Research and Training, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi, India. Communications DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HIMALAYAN STUDIES INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INDIA | SINGH 37 38 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 information system is a human activity (social) system which may or may not involve the use of computer system.6 Harrod’s Librarians’ Glossary defines information system as an organized procedure for collecting, processing, storing, and retrieving information to satisfy a variety of needs.7 According to Bowman, four different compo- nents can be identified: (1) A store of useful information that has been accumulated over a period of time; (2) a series of techniques used for adding material to and retrieving information from the store upon demand; (3) a group of people who operate the system and are responsi- ble for selecting information to be added, answering questions, organ- izing the store, and for implementing and modifying the techniques for both storage and retrieval; and (4) the user. The ultimate test of any such system is the degree of satisfaction it gives the user who has specific infor- mation needs.8 Setting Up HIMIS The volume of Himalayan informa- tion plus the number of users and their various requirements have cre- ated a situation where it is almost impossible for any single library to provide information services single- handedly. It is only through a network of all these information centers that some viable control of Himalayan information is feasible, not only at a local level, but also at the national and international level, to ensure effective use of information resources to the best advantage at a minimum cost. These days, information is being regarded as a national resource, and this awareness has led to computer- based information services such as indexing and abstracting at the national and international levels in the field of Himalayan studies.9 Considering the importance of HIMIS, the government of India, through the agency of the National Information Systems in Science and Technology (NISSAT), should aid and support the proposed HIMIS generously. HIMIS is eminently suitable for several spheres of national activities, including planning and research. Reliable and timely information for decisionmaking becomes increas- ingly important for India, where a concept of social welfare has devel- oped over the past three decades. Many organizations have success- fully developed their own informa- tion systems to plan, monitor, or control their research activities, and these have yielded increased research proficiency. The government should surely benefit from these methods. Apart from suggesting suitable solu- tions to the problems of planning, monitoring, allocation, control, and coordination of the departmental programs, one has to consider the special distribution of these pro- grams.10 The need to set up HIMIS has, therefore, to be considered in the context of the rapid development of Himalayan information as well as the increasing awareness of its relevance to societal development.11 Objectives of HIMIS HIMIS will be fully computerized so that an efficient system of storage and retrieval could be organized through networks linking all the Himalayan- studies centers with each other. The main objectives of the proposed HIMIS are listed in appendix A. Users of the Proposed System The proposed information system is planned to meet the needs of the specialists who are directly or indi- rectly concerned with Himalayan studies and research as a subject or as an activity. The following are the categories of those to whom the information would be supplied in a meaningful form within a reason- able time through HIMIS. 1. planners, policy makers, deci- sion makers, administrators with respect to Himalayan develop- ment at government and non- government levels; 2. major institutions devoted to Himalayan study and research as a discipline; 3. international organizations such as the United Nations Educa- tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Centre for Inte- grated Mountain Development (ICIMOD); Agricultural Information System Ahamdabad Library Network Biodiversity Conservation Information System Calcutta Library Network Developing Library Network Education Information System Environmental Information System Industrial Information System Information and Library Network Management Library Network Medical Information System Mysore Library Network National Information System for Science and Technology Nutrition Information System Patent Information System Project Information System Pune Library Network Rural Information System Figure 1. Some of the Current Networking Systems in India 4. scientists engaged in the imple- mentation and execution of plans and policies; 5. scientists and researchers en- gaged in Himalayan study and research; 6. teachers engaged in teaching about the Himalayas; 7. communicators who attempt to convey the information about development policies, plans, programs, and projects; and 8. NGOs working on projects about Himalayas. Components of the Proposed HIMIS For designing HIMIS, six essential components have been identified and proposed: (1) National Resource Center on Himalayan Studies; (2) library consortia; (3) computerization of Himalayan institutes’ libraries; (4) information networking between Himalayan institutes; (5) digitization of information material on Himalayas; and (6) Himalayan information gate- way. Figure 2 depicts the proposed components. National Resource Center on Himalayan Studies As a part of the information system, a national-level resource center for Himalayan studies is also proposed on the pattern of other information cen- ters in India, such as the National Information Center for Management Information (NICMAN), Ahmedabad, and the National Information Center for Food Science and Technology (NICFOS), Mysore, to name but two. These information centers have been established with the financial help of NISSAT, and at present are working as sectoral information centers of NIS- SAT. Figure 3 describes various func- tions and activities of the proposed center. The planned objectives of the resource center are: � to create a user-need-based infor- mation-technology (IT) resource center; � to develop a strong collection of different types of information sources; � to develop a user-friendly infor- mation-retrieval mechanism, such as an online facility for having access to international databases; � to create an IT-based infrastruc- ture; � to develop a liaison with all Himalayan studies and research centers of India and other inter- national centers for better infor- mation service through resource sharing and networking; and � to provide bibliographies on selected topics on demand or even in advance of demand. Himalayan-Studies Libraries Consortium The concept of library consortia has been floating around for quite some time in India. Though it is the need of the hour, Indian libraries have yet to move in a definite direction in this regard. Strong resource-sharing activ- ity among libraries, a prerequisite for the right attitude towards consortia activities, has not been as present in India as could be desired. Sudden influx of electronic information is forc- ing library consortia to materialize.13 Traditionally, the primary purpose of establishing a library consortium is to share physical resources amongst members. Access to resources is now considered more important than col- lection building, especially if the access is perpetual in nature. A library consortium helps libraries to get the benefit of wider access to electronic resources at an affordable cost and at the best terms of license. A consortium with the collective strength of resources of the various institutions available to it is in a better position to address and resolve the problems of managing, organizing, and archiving electronic resources.14 The Indian National Digital Library in Science and Technology (INDEST) Consortium, which is set up by India’s Ministry of Human Resource and Dev- elopment, and UGC-Infonet, which is set up by the University Grant Com- mission of India are the best example of library consortia in India. Therefore, it is also proposed that a consortium of Himalayan institute’s libraries may be formed to share the electronic resources of other libraries. Computerization of Himalayan-Studies Institute’s Libraries Observance of an adherence to stan- dard techniques, procedures, and methods is an essential prerequisite for the effective functioning of a net- work. Participating libraries will have to follow certain procedures and prac- tices, without which the resources held by them cannot be effectively and meaningfully shared. In the context of library computerization, standardiza- tion is very necessary in such areas as classification, subject heading, and cat- aloging of various types of library materials; bibliographic description; and standard interchange of biblio- graphic data.15 The Himalayan institutes have started the computerization of their libraries, beginning with creation of computerized databases of books, journals, reports, conference pro- ceedings, annual reports, and mono- graphs. But not all the housekeeping activities have been computerized. It is, therefore, suggested that every library should begin the computeri- zation of each and every one of their activities. In India, libraries are gen- erally using Dewey Decimal Class- ification (DDC) for classification, Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) for cataloging rules, and Library of Congress (LC) for subject headings. Machine-Readable Cata- loging (MARC) fomat is being used in the majority of libraries for cre- ation of the database. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HIMALAYAN STUDIES INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INDIA | SINGH 39 40 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 Himalayan Institute’s Network It is also proposed that there is a need for networking among the Himalayan Institute’s libraries and information centers in the country for optimum resource sharing. Resource sharing and networking in libraries are power- ful tools both for increasing productiv- ity and enhancing services to meet the changing needs of library users. The proposed network ensures effective bibliographic control, document deliv- ery, cooperative acquisition of serials and other literature in the field, and dissemination of relevant information. All the libraries and information cen- ters of Himalayan-studies centers of India (see appendix B) will be linked to the National Resource Center on Himalayan Stud-ies. These libraries have been identified as regional cen- ters of the proposed HIMIS. A net- work, in the first instance, envisaged a physical structure of links among the libraries and information centers established by means of computer and telecommunication links. Resource sharing is based on the concept that the collective strength and effective- ness of a group of libraries is greater than that of the sum of its individual members. Digitization of Himalayan- Information Sources Research publications are vital for any professional discipline, and it is crucial to preserve and provide access to them. Due to the amount of impor- tant information published in jour- nals, conference proceedings, and reports, these efforts must be on a par with similar initiatives in other coun- tries. Permanent preservation and enhanced access must be ensured vig- orously now by the applications of new technology for digitizing and electronic access to valuable contents. Digitization provides unhindered access to information via computer and communication networks, justi- fying the need for using it for study- ing Himalayan literature. At present, very few copies of conference vol- umes, journals, and reports are pub- lished, and these are exclusively distributed to subscribers. The insti- tutions involved rarely encourage readers to subscribe personally to such literature, thus placing it out of the reach of a large number of read- ers. The paper used for publishing these types of sources is of inferior quality, significantly reducing shelf life. In addition to providing increased and easy access to these publications, the most visible benefit of digitization is the fact that it pre- serves them.16 Some of the purposes Figure 2. Components of HIMIS Figure 3. National Resources Center on Himalayan Studies in India of digitization, identified by different ongoing projects, are to: � collect, store, and organize infor- mation and knowledge in digital form; � promote economic and efficient delivery of information; � leverage considerable invest- ments in computing and com- munication infrastructures; � strengthen communication and collaboration between research, government, and educational communities; and � contribute for lifelong learning opportunities. Keeping all of these points in mind, the digitization of Himalayan literature—particularly back volumes of journals, conference proceedings, annual reports, monographs, reports, and research papers published by Himalayan scientists in various jour- nals, available in Himalayan studies centers of India—is very necessary. And it is one of the important and nec- essary aspects of the proposed HIMIS. Himalayan-Studies Information and Subject Gateway One of the major problems in access- ing information from the Internet is that it is very difficult and time con- suming to get reliable and relevant information in the shortest possible time. The effective and efficient way to provide easy access to quality infor- mation on the Internet is developing Subject Gateways in specific areas. “Subject gateways are online services and sites that provide searchable and browseable catalogues of Internet- based resources. Subject gateways will typically focus on a related set of academic subject areas.”17 To meet the information require- ments of the scientific and academic communities in the digital era, vari- ous departments in India have devel- oped or are still in the process of developing subject gateways in their respective areas.18 In recent years, there has been a tremendous explo- sion of data and information on the Internet, particularly in the field of Himalayan resources. As a result, it has become difficult for an individ- ual—and also for an organization— to collect data and information. Thus, access to the right information at the right time has become very difficult.19 Since most of the information related to the Himalayas is scattered on the Web, it is necessary to develop a Himalayan-information subject gate- way. This gateway will provide links to various libraries and information centers of R&D institutions, universi- ties, and NGOs working in the Himalayan region. This gateway will be developed on the pattern of the Sayama Prasad Mookerjee Infor- mation Gateway of Social Science (SPMIGSS) developed by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR).20 The system, therefore, has to take into account the specific informa- tion requirements of each develop- ment sector insofar as its relevance to the Himalayas is concerned. Institutions Engaged in Himalayan Studies and Research To reduce the quantum of information illiteracy, it is essential that informa- tion is readily available to an individ- ual about the agencies that generate and publish Himalayan informa- tion—a huge task. The main hurdle has been the lack of appreciation of the role and importance of this type of institutional activity on a continuing basis. Bearing in mind the concern for setting up HIMIS, the first step is to identify the agencies and institutions that generate Himalayan information. The information generated by these institutions may be contained in the form of files, computerized databases, reports, institutional publications, dis- sertations and theses, articles in jour- nals, and conference and seminar papers. The information also is accu- mulated through state-of-the-art reports, serials, and yearbooks.21 India ADINET (www.alibnet.org/) AGRIS (www.fao.org/agris/) CALIBNET (www.calibnet.org.in/) CSIR (www.csir.res.in) DELNET (www.delnet.nic.in/) DESIDOC (http://drdo.nic.in/labindex. shtml) DRDO (http://drdo.nic.in) DST (www.dst.gov.in/) ENVIS (http://envis.nic.in/) HELLIS (www.hellis.org/) ICAR (www.icar.org.in) ICFRE (www.icfre.org) ICSSR (www.icssr.org) INDEST (http://paniit.iitd.ac.in/indest/) INFLIBNET (www.inflibnet.ac.in) MoEF (www.envfor.nic.in) MYLIBNET (www.mylibnet.org/) NASSDOC (www.icssr.org/doc_mail.htm) NICCHEM (www.dsir.nic.in/division/ nissat/nisnat/nics/mh.html) NICFOS (www.cftri.com/department/ fostis.htm) NICLAI (www.clri.org/) NICMAN (www.iimahd.ernet.in/library/) NISCAIR (www.niscair.res.in) NISSAT (www.dsir.nic.in/division/nissat/) PUNENET (www.punenet.com/) UGC (www.ugc.ac.in) UGC-Infonet (http://web.inflibnet.ac.in/info/ ugcinfonet/ugcinfonet.jsp) Figure 4. URLs of Organizations, Networks, and Systems of India DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HIMALAYAN STUDIES INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INDIA | SINGH 41 42 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 has a reasonably good institutional setup for Himalayan research. Figure 5 lists agencies currently involved in diverse fields of R&D on the Himalayas. Appendix B lists some of the institutions that are engaged in Himalayan studies and research. 22 Conclusion All Himalayan studies and research centers have to assume the major responsibility for developing HIMIS. The government of India needs to be convinced of the usefulness and util- ity of such a system. It is necessary to emphasize that in the absence of such an information system, a large amount of research talent and resources will be wasted in dupli- cated efforts. It is hoped that the Himalayan institutions and scientists engaged in Himalayan studies and research will be able to impress upon the government of India the need for an early formulation and implemen- tation of HIMIS.23 This information system will also supplement the resources and services of the partici- pating libraries as “libraries acting together can more effectively satisfy user needs and thus meet the objec- tives at reduced costs.” The success of the venture shall depend upon financial support, guidance, and encouragement received from gov- ernment of India.24 References 1. R. L. Raina, and I. V. Malhan, eds., Business Librarianship and Information Ser- vices: Proceedings of the IIML-MANLIBNET 3rd Annual National Convention, March 12–14, 2001, Lucknow: (Lucknow: Interna- tional Book Distributing Co., 2002), v–vii. 2. Shekhar Pathak and Anup Sah, Kumaon Himalaya, Temptations (Nainital: Published for Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. by Gyanodaya Prakashan, 1993). 3. N. K. Shah, S. D. Bhatt, and R. K. Pande, Himalaya: Environment Resources and Development (Almora: Shree Almora Book Depot, 1990), iii. 4. P. C. Bose, “National Agricultural Research Information System,” in National Information Policies and Programmes, Semi- nar Papers Thirty-Seventh All-India Library Conference, (Delhi: Indian Library Associa- tion, 1991), 177. 5. D. E. Avinson and G. Fitzgerald, Information Systems Development: Method- ologies, Techniques and Tools (Oxford: Black- well Scientific, 1988), 7. 6. Ibid., 8. 7. Raymond Prytherch and L. M. Har- rod, Harrod’s Librarians’ Glossary of Terms Used in Librarianship, Documentation, and the Book Crafts, and Reference Book, 6th ed., (Aldershot, U.K.: Gower Pub., 1987), 385. 8. C. M. Bowman, “The Development of Chemical Information Systems,” in Chemical Information Systems, J. E. Ash, and Ernest Hyde, eds. (Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood, 1975), 6. 9. N. K. Goil, “Need for a Social Sci- ence Information System: Guidelines for a Model for India,” Library Herald 17, nos. 1–4 (1975–1979): 81. 10. S. P. Agrawal, “National Informa- tion System in Social Sciences in India: A Review,” in Twenty-Eighth All-India Library Conference, October 20–23, 1982, Lucknow: Seminar Papers of Planning for National Information System, J. L. Sardana et al., eds. (Delhi: Indian Library Association, 1982), 273–74. 11. S. P. Agrawal, “National Informa- tion System in Social Sciences,” in Hand- book of Libraries, Archives and Information Centers in India, vol. 3, Information Policy Systems and Networks, B. M. Gupta et al., eds. (New Delhi: Information Industry Pub., 1986), 183. 12. Raina, Roshan, “National Informa- tion System for Geoscience in India,” in Twenty-Eighth All-India Library Conference, October 20–23, 1982, Lucknow: Seminar Papers of Planning for National Information System, J. L. Sardana et al., eds. (Delhi: Indian Library Association, 1982), 262–63. 13. Swati Bhattacharyya, “Library Consortia: Towards an Action Plan,” in Business Librarianship and Information Ser- vices: Proceedings of the IIML-MANLIBNET 3rd Annual National Convention, March 12–14, 2001, Lucknow, R. L. Raina and I. V. Malhan, eds. (Lucknow: International Book Distributing Co., 2002), v–vii. 14. Jagdish Arora and Pawan Agrawal, “Indian National Digital Library in Sci- ence and Technology (INDEST) Consor- tium: Consortium-Based Subscription to Electronic Resources for Technical Educa- tion System in India,” in Mapping Technol- ogy on Libraries and People: proceedings of the Second International Conference Automa- tion of Libraries in Education and Research Institutions (Ahmedabad: INFLIBNET, 2003), 272–73. 15. Hanif Uddin, Md. and Haru-or- Rashid, Md. (2002), “Networking of Agri- cultural Information Systems in Bangladesh (BD-AGRINET): A Model,” Library Herald 40, no. 1 (2002): 11. 16. V. K. J. Jeevan, “Digitizing of Indian Library Science Journals,” Univer- sity News 39, no. 34 (2001): 5–13. 17. DESIRE Subject Gateways. Accessed July 30, 2003, www.desire.org/ html/subjectgateways/community/ imesh/. 18. Anil Singh and J. N. Gautam, “Himalayan Information Subject Gate- way in Digital Era: A Proposal for Its Development,” DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology 23, no. 2 (Mar. 2003): 3–9. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) Department of Science and Technology (DST) Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Indian Council of Forests Research and Education (ICFRE) Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) Universities Centers under the network of University Grant Commission (UGC) Science, Technology, and Environment departments in various Himalayan States Figure 5. Agencies Involved in Himalayan Research 19. P. C. Bose, “National Agricultural Research Information System,” 177. 20. ICSSR Newsletter 23, no. 4 (Jan.–Mar. 2002): 24. 21. Goil, “Need for a Social Science Information System,” 72–73. 22. P. Pushpangadan and K. Narayanan Nair, “Future of Systematics and Biodiver- sity Research in India: Need for a National Consortium and National Agenda for Sys- tematic Biology Research,” Current Science 80, no. 5 (2002): 633. 23. N. K. Goil, “Need for a Social Sci- ence Information System,” 92. 24. Amritpal Kuar, “Networking of the Libraries of Agricultural Universities and Research Institutes in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh (PHHAL- NET): A Proposal,” Library Herald 33, nos. 3–4 (1995–1996): 113. Appendix A. Main Objectives of HIMIS The main objectives of the proposed HIMIS are as follows: � to identify, study, and survey the existing Himalayan information infrastructure in the country; � to function as an information base so that policy makers, administrators, and scientists can access the computer- based information in special fields and build up their expertise; � to function as a computer-based information storage-and-retrieval system database that collects structured informa- tion generated by research institutions, continuously updating and making the information available to users � to provide a communications link with international databanks and databases for selective bibliographic informa- tion to scientists and other users; � to examine, promote, and develop existing information services and resources to meet the information requirements of scientists working in the area of Himalayan research; � to establish and maintain links with other national information centers and systems in the country;12 � to create a linked collection of Internet-based, high-quality Himalayan resources; � to convert core Indian Himalayan journals, research reports, dissertations, and working papers into digital format; � to keep Indian databases of Himalayan journals and newsletters of Himalayan Institute’s online; � to establishing a network of all Himalayan-studies research centers situated in different parts of the country for shar- ing research resources; � to provide online information of forthcoming conferences, seminars, and training workshops in Himalayan-research- and-studies centers in India; � to provide details of completed and on-going Himalayan-research projects; � to connect Web sites of Himalayan studies, hill studies departments of major universities, and Himalayan-research institutes; � to provide for discussions, chat groups, and video-conferencing facilities for Himalayan scientists; � to share the resources of other libraries to supplement a library’s own collection; � to share scientific efforts and expertise; � to ensure effective bibliographic control of the literature; � to facilitate and promote document-delivery and library-lending services; � to develop a common collection-development policy; � to share catalog service and to create a computerized union database; � to share database services such as abstracting, indexing, and full-text services; � to collect, store, organize, and retrieve information on all aspects of Himalaya and its interdisciplinary areas con- tained in various recorded media; and � to coordinate the existing resources, services, and facilities within India in the field of Himalayan studies. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HIMALAYAN STUDIES INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INDIA | SINGH 43 Appendix B. Institutions Engaged in Himalayan Research Universities Center for Environmental Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla (http://hpuniv.nic.in/envstu.htm) Center for Himalayan Studies, University of North Bengal, Darjeeling (www.nbu.ac.in/) Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment, University of Delhi, Delhi G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Ranichauri, Tehri-Garhwal (www.gbpuat.ac.in/) 44 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2005 North East Hill University, Shillong (www.nehu.ac.in/) High Altitude Plant Physiology Research Center, H. N. B. Garhwal University, Srinagar-Garhwal Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan (www.yspuniversity.ac.in/) Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies (IIHS), (UGC Center of Excellence) Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla (www.hpuniv.nic.in/) Institute of Himalayan Studies and Regional Development, Garhwal University, Srinagar-Garhwal R&D Institutions Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi (www.smith.edu/cihts/) Central Institute of Himalayan Culture Studies, Dahung, Arunachal Pradesh Defence Agricultural Research Laboratory (DRDO) Pithoragarh (http://drdo.nic.in/labindex.shtml) Snow and Avalanche Study Establishment, (DRDO) Chandigarh (http://drdo.nic.in/labindex.shtml) Temperate Forest Research Institute (ICFRE), Shimla (www.envfor.nic.in/icfre/tfris/tfris.html) Himalayan Forest Research Institute, Shimla (www.icfre.org/institues/hfri.htm) Forest Research Institute (ICFRE), Dehradun (www.envfor.nic.in/icfre/fri/fri.html) Institute of Himalayan Bioresources Technology, (CSIR) Palampur (www.csir.res.in/ihbt/) Regional Research Laboratory, (CSIR) Jammu Tawi (www.rrljammu.org/) G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, with its headquarters at Almora; and regional units at Tadong-Gangtok; Srinagar-Garhwal; Shamshi-Kullu; Itanagar (http://gbpihed.nic.in/) ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, (ICAR) Umroi Road : Barapani, Meghalaya (http://dare.nic.in/icarneh.htm) Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anushandhanshala (ICAR), Almora (http://vpkas.nic.in/) Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture (ICAR), Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir (http://dare.nic.in/cith.htm) Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Regional Station, Palampur (ICAR) (http://ivri.nic.in/) Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Regional Station, Muketeswar (ICAR), Nainital (http://ivri.nic.in/) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Regional Station, Bhowali–Niglat, Nainital (http://nbpgr.delhi.nic.in/) North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli, Itanagar (http://agni.nerist.ac.in/) Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, (DST) Dehradun (www.himgeology.com/) Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (www.wii.gov.in/) International Center International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal (www.icimod.org/) NGOs Center of Himalayan Development and Policy Studies, Dehradun Himalayan Environmental Studies and Conservation Organization, Kotdwara (Garhwal), Uttaranchal Society for Integrated Development of Himalayas (SIDH), Landour Cantt., Musoorie Himalayan Action Research Center (HARC), Dehradun Himalayan Study Circle, Pithoragarh People’s Association for Himalayan Area Research (PAHAR), Nainital The Himalaya Trust, Dehradun The Himalayan Foundation, Nandprayag, Chamoli Distt Research, Advocacy, and Communication in Himalayan Areas (RACHNA), Dehradun Central Himalayan Environment Association, Nainital Himalayan Region Study and Research Center Institute, New Delhi Himalayan Seva Sangh, New Delhi Himalayan Research Group, Nainital Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, New Delhi Himalayan Institute of Action Research and Development, Dehradun 
3364	----	Editorial ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3369	----	Editorial ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3365	----	Jeng ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3367	----	Jin ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3366	----	Jaeger ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3377	----	Presidents ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3372	----	Farrell ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3371	----	McCrory ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3370	----	Starr ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3373	----	Kruger ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3374	----	Liu ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3379	----	Editorial ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3378	----	Yiotis ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3375	----	Communications ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3376	----	Communications ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3368	----	Yee ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3380	----	Tull ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3381	----	Aliprand ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3382	----	Zumalt ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ 
3383	----	Jorgensen ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3384	----	Communications ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3385	----	Communications ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
3386	----	Index to Volume 24 ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ 
5275	----	75 Video Technologies: Neologism or Library Trend? Converging factors are shaping a new environment for libraries, and, as a consequence, the present is full of opportunity. Technical and social changes provide libraries with a host of alternatives for service, growth, and innovation. In this new environment libraries will, undoubtedly, continue to promote the availability of books and other materials, continue to in- crease their efforts to furnish patrons with information, and continue to broaden the range of activities offered so that patrons can receive personalized service. Patron information seeking and searching methods we have known, however, will give way to new methods based on computers and telecommunications. A host of new technologies is growing out of the evolutionary pathway marked by telegraph, telephone, radio, and television . Broadband com- munications (that's the cable that today brings you predominantly enter- tainment television), satellite, videotex, teletext, videodisc, videotape, large-screen television, and computer displays (some are as large as the side of a building) are available either today or within the next year or two . Each of these technologies is a new medium within its own in- herent capabilities and limitations. Each has the promise of providing faster and more cost-efficient information services than some present forms of printed communication. And each requires a different approach and different knowledge for effective and efficient use, and integration into library operations. In a growing number of locations, cable communications for delivery of library se rvices have already been made available virtually free of charge . Other technologies, such as videotex, will grow significantly . Estimates suggest that in five years more than 8 million American homes will be able to obtain extensive, automated information services from commercial, private, and government sources . Probably a larger number will receive limited information services over the broadcast air- waves via teletext. Dramatic new services will combine television, com- puter, telephone, satellite, and cable into home entertainment and in- formation centers ... potential extensions of libraries. Some sources suggest more than 50 percent of the American Gross National Product results from the collection, processing, and dissemina- tion of information, much of which involves new technologies . Inev- 76 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 itably, this technological trend also will occur in libraries and, in this light, the relatively low level of involvement of computers in providing patron services today is notable. By their natural inertia, individuals and organizations in the library community will be opposed to the accep- tance of cable services, videotex , online catalogs, information retrieval , and other video technologies simply because it represents change . But these technologies are technically feasible and are becoming an eco- nomic reality. The point of demarcation between computer and library may well become a terminal in a patron's home. Whether or not the service provided is a library's or a commercial competitor's depends to a great extent on how libraries define their role in this environment, and on the degree of library participation in the evolutionary process that's now taking place. Something besides inertia opposes the acceptance of new technolo- gies, however. To some degree, lack of awareness of technological trends is a factor, but more significant is a lack of clear understanding (both by the proponents of the technology and by librarians) of how new technology can be integrated into the library setting. Understanding the value a technology offers - for increased service or decreased cost, for example - should be paramount, but frequently the technology seems to be offered as an end in itself. Internal and external factors must be considered to guide the applica- tion of technology toward meeting library and patron needs. Financial concerns, social forces , and the consumer/patron appear to be major fac- tors leading libraries toward a future deeply involved in video technolo- gies. Whether the outcome will result from external pressure or internal plan remains to be seen. It's incumbent upon libraries to be informed and active participants in directing their own future in this kind of an environment. What are the implications of this technical evolution and internal/ex- ternal factors? One thing is sure: it's a massive industry growing at a very rapid rate, and it is going to grow even faster . Libraries have the opportunity to grow with this trend through application of the technolo- gies to existing technical services, increased availability of patron ser- vices, and development of innovative services . If there is a common thread that can identify those libraries which will grow and prosper, that thread is flexibility - the capacity of library management and staff to adapt this library to the new environment, and integrate technology into their library. Readers and contributors of ]OLA are the people that can e ither have an integral part in defining the future direction of libraries, or passively watch patron needs outstrip services. Library schools and people in- volved in library-related research must play a key role in assessing the value of video technologies and defining how to integrate them into the business and service of libraries. What is going to preserve and enhance Editorial!HARNISH 77 the role of libraries in the 1980s will not only be flexibility but another very critical element - foresight, dedicated to patron needs . Many li- braries have met this technological revolution head-on and are intimate- ly involved in testing, developing, and providing innovative library services . In this and forthcoming issues, we hope to bring a perspective on these changes that is valuable and cogent to the library community. Readers of ]OLA and practitioners in all areas of video technology are called upon to describe their efforts and share their results drawn from this rapidly changing field through contributions to this journal. THOMAS D. HARNISH EDITOR'S NOTES JOLA will continue to be interesting and useful to its readers to the extent that its readers are willing to expend the efforts to also be its writers. The authors in this issue are all as busy as you and I. They have made time in their already full schedules to write down ideas and information they hope will be useful and provocative. They and we of the ]OLA staff hope you are pleased with the results . So what's new by you? How have your patrons reacted to your new online catalog? What do the costs of your acquisitions system look like? How about that idea you had about a new way to do whatever? Do you think the fuss over authority control is worth it? If you have ,ideas, perceptions, or stories to tell that you feel are of interest to your fellow readers, please write and let them know. 
5276	----	78 Design Principles for a Comprehensive Library System Tamer ULUAKAR, Anton R. PIERCE, and Vinod CHACHRA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Vir- ginia. This paper describes a project that takes a step-by-step or incremental approach to the development of an online comprehensive system run- ning on a dedicated computer. The described design paid particular attention to present and predicted capabilities in computing as well as to trends in library automation. The resultant system is now in its second of three releases, having tied together circulation control, catalog ac- cess, and serial holdings . PERSPECTIVE The use of computers in libraries is no longer a speculative venture for the daring few. Rather, library automation has become the accepted prerequisite for effective library service. The question faced is not "if," but rather "how" and "when." The reasons for this evolution are di- verse, but fundamental is the recognition of online computer processing as the most effective means of simultaneously handling inventory con- trol, information retrieval, and networking of large, complex, and vola- tile stores of data. Most areas of current library practice could now ben- efit from effective computer-based control. Mature and proven systems exist for cataloging, circulation, serials control, acquisitions, catalog ac- cess, and "reader guidance"; the latter by virtue of online literature searching facilities such as DIALOG, MEDLARS, or BRS. The chal- lenge is to find or develop an optimal mix of capabilities. Two common limitations from which library automation projects suffer are the use of nonstandardized, incomplete records and the lack of func- tional integration of different tasks. In most cases these limitations are due to historic circumstances. The pioneering systems - say, those online systems introduced between 1967 and 1975 - had to conserve carefully the available computing resources. A decade ago it was un- thinkable for any library to store a million MARC records online. Mass Manuscript received July 1980; accepted February 1981. Design Principles/ULUAKAR, et al. 79 storage costs alone precluded that option. To best realize the benefits of automation, short records, usually of fixed length, were employed. There is little question that systems based on short records were helpful to their users . However, one characteristic of these systems was their proliferation within a particular library. After the first system was shown to be a success, it became compelling to try another. The prob- lem was that these separate systems were usually not communicating directly with each other because of limitations imposed by program complexity and load on available resources. Thus, the use of incomplete records breeds isolated, noncommunicat- ing systems. However, system users have come to demand that all rel- evant data be available at a single terminal from a single system. It is not enough to know that a particular title is due back in twenty-five days; the user must also know that copy two has just been received, and that copy three is expected to arrive from the vendor in one week. That is, the functions of catalog access, circulation, and acquisitions must be brought together at a single place - the user's terminal. And while the importance of functional integration has been recognized for some time, only a very few report successful implementations. I,z The Kafkaesque alternative to functional integration becomes the library that has been "well computerized" but where the librarian must use five different ter- minals, one for each task. As computer-based systems have grown to maturity, increasing stress has been placed on standardization . In library automation the measure of standardization is wide-scale use of the MARC formats for documents and authorities; the use of bibliographic "registry" entries such as ISBN, ISSN, or CODEN; the use of standard bibliographic description; and so forth. However, the application of common languages and standardized protocols, data description, and definition has been less pervasive. We find many applications that eschew use of the common high-level lan- guages, database management systems, and standard "off-the-shelf' or general-purpose hardware. The emergence of powerful and easy-to-use database management systems, the spectacular price reductions in hardware, and the concom- itant, and equally spectacular, improvements in system capabilities have made it clear that it is practical to think ambitiously. Perhaps the major articulation of these developments has been the pervasive shift from a central computer shared with nonlibrary users to the utilization of dedi- cated minicomputers. 3 Our analysis of the requirements of a comprehensive system led to recognition of the key role played by serials in research libraries. Serials form the most critical factor in automating library service because of the complexity of their bibliographic, order, and inventory records, and be- cause of their importance to research. 4 A fundamental error in designing a comprehensive library system would involve focusing on the require- 80 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 ments of monographs and/or other "one-shot" forms of the literature. The reason is, simply, that monographs and other such publications can be treated as an easy limiting case of a continuing set of publications . This observation is borne out by Christoffersson, who reports an applica- tion that extends the idea of seriality and develops a means to provide useful control and access to all classes of material. 5 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY The concerns outlined above mean that a viable library system should meet the following design criteria: Functional integration. Functional integration is simply the ability to conduct all appropriate inquiries, updates, and transactions on any ter- minal. This envisages a cradle-to-grave system wherein a title is ordered, has its bibliographic record added to the database, is received and paid, has its bibliographic record adjusted to match the piece, is bound, found by author, title, subject, series, etc., charged out, and, alas, flagged as missing. In this way a terminal linked to the system will be a one-stop place to conduct all the business associated with a particu- lar title, subject, series, order, claim, vendor, or borrower. Completeness of data. If the system is to be functionally integrated, it is clear that it must carry the data required to support all functions. In particular, data completeness is required to satisfy the access and con- trol functions. Consider, for example, the problems associated with the cataloging function. A book is frequently known by several titles or au- thors. Creating these additional access points is a large portion of the cataloger's responsibility. Only systems that allow the user access to these additional entries utilize the effort spent in building the catalog record. Such system capabilities must be present to allow the labor- intensive card catalog to be closed and, more important, to allow maintenance of the catalog within the system . Use of standardized data and networking. In an excellent article, Sil- berstein reminds us that, in general, the primary rationale for adhering to standards is interchangeability. 6 We give great importance to being able to project our data to whatever systems may develop in the future. We believe this consideration is of the highest priority because, fun- damentally, the only thing that will be preserved into the future is the data itself.* Without interchangeability of data, sharing of resources is impossible. Data interchangeability is, of course, a basic assumption that has been made in speculation concering the national bibliographic network7 de- veloping from the bibliographic utilities-notably, OCLC, Inc., the Re- search Libraries Group's RLIN facility, the Washington Library Net- work, and the University of Toronto's UTLAS facility. Today, nearly all *This state of affairs seems to be true for all computer-based systems because their life- time is, typically, no greater than ten years. Design Principles!ULUAKAR, et al. 81 research libraries participate in some utility. While their participation is primarily directed to utilization of the c<;~,taloging support services, we find an increasing amount of interest and use of additional capabilities, notably interlibrary loan. We expect a steady and continual growth of these library networking capabilities. However, networking is not problem free. Perhaps the biggest single problem in using the network is the misalignment between the record as found on the bibliographic database and the requirements of indi- vidual libraries. While such variability between the resource database record and the user's needed version is well understood, 8 the local li- brary frequently has a difficult time adjusting records to meet local needs. One example is OCLC's inability to "remember" in the online database a particular library's version of a record. Another example is the CONSER project's practice of "locking" very dynamic records as soon as they are authenticated. This locking frequently means that re- quired updates cannot be made and users cannot share with one another corrections to the base record. After locking, each must, inde- pendently, go about bringing the record up to date. Thus, as Roughton notes, "the next library to call up the record loses the benefit of the previous library's work. "9 This inhospitable state of affairs forces indi- vidual libraries to maintain their own records if they wish to change bib- liographic records after initial entry. The problem of local adjustment of bibliographic records in no way conflicts with the goal of standardized bibliogra:phic data. Standardized data provides a quick means of delivering an intelligible package to a variety of users who will adapt the package to meet their particular needs . Standardization does not mean making adaptation inefficient or more costly than it need be; rather, standards provide a framework around which the details are filled in. These observations on standard- ized data formats imply that the library's data must be based on MARC records for books, serials, authorities, etc.; and on the ANSI standards for summary serials holdings notation, book numbers, library addresses, and so forth. Microscopic data description. At this point, system administrators face a fundamental problem-many of the library's important records have no standard format. The most conspicuous example involves the notation for detailed serials holdings. 10 The only alternative one has when trying to build a system without standardized formats is to rely on "microscop- ic" description. That is, each and every distinct type of data element that makes up (or can make up) a field in a record must be accounted for and uniquely tagged. In this way, whatever standard format is ulti- mately set, it will be possible, in principle, to assemble by algorithm the data elements into an arrangement that will be in conformity with the standard. Only if the library is using microscopic data description will the library be able to maintain its independence of particular lines 82 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 of hardware or software. We are convinced that the use of untagged, free-form input will, in the long run, spell disaster. Use of general purpose hardware and software. Many strategies in dealing with library automation involve redesigning standard hardware or software. For example, one vendor has reported an interesting design of mass storage units that improved access time. 11 We feel that future applications should, as much as possible, steer clear of such customized implementations because the standard capabilities of most affordable systems allow sufficient processing power and storage economies even if these capabilities are suboptimal for a particular application . The use of general-purpose hardware and system software promotes system sharing between different installations. Moreover, an application based on general-purpose hardware and system software will be easier to maintain and far less vulnerable to changes in personnel. For turnkey installa- tions, the greater the degree of use of general-purpose hardware and software, the better shielded will the installation be against changes in product line or the vendor's ultimate demise . A noteworthy application of this principle of compatibility is seen in the system being developed by the National Library of Medicine. 12 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The functional capabilities of the Virginia Tech Library System (VTLS) have been developed in two software releases, with the third re- lease soon to appear. The initial release met the needs associated with circulation control and also provided rudimentary access to the catalog and serials holdings. The present release has benefited from the use of the MARC format, and allows vastly improved catalog access and con- trol. Release III, the comprehensive library system now being de- veloped, will draw together acquisitions, authority control, and serials control with the current capabilities. VTLS Release I The initial release of the system was developed in 1976 to meet needs generated by rapid library growth. Circulation transactions had been in- creasing at about 10 percent annually for the previous decade and were straining the manually maintained circulation files beyond acceptable limits. The main library* at Virginia Tech is organized in subject divi- sions-each essentially "owning" one floor of a 100,000-square-foot facil- ity. A 100,000-square-foot addition to the library had been approved. Because Virginia Tech's library has only one card catalog, some means was necessary to distribute catalog information throughout a facility that *Only two quite small branch libraries (architecture and geology) exist on campus . In addition there is a reserve collection located in the Washington, D.C., area that sup- ports off-campus graduate programs in the areas of education, business administration, and coiuputer science. All these sites are linked to the system. Design Principles/ULUAKAR, et al. 83 was to double its size. After reviewing the alternative means of distrib- uting the catalog-e . g., a duplicate card catalog, photographic reproduc- tion of the catalog, or a COM catalog-it was decided to attack both problems, circulation control and remote catalog access, within a single online system . VTLS was installed on a full-time basis in August 1976. Its first re- lease ran continuously on the library's dedicated Hewlett/Packard 3000 minicomputer until December 1979 . At that time the system held brief bibliographic data for approximately 325,000 monographs and 25,000 journals and other serial titles-records for about half the collection. While the first release ably met its goals, it became clear that it would prove to be an unsuitable host for additional modules involving acquisi- tions and serials control, primarily because of the brief, fixed-length bibliographic records. As a result of highly favorable price reductions in computer hardware and improvements in capability, it was possible to think in terms of storing one million MARC records online as well as supporting the additional terminals required for a comprehensive library system. VTLS Release II VTLS runs under a single online program for all real-time transac- tions. The major goals in the design of this program were the following: 1. Two conflicting requirements had to be a~commodated : First, the program had to be easy to use for library patrons. This is requisite for a system that will eventually replace the card catalog. Second, the program had to be practical, efficient, and versatile for its pro- fessional users. The keystrokes required had to be minimal, and related screens had to be easily accessible· from one to another. 2. The response time had to be good, especially for more frequent transactions. 3. The contents of all screens had to be balanced to provide enough information without being overcrowded and difficult to read or comprehend. Further, each screen of VTLS had to be arranged by some logical arrangement of the data it contains-for most screens this meant alphabetical sorting of the data according to ALA rules. 4. The format of all screens, especially those to be viewed by the pa- trons, had to be visually pleasing. Thus , the use of special symbols (which are so abundant on many computer system displays), non- standard abbreviations, and locally (and often quite arbitrarily) de- fined terms were unacceptable. 5. The program had to have security provisions to restrict certain classes of users from addressing particular modules of the program. Considerable effort was spent to satisfy these goals. The first goal was achieved by the "network of screens" approach. The second goal- prompt system response-necessitated the use of the "data buffer 84 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 method," which, in turn , proved to have other uses (both of these tech- niques are discussed below) . To satisfy goals three and four, a commit- tee of librarians and analysts spent months drafting and reviewing each screen until it was finally approved by the design group. Goal five- security provisions-was reached without much difficulty. Network of Screens VTLS' s data-access system is designed to be used as easily as a road map. This is accomplished by the use of a "network of screens." The network of screens is much like a road map in which a set of related data (a screen displayed in one or more pages) acts as a "city," and the commands that lead from one set to another act as "highways." VTLS has nineteen screens including various menu screens, bibliographic screens (see "The Data Buffer Method" below), serial holdings screens, item (physical piece) screens, and screens for patron-related data. The user can "drive" from one "city" to another us ing system com- mands. The system commands are either "global" or "local." Global commands, as the name implies, may be entered at any point during the execution of the online program. A local command is peculiar to a given screen. Global commands are of two types: search commands and processing commands. Search commands are used to access the database by author, title, subject, added entries, call number, LC card number, ISBN, ISSN, patron name, etc. Processing commands, on the other hand, initiate procedures such as check-out, renewal, or check-in of items. The user first enters a global (search) command to access one of the screens in the network. From there, local commands that are spe- cific to the current screen can be used. There are three different types of local commands: commands that take the user from one screen to another; commands that page within the current screen; and commands that update data related to the screen. For example, it is possible to start by entering an author search command to access the network and then proceed not only to find what books the author has in the system but also the availability of each of the books . If the books are checked out, information about the patrons who have them can also be reached. This display is called the patron screen . From the patron screen, one can "drive" to the patron activity screen , which displays circulation in- formation about the patrons. Thus, each d isplayed screen leads to another. In fact, the searches can start at ten different screens and pro- ceed in many different ways through the network. Database Design IMAGE/3000, Hewlett-Packard's database management system used by VTLS, is designed to be used with fixed-length records. This fact, coupled with the need to sort entries on most screens, created serious problems in the early stages of the system design . But various tech- Design Principles/ULUAKAR, et al. 85 niques were devised to overcome these apparent road blocks . Figure 1 illustrates the breakdown of the bibliographic record in the database and the way it is linked with piece-specific · data. Bibliographic data are stored in three distinct groups for subsequent retrieval: l. Controlled vocabulary terms. (Authority Data Set) 2. Title and title-like data. (Title Data Set) 3. All remaining bibliographic data; i.e., data that is not indexed. (MARC-Other Data Set) This grouping of the MARC record extends to subfields, thus splitting mixed fields such as author-title added entries . When individual fields are parsed in this way, a single field may contribute more than one ac- cess point, such as variant forms of author, title, series name, subject, and added entries. Access by the standard bibliographic control num- bers is effected by use of inverted files (not shown in the figure). A fundamental characteristic of this layout involves the storage of con- trolled vocabulary terms (i.e., authors and subjects). Regardless of the number of references made to an authority term from different biblio- graphic records, the controlled vocabulary term is stored only once. The system assigns a unique number (Authority ID) to each such term and uses this number to keep records of the references made to it in a sepa- rate data set (Authority Bibliographic Linkage Data Set). This particular structure makes an authority control subsystem possible, speeds up online retrieval and display, and economizes mass storage. The Data Buffer Method The system displays bibliographic records in two different formats. If the terminal used is designated for librarians, the records are displayed Al'THORITY -BIBLIOGRAPHIC LINKA<;E DATA SET FH;URE 16. BIBLIO<;RAPHIC LAYO UT Of THE CFS-11 DATA BASE . tSIMPLIF'IEDl Fig. 1. Bibliographic Layout of the VTLS Database (Simplified). 86 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 in the MARC format (the resulting screen is referred to as the MARC screen); otherwise, they are displayed in a screen that is formatted simi- lar to a catalog card. Before displaying these screens, the online pro- gram collects and formats the data to be displayed and stores it in one of the two "buffer" data sets. The records stored in the buffer data sets are called buffer records. Buffer records can be edited, as required, by adding new lines, deleting, or modifying existing character strings. These updates can be executed quickly and without placing much load on the system since they involve little, if any, analysis, indexing, and sorting. Thus, the buffer data sets store all bibliographic updates and new data entry of the day. At night, these records are transferred to the rest of the database by a batch program. The data buffer method has had several pronounced effects on the system. By transferring periods of heavy resource demand to off-hours, the system can work with full MARC records in a library that has a heavy real-time load of data entry, inquiry, and circulation. The data buffer approach also improves access efficiency because once a buffer record is prepared for a screen, subsequent searches for the same rec- ord are satisfied by the buffer record. Data Entry and the OCLC Interface The most frequently encountered method of entering MARC records into a local computer involves use of tape in the MARC II communica- tions format . Alternative methods include the use of microprocessors or digital recorders which "play back" a MARC-tagged screen image from OCLC or some other bibliographic utility. These alternative methods have the strong advantage of shortening the delay introduced while waiting for a tape to be delivered. We have been able to link the utility's terminal to the data buffer. 13 Data flows from the utility to the buffer in real time. No intervention in the utility's terminal was required for the local processor to be able to capture the MARC-tagged screen. Batch programs running on the HIP 3000 read records from printer ports of OCLC terminals and pass them directly to the data buffer. Once a record gets into the data buffer, it is accessible by OCLC number so that subsequent editing and linkage to piece-specific data or serial holdings can be made right away in the local system . Buffer records can also be created by direct keyboarding of the full array of fixed and variable fields using the VTLS terminals. Circulation As with most other online circulation systems, VTLS uses machine- sensible bar-code labels to identify books and borrowers to the system. All efforts have been made to humanize the system. One consequence is Design Principles/ULUAKAR, et al. 87 that the system does not make decisions better made by responsible staff. Thus, two kinds of circulation stations reside side by side. The first is staffed by students who typically work a ten-to-twenty-hour week and historically have shown high turnover. Their circulation stations only deal with inquiries and with heavily used but nondiscretionary transac- tions: check-out, renewal, and check-in. Should problems arise, the bor- rower is directed to the adjacent station staffed by a full-time employee who, using the system, can articulate circulation policy to borrowers and make decisions with regard to any questions concerning fines, lost books, or reinstatement of invalidated or blocked privileges . START-UP We found system start-up to be a relatively easy task. It was conve- nient to use the so-called rolling conversion in which items were labeled upon their initial circulation through the system. The greatest benefit was seen in the first year when the probability that items brought to the circulation desk were already known to the system increased exponen- tially. After six months this probability had risen to 65 percent with only 10 percent of the circulating collection having been labeled . At the end of the year the probability increased linearly at 0. 7 percent per month. After three years of operation, the probability was 90 percent, with approximately 50 percent of the circulating collection having been labeled. REFERENCE USE The ability to distribute catalog access as well as circulation informa- tion provides a powerful information tool. A subset of all functions pre- viously described is available to the nonlibrarian users of the system through user-cordial screens. A "help" function may also be initiated at any screen to guide users through the network of screens. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Critical to the overall design of VTLS is the system's ability to treat serials and continuations. Without this capability, the modules being de- veloped to support acquisitions, serials check-in and claiming, and bind- ing, will not function satisfactorily. Equally important, the design lays the foundation for authority control by virtue of its use of a dictionary for all controlled vocabulary terms. Thus a name or subject entry is car- ried internally as a four-byte code, which is translated to the authority entry upon display. Another internally coded data element, the BIB-ID, is designed to handle many of the linkage problems associated with serials and con- tinuations. The BIB-ID is unique for each MARC record. Prior to establishing the serials control modules governing receipt, 88 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 claiming, and binding, the coded holdings module must be functioning. This module will allow automatic identification of volume (or binding unit) closure and automatic identification of gaps in holdings or overdue receipts. Thus, highest priority has been given to the development of this module so that these other modules can, in turn, develop. The holdings module serves two functions: first, it allows the detailed re- cordings of serials holdings consistent with the principle stated earlier concerning microscopic data description; and second, these microscopic data are coded so that the system can recognize (and predict) particular pieces or binding units in terms of enumerative and chronological data. The next three areas of development are modules for acquisitions and fund control, serials receipts and binding, and authority control. The final development will be comprehensive management reports. It should be noted that each one of these developments will result in a specific benefit to the user community. The project is incremental in that the development of area A does not mean that area B must be de- veloped for A to have lasting value. This incremental approach offers de- signers and administrators the advantages associated with an orderly growth in complexity and budget requirements. Further, the capabili- ties of the host hardware and software are stressed in smaller steps than would be the case if the comprehensive system were written and then turned on. The key move appears to be predefining the scope and capa- bilities of each stage so that a useful product emerges at its completion, and so that it lays a foundation for the next. REFERENCES 1. Velma Veneziano and James S. Aagaard, "Cost Advantages of Total System De- velopment," in Proceedings of the 1976 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Pro- cessing (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1976), p.133-44 . 2. Charles Payne and others, "The University of Chicago Data Management System ," Library Quarterly 47:1-22 (Jan . 1977). 3. Audry N. Grosch, Minicomputers in Libraries (New York: Knowledge Industry Press, 1979), 142p . 4. Richard DeGennaro, "Wanted: A Mini-computer Serials System," Library Journal 102:878-79 (April 15, 1977). 5. John G. Christoffersson, "Automation at the University of Georgia Libraries," Jour- nal of Library Automation 12:23-38 (March 1979). 6. Stephen M. Silberstein, "Standards in a National Bibliographic Network," Journal of Library Automation 10:142-53 (June 1977). 7. Network Technical Architecture Group, "Message Delivery System for the National Library and Information Service Network: General Requirements," in David C. Hartmann, ed . , Library of Congress Network Planning Paper, no.4, 1978, 35p. 8. Arlene T. Dowell, Cataloging with Copy (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1976), 295p. 9. Michael Roughton, "OCLC Serials Records: Errors , Omissions, and Dependability," Journal of Academic Librarianship 5:316-21 (Jan. 1980). 10. Tamer Uluakar, "Needed: A National Standard for Machine-Interpretable Repre- sentation of Serial Holdings," RTSD Newsletter 6:34 (May/June 1981) . Design Principles!ULUAKAR, et al. 89 11. C.L. Systems, Inc., "The LIBS 100 System: A Techn-ological Perspective," CLSI Newsletter, no .6 (Fall/Winter 1977). 12. Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, "The Integrated Library System: Overview and Status" (LHC/CTB Inter- nal Documentation, Bethesda, Md., October 1, 1979), 55p. 13. Francis J. Galligan to Pierce, 11 Feb. 1980. Tamer Uluakar is manager of the Virginia Tech Library Automation Project. Anton R. Pierce is planning and research librarian at the university libraries. Vinod Chachra is director of computing resources and associate professor of industrial engineering. 
5277	----	90 OCLC Search Key Usage Patterns in a Large Research Library Kunj B. RASTOGI: OCLC; and Ichiko T. MORITA: Ohio State University, Columbus. Many libraries use the OCLC Online Union Catalog and Shared Cata- loging Subsystem to perform various library functions, such as acquisi- tions and cataloging of library materials. As an initial part of the opera- tions, users must search and retrieve a bibliographic record for the de- sired item from the large OC LC database. Various types of derived search keys are available for retrieval. This study of actual search keys entered by users of the OCLC online system was conducted to deter- mine the types of search keys users prefer for performing various library operations and to find out whether the preferred search keys are effective. INTRODUCTION In the last decade, many information systems have been developed that use search keys to retrieve bibliographic records from large data- bases. The OCLC Online Union Catalog and Shared Cataloging Subsys- tem in particular is one of the larger of these systems. 1--u There are cur- rently more than 7 million bibliographic records in the OCLC database. The OCLC online system uses search keys to access various index files that locate bibliographic records in the database. Index files are maintained for name/title, personal author, corporate author, CODEN, ISBN, and LCCN indexes. The first four of the above index files contain search keys that are derived from information (e. g., author, title) pres- ent in the piece or citation. Search keys in these four indexes are in general not unique, because the derived key could be the same for different bibliographic records. The last three indexes (CODEN, ISBN, and LCCN) contain search keys or identifiers that are unique in general. A user enters a search key consisting of characters (letters, numbers, symbols, commas, hyphens) formatted according to specific rules that identify to the system which index file to search. For example, to search the name/title index, the user enters a search key consisting of the first four characters of the author's last name and the first four characters of Manuscript received October 1980; .accepted December 1980. Search Key Usage!RASTOGI and MORITA 91 the first nonarticle word of the title of the work, separated by a comma. To search the title index, the user enters a search key consisting of the first three characters of the first nonarticle word in the title, the first two characters of the second word, the first two characters of the third word, and the first character of the fourth word, each separated by a comma. 7 The system compares the user-entered search key with the search keys contained in that index file. This comparison results in one of three possible cases: l. Only one index file search key matches the user-entered search key . 2 . More than one index file search key matches the user-entered search key. 3. No index file search key matches the user-entered search key. In the first case, the system retrieves the unique bibliographic record corresponding to the search key and displays it on the user's terminal screen. In the second case, the system retrieves all records that corre- spond to the search key, prepares truncated entries (consisting of au- thor, title, imprint data, etc.) for those records, and displays the trun- cated entries on the user's terminal screen . The user then selects the truncated entry that corresponds to the desired record and requests the system to display the full record for that item. In the third case, the system responds with the reply that a record matching the user-entered search key was not present (a "not found" response) in the index. In the OCLC online system, 2,500 member libraries ·using 3,800 ter- minals search the OCLC database to perform various library functions such as acquisitions, monograph cataloging, and serials cataloging. Users can choose to enter any type of search key from the various types of search keys permitted by the system. Users' preferences to enter a par- ticular type of search key will depend in part upon the kind of informa- tion they have about the item to be searched and the type of library function they wish to perform. If users receive a "not found" response after entering a particular type of search key, they may then try a differ- ent type of search key that they consider next best. The purpose of this study was to determine what types of search keys are preferred to perform various library functions and whether the pre- ferred search keys are effective. The study also investigated what type of search key is used next when particular types of search keys are unable to retrieve the desired record to determine if there are any discernible search patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS For conducting this study, data were needed on the pattern of search- key use in OCLC member libraries. Further, the data had to include the actual time of day when work was performed for a particular library 92 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 function on a specific terminal. This requirement would permit iden- tification in the Online System Use Data collected by OCLC of search keys entered to perform specific library functions. Ideally, a library with several OCLC terminals, each used exclusively for only one library function, was desired. The Ohio State University (OSU) Library met this requirement. The OSU Library has eleven terminals: two of the eleven terminals are used exclusively for performing acquisition func- tions, seven are used for monographic cataloging, and one terminal each is used for serials cataloging and public use. The terminal assigned for serials cataloging is used for monograph cataloging after 5 p.m. Library staff at OSU use all the terminals exclusively, except for the public-use terminal. This public-use terminal can be used by anyone, including faculty, students, and library staff. Two full days' transactions for each of the OSU terminals were obtained from the OCLC Online System Use Statistics (OLSUS) file. During the online operation, the system writes a record on the OLSUS file for each message entered by the user. This record includes the in- stitution number, a number identifying the terminal from which the message came, the time of the transaction, and the first nonblank six- teen characters of the message . If the user-entered message is a search key, the system response is either a "not found" response or a "found" response. With the "found" response, the system displays the bibliographic rec- ord (if unique) or displays a truncated entry screen. However, a "found" response does not necessarily mean that the truncated entry screen in- cludes information about the bibliographic record the user was actually seeking. For the study, a program was written to scan the records in the OLSUS file for two full days in October 1978. The program extracted all the records for messages that came from the eleven OSU terminals and wrote the records on two tapes--one for each day's activity. These tapes were sorted first by the terminal number and then within each terminal number by the time of transaction. Each sorted tape was fed to another program that printed, for each terminal, the actual messages in chrono- logical order and the associated system response. From this printout, it was possible manually to go through the com- plete sequence of messages entered to search a single bibliographic item. The printout for an entire day's activity for each terminal was thus divided into sections, each section containing all transactions that were performed to search for a single item. For each section, the type of search key first entered and the system response was noted. In case of a "not found" response, the type of search key next entered (if the search process was continued for the item) also was noted. The results were combined for all the terminals used to perform a specific library function (e.g., acquisitions) and for the two days. Search Key Usage!RASTOGI and MORITA 93 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 and figure 1 show the different types of search keys used as the first choice to perform various library functions. Note that at the time of data collection for this study, the Interlibrary Loan Subsystem was not operational. Table 1. Different Types of Searches for Various Applications Type of Search Nametritle Title Personal Author LCCN ISBN ISSN CODEN Total Monograph Acquisitions Cataloging Items %of Items %of Searched Total Searched Total 111 37.5 313 51.7 49 16.6 48 7.9 0 0.0 9 1.5 122 41.2 201 33.2 14 4.7 34 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 296 100.0 605 100.0 ACQUISITIONS LCCN ( 41.2% SERIALS CATALOGING TITLE OTHER S 4 .7% Serials Cataloging Items %of Searched Total 15 15.9 72 76.6 0 0.0 1 l.l 1 l.l 5 5.3 0 0.0 94 100.0 MONOGRAPH CATALOGING LCCN NAME/TIT LE PUBLIC USE TITLE NAME / TITLE 48.7% Public Use Items %of Searched Total 77 48.7 44 27 .8 16 10.1 13 8.2 3 1.9 3 1.9 2 1.3 158 100.0 Fig . 1 . Number of Different Types of Search Keys for Various Applications. 94 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 During the two-day period, a total of 605 items were searched for monograph cataloging, 296 items were searched for acquisitions opera- tions, and 94 items were searched for serials cataloging. A total of 158 items were. searched on the public-use terminal. Most types of search keys were used to some extent. The use of ISBN and ISSN search keys was quite limited for all types of library functions. The CODEN search key was used only twice, and both times through the public-use termi- nal. The corporate author search key was not used at all. The use of the personal-author search key was much smaller than expected. This was probably because at the time of the study the system did not permit use of personal author keys during peak hours (9 a .m. to 5 p.m .) of online system operation. For the acquisitions function, the LCCN search key was used most often, followed by the name/title key. These two types of keys together were used for about 80 percent of the acquisitions items searched . For the monograph cataloging function, the most frequently used search key was the name/title key. This key was entered for about 52 percent of items searched. The next most frequently used key for monograph cata- loging was the LCCN key, used for about 33 percent of the items searched. For the serials cataloging function, the title key was used most often, for more than 75 percent of the items searched. Searches performed through the public-use terminal included all types of search keys. The name/title key was used most frequently , followed by the title key. Before performing an actual search, a user must choose, from among the various types of search keys available in the OCLC system, the par- ticular search key to use. If the search key used for a first try (primary choice of search key) results in a "not found" response from the system, a second key may be entered (secondary choice of search key). This sequence may continue through many search-key choices until the user retrieves the desired record ("found" response) or decides to abandon the search at some point upon obtaining a "not found" response. For this study, the investigation was confined to onlyprimary and secondary choices of search keys. The results of the "found" responses for the pri- mary choice of key and for the secondary search key entered after re- ceiving the first "not-found" response are presented in tables 2 through 5. For the acquisitions function (table 2), the most frequently used pri- mary search key was the LCCN key, which retrieved the desired record about 89 percent of the time. When the LCCN key could not retrieve the record, the user chose mostly the name/title key as his/her second- ary choice or abandoned the search. The next most frequently used primary search key was the name/title key, which retrieved the desired record about 51 percent of the time. When the name/title key was un- successful, the users entered as their secondary search key a title key Search Key Usage!RASTOGI and MORITA 95 Table 2. Number of Primary and Secondary Choices of Search Keys for Acquisitions Search Dis- continued Types of Search Key Used after the Type of %of Not- after the First Not-found Response First Not- Search Key Items Found Found found Name/ Personal found Used First Searched Responses Responses Responses Title Title Author LCCN ISBN Response Nameffitle 111 57 51.3% 54 17 22 0 1 0 14 (31.5%)(40. 7%) (0.0%) (1.9%) (0.0%) (25.9%) Title 49 17 34.7% 32 6 ll 0 2 1 12 (18.8%)(34.4%) (0.0%) (6.2%) (3.1%) (37.5%) Personal Author 0 LCCN 122 109 89.3% 13 5 1 0 2 1 4 (38.4%) (7.7%) (0.0%) (15.4%) (7.7%) (30.8%) ISBN 14 1 7.1% 13 8 3 0 0 0 2 (61.5%)(23.1 %) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (15.4%) ISSN 0 CODEN 0 Total 296 184 62 .2% 112 36 37 0 5 2 32 (32.1 %)(33.0%) (0.0%) (4.5%) (1.8%) (28.6%) Note: To calculate the percentage given in parentheses, the number of ''Types of Search Key Used after the First Not-found Response" was divided by the number of "Not-found Responses." about 41 percent of the time, or a different name/title key about 31 per- cent of the time. Approximately 26 percent of the time they abandoned the search. It seems that acquisitions users mostly try the LCCN key first if available (the LCCN is not present in all the records) and the name/title key first if the LCCN is not available. Thus, users adopted the right approach since the LCCN key has· the highest hit rate. Fur- thermore, the LCCN key is more efficient than other keys because it results, on the average, in a fewer number of replies. For the monograph cataloging function (table 3), the name/title key was used most often as the primary search key, resulting in retrieval of the desired record about 57 percent of the time. When the name/title key could not retrieve the record, the users next attempted a title key (52 percent of the time) or a different name/title (21 percent of the time). About 23 percent of the time they discontinued the search. The LCCN key was the second most frequently used primary search key and successfully retrieved the record about 79 percent of the time. When the LCCN key was unsuccessful, the users tried the name/title key (58 percent of the time) as their secondary choice or abandoned the search . Unlike the search-key usage pattern for acquisitions, the use of the LCCN key for monograph cataloging was lower than use of the name/ title key, although here also the hit rate was highest for the LCCN key. The reason the LCCN use was lower is that Ohio State University, being a research institution, processes a large number of items from var- 96 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 Table 3. Number of Primary and Secondary Choices of Search Keys for Monograph Cataloging Search Dis- continued Types of Search Key Used after the Type of %of Not- after the First Not-found Response First Not- Search Key Items Found Found found Name/ Personal found Used First Searched Responses Responses Responses Title Title Author LCCN ISBN Response Nameffitle 313 180 57.5% 133 28 69 1 4 1 30 (21.1%)(51.9%) (0.7%) (3.0%) (0.7%) (226%) Title 48 24 50.0% 24 9 2 1 3 2 7 (37.5%) (8.3%) (4.2%) (12.5%) (8.3%) (29.2%) Personal Author 9 3 33.3% 6 4 0 0 0 1 1 (66.6%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (16.7%) (16.7%) LCCN 201 158 78.6% 43 25 4 0 2 l 11 (58.1 %) (9.3%) (0.0%) (4.7%) (2.3%) (25.6%) ISBN 34 3 8.8% 31 20 4 1 1 3 2 (64.5%)(12.9%) (3.2%) (3.2%) (9.7%) (6.5%) ISSN 0 CODEN 0 Total 605 368 60.8% 237 86 79 3 10 8 51 (36.3%)(33.3%) (1.3%) (4.2%) (3.4%) (21.5%) Note: To calculate the percentage given in parentheses, the number of ''Types of Search Key Used after the First Not-found Response" was divided by the number of "Not-found Responses." ious sources other than regular acquisitions channels, and many of these sources do not have LCCN information. For the serials cataloging function (table 4), the title key was the first primary choice and retrieved the desired records 44 percent of the time. If this key failed to retrieve the desired records, the users entered as their secondary key a different title key 55 percent of the time and a name/title key 17 percent of the time. Approximately 23 percent of the time, users decided to discontinue the search. Although for serials cata- loging the title key was used most frequently, its hit rate was less than 45 percent. On the other hand, the ISSN key was used very little, but its hit rate was as high as 80 percent. The use of the ISSN key is likely to increase in the future, however, because the United States Postal Service now requires the ISSN to be present on serials . 8 Therefore, the ISSN will be more readily available to the user. Among the searches performed through the public-use terminal (table 5), the most frequently used primary search key was the name/title key, which resulted in a successful search about 29 percent of the time. When patrons encountered a "not found" response, they tried as their secondary choice a different name/title key 29 percent of the time, or a title key 29 percent of the time. They abandoned the search 38 percent of the time. As mentioned earlier, the public-use terminal can be used by anyone, including faculty and students. The hit rate for name/title Search Key Usage!RASTOGI and MORITA 97 Table 4 . Number of Primary and Secondary Choices of Search Keys for Serials Cataloging %of Not- Types of Search Key Used after the First Not-found Response Search Dis- continued after the First Not-Type of Search Key Used First Items Found Found found Name/ Personal found Response Searched Responses Responses Responses Title Title Author LCCN ISBN Nameffitle 15 3 20.0% Title 72 32 44.4% Personal Author 0 LCCN 0 0.0% ISBN 0 0.0% ISSN 5 4 80.0% CODEN 0 Total 94 39 41.5% 12 6 4 1 0 0 (50.0%)(33.3%) (8.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 40 7 22 2 0 0 9 1 (17.5%)(55.0%) (5.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (22. 5%) 0 1 0 0 0 (0.0%)(100.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 1 0 0 0 0 (100.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0. 0%) (0.0%) 0 1 0 0 0 (0.0%) (100.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 55 14 28 3 0 0 10 (25.5%)(50.9%) (5.4%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (18:2%) Note: To calculate the percentage given in parentheses, the number of "Types of Search Key Used after the First Not-found Response" was divided by the number of "Not-found Responses." Table 5. Number of Primary and Secondary Choices of Search Keys for Public Use %of Not- Types of Search Key Used after the First Not-found Response Search Dis- continued after the First N ot-Type of Search Key Used First Items Found Found found Name/ Personal found Response Searched Responses Responses Responses Title Title . Author LCCN ISBN Nameffitle 77 22 28.6% 55 16 16 0 2 0 21 (29.1 %)(29.1 %) (0.0%) (3.6%) (0.0%) (38.2%) Title 44 20 45.4% 24 ll 9 0 0 0 4 (45.8%)(37.5%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (16.7%) Personal Author 16 5 31.3% ll 0 0 3 0 0 8 (0.0%) (0.0%) (27.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (72.7%) LCCN 13 5 38.5% 8 2 2 0 1 1 2 (25.0%)(25. 0%) (0.0%) (12.5%) (12.5%) (25.0%) ISBN 3 2 66.7% 0 0 0 0 1 0 (0 .0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (100.0%) (0.0%) ISSN 3 33.3% 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 (0 .0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (100.0%) CODEN 2 0 0.0% 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 (0.0%) (50.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (50.0%) Total 158 55 34.8% 103 29 38 3 3 2 3H (28.2%)(27 .2%) (2.9%) (2.9%) (1.9%) (36.9%) Note: To calculate the percentaee given in parentheses, the number of "Types of Search Key Used after the First Not-found Response" was divided by the number of "Not-found Responses." 98 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 key at this terminal was rather low. From this study, it is not possible to say whether this was due to patrons' lack of knowledge in key construc- tion or lack of sufficient information needed for the construction of the key. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Among various types of search keys available to the users, the name/ title, LCCN, and title search keys were entered most frequently. The use of personal-author, ISBN, ISSN, and CODEN search keys was very limited for all library functions. Corporate-author search keys were not used at all. For the acquisitions function, system users most frequently entered the LCCN key, followed by the name/title key. For monograph catalog- ing, the users entered the name/title key most frequently, followed by the LCCN key. For serials cataloging, the use of the title key was the most common. Persons using public-use terminals entered mostly name/ title and title search keys. For acquisitions and monograph cataloging functions, the LCCN key was most successful in retrieving the desired records. The next most successful key was the name/title key. For both of these functions, when the name/title key failed to retrieve the record, users next tried the title key most of the time. For serials cataloging, the title key was used most frequently but was not very successful in retrieving serial records. On the other hand, the ISSN key was the most successful but it was used very little . Individual identifiers such as LCCN, ISSN, ISBN, and CODEN are very efficient search keys because they retrieve, on the average, far fewer numbers of replies than other types of search keys. With the ex- ception of LCCN, the individual indentifiers were used only to a small extent. From this study, it is not possible to answer questions such as: Why weren't individual identifiers' search keys not used more often? Did a searcher use a name/title key even when the LCCN was avail- able? To answer such questions, data will have to be collected concern- ing what kind of information is available to the searcher when construct- ing the search keys. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank William H. Hochstettler for programming assistance, and Peggy Zimbeck for editorial assistance with the manuscript. REFERENCES l. F. G. Kilgour, P. L. Long, and E. B. Leiderman, "Retrieval of Bibliographic Entries from a Name-Title Catalog by Use of Truncated Search Keys," Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 7:79-82 (1970) . 2. F. G . Kilgour and others, '"Title-only Entries Retrieved by Truncated Search Keys," Search Key Usage!RASTOGI and MORITA 99 Journal of Library Automation 4:207-10 (Dec . 1971). 3. P. L. Long and F . G . Kilgour, "A Truncated Search Key Title Index," Journal of Library Automation 5:17-20 (March 1972). 4. A. L. Landgraf and F. G. Kilgour, "Catalog Records Re trieved by Personal Author Using Derived Search Keys," Journal of Library Automation 6:103--8 (June 1973). 5. A. L. Landgraf, K. B. Rastogi, and P. L. Long, "Corporate Author Entry Records Retrieved by Use of Derived Truncated Search Keys," Journal of Library Automa- tion 6:151- 61 (Sept. 1973). 6. J. D . Smith and J . E . Rush , "The Relationship between Author Names and Author Entries in a Large On-Line Union Catalog as Retrie ved Using Truncated Keys," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 28 , no.2:115--20 (March 1977). 7. OCLC, Inc., Searching the On-Line Union Catalog (Columbus, Ohio: OC LC, Inc., 1979). 8. Library of Congress Information Bulletin 37:35 (1 Sept. 1978). Kunj B. Rastogi is a research scientist at OCLC . Ichiko Morita is assistant professor at the Ohio State University Libraries. 
5278	----	100 Communications The Evolution of an Online Acquisitions System Jenko LUKAC: Lewis and Clark College Li- brary, Portland, Oregon. About two years ago a home-grown online acquisitions system was developed and implemented at Pacific University. The program, written in BASIC for the Data General Nova Computer, performs all the necessary functions such as order- ing, receiving, fund accounting, etc. 1 This program was offered to the library com- munity, and about one hundred libraries from around the world have availed them- selves of it . One of the libraries that obtained and adopted Pacific's Electronic Acquisitions System (PEAS) was the Watzek Library at Lewis and Clark College. The advantage of a home-grown system is that it can be freely modified to suit the evolving needs of a particular library. This communication describes some of the changes made by Lewis and Clark College to the PEAS program, in order to illustrate how soft- ware developed at one institution can be "imported" into and enhanced by another institution . Although matters were particu- larly simplified by having the same person who developed PEAS at Pacific be re- sponsible for the enhancements at Lewis and Clark, the procedure and conclusions are still generally applicable. The first change made to the PEAS program was to rename it CLAS-the Computerized Library Acquisitions Sys- tem . The most important change, howev- er, was to translate it from Data General BASIC to Digital Equipment Corporation BASIC, since the computer at Lewis and Clark is a DEC VAX-11 . (Each hardware manufacturer implements a slightly differ- ent version of a programming language.) The translation requires changing things such as square brackets to parentheses, the word read to get, the word write to put, etc. These changes would have to have been done repeatedly throughout the program, but, in fact, were quite easily accomplished by using a text editor-a metaprogram that can be instructed to change all occurrences of, for example, the word read to the word get in a single pass. CLAS retained all of the features of PEAS , and became fully operational at Lewis and Clark in February of 1980. Since then, new features have been added as the staff expressed a need for them. Some are minor, such as having the com- puter recognize initial articles in titles . Others are more significant : 1. Searching for records in CLAS by author and title makes use of unlim- ited right- and left-handed trunca- tion. This makes possible subject searching through k~y words in the title . For this purpose an extra ter- minal is provided at the reference desk. 2. CLAS permits the file to be searched by the name of the faculty member who requested the item, in addition to the eight other access points avail- able in PEAS. 3. CLAS provides an activity report for any given period showing, for each fund, the amount ordered, the amount received, and the average cost per item . 4. CLAS can produce vendor reports showing for each vendor the average discount and the delivery schedule. 5. CLAS asks the operator to verify the cost of an item if the list price and cost differ by more than 30 percent. 6. CLAS allows the receipt of partial shipments. Some of the enhancements to CLAS in- volved successive modifications. For exam- ple, one of the features of PEAS was the prevention of duplicate orders by match- ing new orders being input with records already in the database. A potential dupli- cate is reported if there is a match on both the author and the title fields . It was de- cided at the time of implementation at Lewis and Clark that this criterion was too restrictive, and CLAS was programmed to report a duplicate if only the title fields matched . After some months of experi- ence, it turned out that even this require- ment was excessively restrictive: a slight variation in the way a title was input would prevent a duplicate from showing up. The criterion was then further relaxed to signal duplicates if either the title or the author's last name matched. This, however, was too broad a net : although no duplicates were missed, ordering a book by Wilson or Smith produced a tedious list of potential duplicates. Hence , the re- quirement was tightened slightly to look for a match in either the title or the au- thor's last name and first initial. This final criterion is currently serving well the needs of the Watzek Library. What is im- portant about this evolutionary process is that it illustrates the dynamic way in which a library can "fine-tune" an auto- mated system that is receptive to user modifications. Since PEAS is supposed to be a self- explanatory system, it lacks any docu- mentation. CLAS is still a self-explanatory system, but nevertheless a manual has been produced to describe all its features and to record programming information such as the structure of the files . One ver- sion of the documentation is kept in machine-readable form so that it can be easily updated to correspond to develop- ments in the program . In conclusion, it can be stated that a li- brary-application software package has been successfully transplanted from one institution to another, from one hardware environment to another, and in doing so has matured into a fuller and more flexible system, which it is hoped will, in turn, benefit other libraries contemplating the automation of their acquisitions operation .2 REFERENCES 1. Jenko Lukac, "A No Cost Online Acquisi- Communications 101 tions System for a Medium-Size Library," Library journal 107:684-85 (March 15, 1980). 2. Interested libraries can request a copy of the CLAS program ($80) or manual ($40) directly from the author. The Significance of Information in the Ordinary Conduct of Life* Robert NEWHARD: Torrance Public Li- brary, Torrance, California. The information benefit provided to the general public by the developing telecom- munications systems will be highly depen- dent upon the provider's perception of the current and potential role of information in the ordinary interests of life. As sessing this role cannot easily be done by standard questionnaire or survey methods because information does not have a conscious function in people's lives. Some paradigms from the past and pres- ent may, therefore, be of use in articulat- ing the everyday importance of informa- tion. THE TOOL PARADIGM: INFORMATION AS A LINK BETWEEN MAN AND HIS TOOLS OR REPAIRING A LOST CONFIDENCE Prior to the industrial revolution, most production was carried on in the home, using tools either made or repaired mainly at home. In this cottage industry, each person was very close to and secure in the use of his tools . With the advent of the in- dustrial revolution and the factory system, the worker no longer owned his tools, but went to one place to use someone else's tools. Man and his tools began to separate. Many used the tools, fewer understood them. This process began to create the "expert." Today most of the tools we use-the automobile, telephone, computer termi- * A version of this paper was delivered at the meeting on "Public Libraries and the Remote Electronic Delivery of Information (REDI)," Columbus, Ohio, March 23-24, 1981. 
5279	----	prevention of duplicate orders by match- ing new orders being input with records already in the database. A potential dupli- cate is reported if there is a match on both the author and the title fields . It was de- cided at the time of implementation at Lewis and Clark that this criterion was too restrictive, and CLAS was programmed to report a duplicate if only the title fields matched . After some months of experi- ence, it turned out that even this require- ment was excessively restrictive: a slight variation in the way a title was input would prevent a duplicate from showing up . The criterion was then further relaxed to signal duplicates if either the title or the author's last name matched. This, however, was too broad a net : although no duplicates were missed, ordering a book by Wilson or Smith produced a tedious list of potential duplicates. Hence, the re- quirement was tightened slightly to look for a match in either the title or the au- thor's last name and first initial. This final criterion is currently serving well the needs of the Watzek Library. What is im- portant about this evolutionary process is that it illustrates the dynamic way in which a library can "fine-tune" an auto- mated system that is receptive to user modifications . Since PEAS is supposed to be a self- explanatory system, it lacks any docu- mentation. CLAS is still a self-explanatory system, but nevertheless a manual has been produced to describe all its features and to record programming information such as the structure of the files . One ver- sion of the documentation is kept in machine-readable form so that it can be easily updated to correspond to develop- ments in the program . In conclusion, it can be stated that a li- brary-application software package has been successfully transplanted from one institution to another, from one hardware environment to another, and in doing so has matured into a fuller and more flexible system, which it is hoped will, in turn, benefit other libraries contemplating the automation of their acquisitions operation .2 REFERENCES 1. Jenko Lukac, "A No Cost Online Acquisi- Communications 101 tions System for a Medium-Size Library," Library journal 107:684-85 (March 15, 1980). 2. Interested libraries can request a copy of the CLAS program ($80) or manual ($40) directly from the author. The Significance of Information in the Ordinary Conduct of Life* Robert NEWHARD: Torrance Public Li- brary, Torrance, California. The information benefit provided to the general public by the developing telecom- munications systems will be highly depen- dent upon the provider's perception of the current and potential role of information in the ordinary interests of life. Assessing this role cannot easily be done by standard questionnaire or survey methods because information does not have a conscious function in people's lives. Some paradigms from the past and pres- ent may, therefore, be of use in articulat- ing the everyday importance of informa- tion. THE TOOL PARADIGM: INFORMATION AS A LINK BETWEEN MAN AND HIS TOOLS OR REPAIRING A LOST CONFIDENCE Prior to the industrial revolution, most production was carried on in the home, using tools either made or repaired mainly at home. In this cottage industry, each person was very close to and secure in the use of his tools . With the advent of the in- dustrial revolution and the factory system, the worker no longer owned his tools, but went to one place to use someone else's tools. Man and his tools began to separate. Many used the tools, fewer understood them . This process began to create the "expert." Today most of the tools we use-the automobile, telephone, computer termi- * A version of this paper was delivered at the meeting on "Public Libraries and the Remote Electronic Delivery of Information (REDI)," Columbus, Ohio, March 23-24, 1981. 102 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 nal, etc.-we cannot repair. This has led to a set of latter-day "high priests" upon whom , because of their specific knowl- edge, we are dependent. I suggest that this trend toward informa- tion experts is inimical to a democratic society because of the dependency it cre- ates and because of the pervasive- hopelessness it engenders in the public mentality regarding matters as diverse as appliance repair and politics. This process , in a milieu of rapidly de- veloping technology, may seem irrevers- ible . I would suggest, however , that well- packaged and targeted information could do much to reduce frustration, restore the judgmental effectiveness and the self- confidence of the ordinary citizen (we are all ordinary for more purposes than not), and to improve citizen confidence in socie- ty. For example: I am told I need a clutch job on my car. I can check the flat-rate manual in the library to determin e the amount of time that job should take for my make , model, and year of car. The manual will even give the pric e, but , being a book, it is out of date . In Califor- nia, each garage must post its hourly rate. Suppose the flat-rate manual indicated the clutch job should take three hours and the posted rate is $20 per hour. If the esti- mate comes back at $150 instead of $60, I know something is wrong. Either there is more to the job than clutch repair or it is a rip-off. In either case, even though I cannot re- pair my car, I can, because of information , make a rational judgment. I am effective in dealing with this problem d esp ite my technological incompetence. The flat-rate manual is a packaged set of information targeted on a specific range of problems, and can function as an imper- fect paradigm for what information de- velopm e nt commensurate to technological development should be. THE WORD "THEY" AS A PARADIGM Another indicator of the "information gap" in this society, is a particular use of the word "they." If one listens to the fre- quency with which people say "they do this," "they don't care," "they 're all politi- cians," etc., one can grasp the pervasive- ness of the "information gap." I suggest that the word "they," so used , almost always indicates an absence of in- formation. This absence is frequently accompanied by suspicion and distrust. THE YELLOW PAGES PARADIGM Another measure of the importance of information to people in general consists of imagining what would happen if the yellow pages of the telephone book were suddenly withdrawn. There would, I sug- gest, be a minor revolution. FREEDOM AS A PARADIGM A final perspective on the importance of information may be found in its bearing on human freedom. In the earlier phases of this society's de- velopment, freedom consisted of enough space as in Horace · Greeley's "Go West, young man," or in Frederick Turner's observations on the frontier as a release valve for social pressure in the eastern United States, or D aniel Boone needing elbow room. Today we live on top of each other and this aspect of freedom is rapidly diminish- ing. One might view time as a delineator of freedom, as we often say: "If only I had enough time." The absence of the time found in simpler societies, the temporal pressure cooker of today where one's days off are filled with running one's personal business (errands, bill paying, etc.), sug- gests we have lost much of this temporal freedom . I would suggest that the basic de facto support of freedom now lies with informa- tion. Information, like knowledge, as observed by Francis Bacon, is power, and distributed information is distributed pow- er. INFORMATION AWARENESS Contrast these indicators of the public importance of information with a lack of conscious awareness of the significance of information. We do not have an information-prone society. When faced with a problem or in- terest, I suggest, we are more prone to ask, "What do I have to do?" rather than, "What do I have to know?" Part of this reaction is probably due to the fact that when we ask "What do I have to know?" we are faced with another problem in addition to the initial one; i.e., where to get the information. This added effort simply confirms in us our indifference to information, and we take our best shot at solving the problem through decision and action . I sometimes think we have made a virtue of the information incapacity by the way we laud decision making as an indica- tor of ability. If the foregoing examples are reasonably accurate, we are then faced with a situa- tion in which information is fundamentally important to societal and individual well- being, but is not perceived to be so by people in the conduct of their daily affairs . Computer-supported telecommunica- tions systems can be the instrument for accelerating information control by a few (this has been much of the trend , so far , as indicated by corporate, research, and technical use of these systems), or it can be used to build information confidence, use, and desire throughout society. This option, I. suggest, is central to the significance of telecommunications systems for a democratic society. If the latter option is to be obtained, I suggest that information will have to be packaged and targeted so well on people 's everyday problems and interests that it will be easier and more productive to say "What do I have to know?" before saying "What do I have to do?" A basic approach to articulating an in- formation service of this kind consists of the following steps: l. Determine and prioritize the indi- vidual and societal problems and in- terests of a given community. 2. Ascertain the information parameters of those problems and interests. 3. Locate and obtain the information necessary to address those problems and interests . 4. Organize this information so as to optimally target the specified prob- Communications 103 !em or interest to be as easily re- trievable as possible. This requires an understanding of the context in which the information is used so that it is optimally relevant, and an understanding of the language and problem articulation common ·to the individuals in the community in order to ensure rapid retrieval. A Lesson in Interactive Television Programming: The Home Book Club on QUBE W . Theodore BOLTON: OCLC , Inc., Co- lumbus, Ohio. On December 1, 1977, Warner Com- munications christened what has become the most publicized and talked about tech- nological development in the field of cable television: QUBE, its two-way interactive cable system . Publicity posters claimed that this would be "a day you'll tell your grandchildren about," and broadcasters added the word "interactive" to their cocktail-party vocabulary. Academicians who ten· years ago forecast a technological revolution initiated by the marriage of computer to cable television, smugly grinned and saw their dreams turn into re- ality. Response to QUBE, however, has been mixed. Participatory television brings, to some, futuristic images of instant democ- racy; others warn of its potential dem- agogic power. 1 Regardless of your critical persuasion, there now exists what former CBS executive turned Warner Amex2 con- sultant Mike Dann calls "a whole new utility ."3 This whole new utility, whether in the form of QUBE cable television, or some other combination of computer, cable television, telephone, and standard over-the-air broadcasting, will change the way we conduct our lives <:nd interact with other people . THE HISTORY OF THE HOME BOOK CLUB Early in 1979, the OCLC, Inc . , re- search staff appraised the nature and con- text of the QUBE facilities (located in Co- 
5280	----	We do not have an information-prone society. When faced with a problem or in- terest, I suggest, we are more prone to ask, "What do I have to do?" rather than, "What do I have to know?" Part of this reaction is probably due to the fact that when we ask "What do I have to know?" we are faced with another problem in addition to the initial one; i.e., where to get the information. This added effort simply confirms in us our indifference to information, and we take our best shot at solving the problem through decision and action . I sometimes think we have made a virtue of the information incapacity by the way we laud decision making as an indica- tor of ability. If the foregoing examples are reasonably accurate, we are then faced with a situa- tion in which information is fundamentally important to societal and individual well- being, but is not perceived to be so by people in the conduct of their daily affairs. Computer-supported telecommunica- tions systems can be the instrument for accelerating information control by a few (this has been much of the trend , so far , as indicated by corporate, research, and technical use of these systems), or it can be used to build information confidence, use, and desire throughout society. This option, I. suggest, is central to the significance of telecommunications systems for a democratic society. If the latter option is to be obtained, I suggest that information will have to be packaged and targeted so well on people 's everyday problems and interests that it will be easier and more productive to say "What do I have to know?" before saying "What do I have to do?" A basic approach to articulating an in- formation service of this kind consists of the following steps: l. Determine and prioritize the indi- vidual and societal problems and in- terests of a given community. 2. Ascertain the information parameters of those problems and interests. 3. Locate and obtain the information necessary to address those problems and interests. 4. Organize this information so as to optimally target the specified prob- Communications 103 !em or interest to be as easily re- trievable as possible. This requires an understanding of the context in which the information is used so that it is optimally relevant, and an understanding of the language and problem articulation common ·to the individuals in the community in order to ensure rapid retrieval. A Lesson in Interactive Television Programming: The Home Book Club on QUBE W. Theodore BOLTON: OCLC , Inc., Co- lumbus, Ohio. On December 1, 1977, Warner Com- munications christened what has become the most publicized and talked about tech- nological development in the field of cable television: QUBE, its two-way interactive cable system . Publicity posters claimed that this would be "a day you'll tell your grandchildren about," and broadcasters added the word "interactive" to their cocktail-party vocabulary. Academicians who ten· years ago forecast a technological revolution initiated by the marriage of computer to cable television, smugly grinned and saw their dreams turn into re- ality. Response to QUBE, however, has been mixed. Participatory television brings, to some, futuristic images of instant democ- racy ; others warn of its potential dem- agogic power. 1 Regardless of your critical persuasion, there now exists what former CBS executive turned Warner Amex2 con- sultant Mike Dann calls "a whole new utility ."3 This whole new utility, whether in the form of QUBE cable television, or some other combination of computer, cable television, telephone, and standard over-the-air broadcasting, will change the way we conduct our lives <:nd interact with other people . THE HISTORY OF THE HOME BOOK CLUB Early in 1979, the OCLC, Inc . , re- search staff appraised the nature and con- text of the QUBE facilities (located in Co- 104 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 lumbus , Ohio, only five miles away). Dis- cussions, which at times centered around far-fetched and lofty ideas, eventually led to realistic and inventive concepts that made use of QUBE's interactive technolo- gy. The most promising of these concepts was a book discussion program where the audience determined the content and direction of the discussion itself. Hoping to take advantage of this new technology, and at the same time expand library ser- vices available to the general public, OCLC proposed a book discussion pro- gram to QUBE. In a previously released statement, QUBE Vice-President Harlan Kleiman had stated that the polling capabilities of the QUBE system should be treated like a "time bomb."4 Yet OCLC's proposal indi- cated an interest in exploring these very same devices. This factor, coupled with QUBE' s "closed door" policy toward out- side researchers and scholars, seemed to indicated that the Home Book Club re- search proposal would be rejected. But QUBE executives did the unexpected: they agreed to air six Home Book Club programs, one each month . And so, on July 18, 1979, at 7 p.m . , the Home Book Club premiered. AN INTERACTIVE BOOK DISCUSSION What makes QUBE unique is its two- way, or upstream, capability. The QUBE technology is made up of three com- plementary computers that are used for monitoring, tabulation, and billing pur- poses . Each QUBE console in a viewer's home has thirty channels to choose from and five response buttons to press when answering questions posed to home view- ers on QUBE programs . By monitoring and tabulating data that show which TV sets are on, which programs viewers are watching, and which response buttons they last touched, QUBE therefore has a virtually error-free system of audience re- search . T his allows for a staggering amount of audience data to be compiled theoretically every six seconds . Apart from the thirty-channel capability of standard television, community pro- grams, and pay-per-viewing feature films, the most intriguing aspect of QUBE is its five response buttons. OCLC felt that the use of these buttons should be emphasized and the concept of interaction should be fully incorporated into the Home Book Club . At the beginning of each Home Book Club program, home viewers were asked to select, from three alternatives, the opening topic of conversation about the book. After the home viewers had "touched in" their preference on one of the prespecified buttons, the QUBE poll- ing computer tallied and displayed the re- sults. Once the book discussion was under way, the home viewers were given addi- tional opportunities to "democratically" determine whether the panelists should continue in a particular topic area, or move on to new topic areas. If a controversial issue emerged within the course of a discussion, the Horne Book Club panelists were encouraged to spon- taneously pose interactive questions to horne viewers. This form of instantaneous polling was extended to telephone partici- pants who were also periodically incorpo- rated into the book discussion. A sampling of these opinion-type questions included: from the Wifey program, "Should Sandy have left Norman?"; from the Metropoli- tan Life program, "Is this book too subjec- tive for non-New Yorkers?"; from the Eye of the Needle program, "Was the violence portrayed a necessary part of this book?"; from the World According to Carp pro- gram, "Was this a feminist novel?" Toward the end of each one-hour Horne Book Club program the QUBE system broke new ground in interactive television history: home viewers selected, from five alternatives, the book to be discussed on next month's program. In addition, horne viewers were able to request a copy of the book to be sent to their home at no charge from the Public Library of Columbus and Franklin County (PLCFC) . These two transactions took place with a mere touch of the prespecified button on the QUBE console. PLCFC provided a major contribution to the Horne Book Club. Once the QUBE computers had compiled the names and addresses of those viewers who requested next month's book (earlier, all horne view- ers had been told that their names would be entered in the QUBE computer if they responded to a book request), the QUBE computer printed the names on mailing labels. These labels were forwarded to the PLCFC Books-by-Mail Office, which then filled each request. The total time from "touch-in request" to "in-home mail deliv- ery" was usually two to three days. In- deed, a form of electronic catalog ordering actually took place each time the Home Book Club program was cablecast in Co- lumbus. It should be noted that Home Book Club viewers were also given the opportunity to order the alternative book choices. WHO WATCHED THE HOME BOOK CLUB? An additional use of QUBE's two-way capability was also incorporated into the first six Home Book Club programs. Prior to selecting and ordering the next months' books, home viewers were asked to re- spond to a series of demographic-type questions. From these questions, a profile of the typical Home Book Club viewer was compiled to PLCFC and QUBE man- agement. This portion of the program also provided the OCLC research department with data with which to explore the mar- ket-research potential of an interactive television system. From the beginning of the Home Book Club research project, a few obvious limitations of interactive polling became apparent. First, not all home viewers made use of, or were willing to participate in, QUBE's interactive technology. Re- sponse rates ranged from 20 to 85 percent, with an approximate mean rate of 55 per- cent. Second, only one viewer in a multi- ple-person household could respond. Third, it can be logically assumed that cer- tain kinds of people will and did interact more often than others . Taking these limitations into considera- tion, a few generalizations were still able to be made regarding the Home Book Club audience . The demographic data traced over the first six programs showed the audience to be primarily composed of younger (below thirty-nine years of age), college-educated (65 percent had college Communications 105 or postgraduate degrees), middle to upper income (60 percent earning $25 ,000 or more per year), females (approximately 70 percent of the interacting audience). These figures should not surprise anyone who is either familiar with previous pro- files of the general library users or who may in passing conjure a guess as to what kind of person might be interested in viewing a televised interactive book dis- cussion . A closer inspection of the instan- taneous audience demographics, however, led to some disappointing implications. CAN A DEMOCRATIC TELEVISION PROGRAM SURVIVE? As was pointed out earlier, home view- ers were permitted to select the next month's book at the conclusion of a pro- gram. This was strictly a democratic pro- cess where the majority ruled. The World According to Carp, the premier Home Book Club book, was followed by Eye of the Needle and Wifey for programs two and three respectively. The QUBE com- puter indicated that each of these pro- grams were viewed by approximately 175 households, or almost 420 individuals. In a competitive structure where there are twenty-nine television program alterna- tives from which a viewer can choose, QUBE, OCLC, and the PLCFC felt that a successful programming concept had been born. QUBE management enthusiastically reported that the Home Book Club had achieved audience levels that at times rivaled their more extravagant and broad- based entertainment/interview program, "Columbus Alive." This enthusiasm was short-lived as audi- ence-level figu res from program four came in . At the end of program three (Wifey), the audience selected James Michener's weighty novel Chesapeake for the next month's program. The respectable figure of approximately 375 viewers for Wifey dwindled to slightly less than 210 viewers for Chesapeake. And to make matters worse, the audience-level figures did not improve for programs five and six. There are several alternative and some- times complementary explanations for this substantial loss in audience. First, many viewers may not have been able to get 106 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 through the some one thousand pages of "Maryland's Eastern Shore" history in Chesapeake, and thus chose not to partici- pate in the Horne Book Club. Second, the new fall syndicated programs offered at that time by local network affiliates may have led many viewers to choose alterna- tive programming. Additional hypotheses can also be gleaned from the interactive demographic data: whereas in programs one through three approximately 40 per- cent of the audience indicated their educa- tional level to be either some college or below, only 20 percent of the Chesapeake audience (program four) fell into this category. This statistic remained constant for programs five and six of the Horne Book Club. In the democratic television environ- ment that the Horne Book Club provides, what happens to the minority interest group? Could this democratic television system be systematically eliminating spe- cific viewer types? It might be that the outvoted minority group book reader can withstand being overruled just so many times before ceasing to participate. What recourse does this minority interest group have other than to be dominated by high- er-educated viewers who heavily stuff the electronic ballot box in favor of their own book preferences? Quite clearly the re- course for the minority interest group was to select a competing television program, as evidenced by the declining viewing au- dience-level figures. The loss of these viewers becomes especially disheartening because this particular audience segment may represent a group of individuals who never before participated in a book discus- sion . THE FUTURE OF THE HOME BOOK CLUB Given the somewhat disappointing re- sults of the Horne Book Club reported thus far, one would expect the program to be recorded in history as a noble, but un- successful, attempt at interactive television programming. The Books-by-Mail program did send out some 760 paperback books as a result of the Horne Book Club (a 79 per- cent overall increase), and twenty-six new library cards (not a prerequisite) were issued to Horne Book Club viewers . But the fact remains that a for-profit company such as Warner Annex most definitely can- not substantiate the continuation of a program that has the audience ratings as low as the Horne Book Club . ... Or can it? Not only has the Horne Book Club been continued (it's now in its twentieth month), but a morning edition of the Horne Book Club premiered in June 1980. What explanations can account for this somewhat bewildering corporate behavior? On a very idealistic level, Warner Annex could be fulfilling its obligation to serve all facets of the Columbus community. The Horne Book Club certainly offers a view- ing alternative to an often neglected seg- ment of the viewing population. OCLC, Inc., and public libraries throughout the United States applaud this kind of re- sponsible programming . On a more practical level, there may be other strategies behind the renewal of the Horne Book Club contract. A 1978 study completed by the Argus Research Cor- poration concluded that "no profits are ex- pected from QUBE until the system is successfully replicated in cities other than Columbus , and at considerably lower costs . "s To replicate the QUBE system, Warner Annex must expand its cable terri- tory into new communities throughout the United States. This can at times be a very difficult task. The right for a company such as Warner Annex to wire a local municipality to its QUBE system is determined by local gov- ernment. Normally, a city council reviews and contrasts alternative cable systems in terms of the services each system proposes in return for franchising rights. The final decision usually is based on costs, the programming made available, and, most importantly, the kind of community ser- vice the cable system proposes to extend to its viewers . One definition of extended community service might be a televised book discussion program that involves the local public libraries . The alluring notion of an interactive book discussion may even be more appealing to community-minded city council members. In fact, QUBE is currently using an edited composite tape of H9rne Book Club highlights in their franchising efforts. The success of such efforts remains to be seen . Whether War- ner Amex's motives are community- or commercial-minded, the fact remains that other communities may have the oppor- tunity to develop a program of this kind . Since local governments can legally specify what services the cable company must provide, the inclusion of a televised book discussion program could become part of a contract fulfillment. Advice for those in- terested in developing alternative televi- sion programs for special-interest groups : Don't be caught napping when your national cable representatives come knock- ing on your city council door. As for the Home Book Club , QUBE and the Public Library of Columbus and Franklin County are working at reestab- lishing a solid baseline audience . As is the case for any television program, promotion is a key ingredient for success . When viewers were asked where they first found out about the Home Book Club, more than half indicated they obtained program information through the free Qube Pro- gram Guide. Approximately 15 percent heard from a friend and 12 percent found information at the public library . A coor- dinated promotional effort is highly recom- mended for a public-service program of this nature . THE FUTURE OF INTERACTIVE TELEVISION QUBE must be thought of as more than just a two-way television system. In fact, it is more than interactive television. QUBE is actually a computer hooked to a cable communication system . That cable com- munication system is a network providing a pathway for a wide variety of services from central facility to home subscribers . In the future, not only will systems such as QUBE provide "local loop" communica- tions for these services, but undoubtedly will be interconnected by a satellite with other similar systems throughout the country and indeed the world. The five buttons on the existing QUBE consoles are just the first evidence of the future possibilities of interactive broad- band communications systems currently delivering television . Because the early applications of cable were to provide en- tertainment television, and more often Communications 107 than not were provided by people in the television business, cable television is naturally oriented toward the entertain- ment business . But the future of these broadband communications systems is in interactive retrieval of information as much as it is in entertainment. This goes far beyond the simple polled system so frequently used in a two-way mechanism : the talk show host asks how many people have read a particular book, the audience responds, and the net result has no effect on the program itself. It is also a lot more than interactive television : the host asks what you want to discuss, the audience says the plot of the book, and the answer has an effect on the outcome of the show. In fact , these broadband communications systems have the potential for placing at the fingertips of Americans a vast store- house of information services about, for example, the best auto routes to your favorite spots, baby care, banking, buying a house , dressmaking, good buys, hobbies , jobs , legal facts , properties for sale or rent, sports scores, technology, and wine. As QUBE expands into its QUBE III system with more than a hundred chan- nels of services, it will be technically posi- tioned to support all aspects of this burgeoning information age. 6 Besides sim- ple information retrieval, a QUBE subscriber will be able to conduct banking and shopping transactions, to provide in- formation such as who is on what side of community issues , and also (incidentally) to watch television . If all of that does not seem like enough, remember that cable "is really a very large pipe through which any variety of electronic information can be pushed. Passive home security, fire alarm , and energy management are also services either in existence or contemplated by a number of cable operators . For that mat- ter there is no reason to believe the com- puter processing services can't be made available to individual subscribers . A sub- scriber could call up the program to bal- ance his checkbook, to perform his small- business payroll calculations, or to com- plete a statistical analysis of data for a school project. Most people thought (as we initially did) that interactive cable (QUBE) means in- teractive television . But OCLC's research 108 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 has shown that interactive television pro- grams : 1. serve as an initial introduction to naive audiences of what a truly in- teractive system is all about; 2. are difficult to implement; 3. really aren't democratic; 4. are basically polling devices. It has been said that the reason that railroads went out of business was because they insisted that they were in the railroad business and wouldn't admit that they were in the transportation business. If cable operators insist that they are in the television business, they may well miss the opportunities that are possible in the communications business or, in fact, in the information business . By the same token, if libraries miss the significance of what cable television is bringing to their business, their role in the community will be diminished and li- braries may go the way of railroads. Mod- ern communications and computers offer an opportunity for libraries to become the information choice in their community. In the near future, applications such as the Home Book Club may well be a way to provide increased accessibility of library services to library patrons, and to "condi- tion" those patrons to the coming electronic nature of libraries . Over the long term, libraries, if they have the cour- age and the foresight, can be the focus of the coming information and telecom- munications revolution . The message is quite clear: opportunities abound. REFERENCES l. John Wicklein, "Wired City , U.S.A: The Charms and Dangers of Two-way TV," Atlantic Monthly 243:35--42 (Feb. 1979). 2. Warner Amex represents a newly formed corporation resulting from the merger of Warner Communications and American Ex- press. 3. Jonathan Black, "Brave New World of Tele- vision," New Times ll:41 (24 July 1978). 4. Ibid., p.49. 5. "Warner Cable's QUBE: Exploring the Out- er Reaches of Two-way TV," Broadcasting 95:28 (31 July 1978). 6. "Two-way Converters Hot Ticket at NCTA Exhibits," Broadcasting 97:72 (26 May 1980). An Informal Survey of the CTI Computer Backup System Joseph COVINO and Sheila INTNER: Great Neck Library, Great Neck, New York. In order to help decide whether or not to purchase computer backup systems from Computer Translation, Inc. (CTI), * for use when the CLSI LIBS 100 auto- mated circulation system is not operating, Great Neck Library conducted an informal survey of libraries using both systems . Eleven institutions, including both public and academic libraries, responded to a brief questionnaire. They were asked what size CTI system they had purchased and why, how easily it was installed, how well it performed, how it was maintained, and if CLSI acknowledged that the addition of the backup did not affect their LIBS 100 maintenance agreements . Before summarizing the responses, the structure of the two systems and how they interact should be outlined. CLSI LIBS 100 The CLSI automated circulation system consists of a stand -alone minicomputer console with local and/or remote terminals connected to it through individual ports by means of electrical and/or dedicated telephone line hookups. When it operates, the terminals are online and interactive with the database, which is stored on one or more multiplatter disc packs. CTI BACKUP The CTI backup system is based on an Apple II microcomputer with two minidisc drives, which take 5 1/4-inch floppy discs, a TV monitor, and a switching system that can be connected to the LIBS 100 console or its terminals . The CTI system can also be used alone. When the LIBS 100 is down (inoperative), the CTI system is con- nected to a terminal, and data is recorded on its discs for later dumping (data entry) into the database via a port connection . It *CTI is a profit-making company wholly owned by Brigham Young University. The CTI backup system was originally developed to support the CLSI"installation at BYU. 
5281	----	108 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 has shown that interactive television pro- grams: 1. serve as an initial introduction to naive audiences of what a truly in- teractive system is all about; 2. are difficult to implement; 3. really aren't democratic; 4. are basically polling devices. It has been said that the reason that railroads went out of business was because they insisted that they were in the railroad business and wouldn't admit that they were in the transportation business . If cable operators insist that they are in the television business, they may well miss the opportunities that are possible in the communications business or, in fact, in the information business . By the same token, if libraries miss the significance of what cable television is bringing to their business, their role in the community will be diminished and li- braries may go the way of railroads. Mod- ern communications and computers offer an opportunity for libraries to become the information choice in their community. In the near future, applications such as the Home Book Club may well be a way to provide increased accessibility of library services to library patrons, and to "condi- tion" those patrons to the coming electronic nature of libraries. Over the long term, libraries, if they have the cour- age and the foresight, can be the focus of the coming information and telecom- munications revolution . The message is quite clear: opportunities abound. REFERENCES l. John Wicklein, "Wired City, U.S.A: The Charms and Dangers of Two-way TV," Atlantic Monthly 243:35--42 (Feb. 1979). 2. Warner Amex represents a newly formed corporation resulting from the merger of Warner Communications and American Ex- press. 3. Jonathan Black, "Brave New World of Tele- vision," New Times 11:41 (24 July 1978). 4. Ibid ., p.49. 5. "Warner Cable's QUBE: Exploring the Out- er Reaches of Two-way TV, " Broadcasting 95:28 (31 July 1978). 6. "Two-way Converters Hot Ticket at NCTA Exhibits , " Broadcasting 97:72 (26 May 1980). An Informal Survey of the CTI Computer Backup System Joseph COVINO and Sheila INTNER: Great Neck Library, Great Neck, New York. In order to help decide whether or not to purchase computer backup systems from Computer Translation, Inc . (CTI), * for use when the CLSI LIBS 100 auto- mated circulation system is not operating, Great Neck Library conducted an informal survey of libraries using both systems . Eleven institutions, including both public and academic libraries , responded to a brief questionnaire. They were asked what size CTI system they had purchased and why, how easily it was installed, how well it performed, how it was maintained, and if CLSI acknowledged that the addition of the backup did not affect their LIBS 100 maintenance agreements . Before summarizing the responses, the structure of the two systems and how they interact should be outlined. CLSI LIBS 100 The CLSI automated circulation system consists of a stand-alone minicomputer console with local and/or remote terminals connected to it through individual ports by means of electrical and/or dedicated telephone line hookups . When it operates, the terminals are online and interactive with the database, which is stored on one or more multiplatter disc packs. CTI BACKUP The CTI backup system is based on an Apple II microcomputer with two minidisc drives, which take 51/.-inch floppy discs, a TV monitor, and a switching system that can be connected to the LIBS 100 console or its terminals. The CTI system can also be used alone . When the LIBS 100 is down (inoperative), the CTI system is con- nected to a terminal, and data is recorded on its discs for later dumping (data entry) into the database via a port connection . It *CTI is a profit-making company wholly owned by Brigham Young University. The CTI backup system was originally developed to support the CLSI-installation at BYU. appears to the public and the library's staff memb e r operating the backup-terminal combination that the terminal is working. There is, however, no connection between the backup unit and the database in this mode. When the LIBS 100 is up (operat- ing) once again, the backup is connected and data is automatically dumped. Natu- rally the port cannot be used by both the CLSI terminal and the backup unit at the same time without the addition of other hardware . The terminals attached to other ports may operate normally while dump- ing is completed. The CLSI and CTI software, which operate compatibly, are owned by the re- spective companies, not the library . THE RESPONSES 1. Size of System : CTI systems are available in two sizes , 32K and 48K . Two libraries purchased the smaller system, nine purchased the larger system, and one purchased both. Greater programming capabilities of the larger system were consid e red its greatest asset. 2. Reason for Purchase: Five libraries indicated they use the backup for other purposes in addition to substi- tuting for the LIBS 100 when it is down . Among these other purposes were development of a community information database, personnel and financial reports and files, use as an RLIN terminal, as a bookmobile ter- minal, and as an aid in converting short-title bibliographic records to expanded format. 3. Installation: Respondents were unanimous in having no problems with installation . Seven did their own installation, while CTI gave in- structions over the phone. Three were installed by CTI, who also trained the library staff in its opera- tion. One library indicated the accompanying documentation was enough to install the system without assistance. 4. Performance: All eleven respondents were enthusiastic about system per- formance. Some comments were, "It's the best thing since buttered Communications 109 popcorn," and "We love it dearly 0 0 0 0 It saves hours 0 0 0 works just fine . " Many commented on the slow dumping time as the biggest draw- back, but noted that increased accuracy over manual entry and de- creased pressure on their circulation staff during downtime were assets. 5. Maintenance: Backup system mainte- nance is not uniform . Six respon- dents said that software was main- tained by CTI, but hardware was maintained by an Apple dealer; or they were undecided about who would be respons ible for hardware repairs. A seventh library contracted with an Apple dealer for hardware repairs, but was contending over software mai ntenance with CT I. Three libraries answered that CTI was maintaining the system, but did not specify both hardware and soft- ware . The last respondent expected to take hardware repairs to an Apple dealer and did not mention software . 6. CLSI Maintenance Agreements: One library stated that they had written assurance from CLSI that the in- stallation of the backup system would not affect their LIBS 100 mainte- nance contract. Three more said they had verbal assurances . Five respon- dents indicated no assurances from CLSI that the LIBS 100 contract was not affected . One library sent a copy of a CLSI · letter defining company policy in this area. It said, in part: "CLSI does not prohibit the attach- ment of foreign devices to the systems . .. . " Qualifications to this statement involved an inst itution's attempt to repair the LIBS 100 itself, to hold CLSI responsible for damage resulting from the attachment of the device, or to have CLSI maintain the device . The Great Neck Library decided to purchase two CTI backup systems for use when the LIBS 100 is down. Experience bears out the findings of the survey ; i.e . , it is easy to install the system with only telephone assistance; it works well, and, though data transmission to the main unit is slow, it is accurate and removes some of llO journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 the desperation from a downtime situa- tion. Great Neck Library is also planning to use the Apples for other functions, which, it is hoped, will be implemented soon . Multimedia Catalog: COM and Online Kenneth J. BIERMAN: Tucson Public Li- brary, Tucson, Arizona. Like many public libraries, the Tucson Public Library (TPL) is closing its card catalog and implementing a vendor- supplied microform catalog. Unlike most of these other libraries, however, the TPL microform catalog will not include: location or holding information. The indication of where copies of a particular title are actually available (i.e., which of the fifteen possible branch locations) will be available only by accessing a video display terminal connected to the online circulation and in- ventory control system. Conceptually, the TPL catalog will be in two parts with each part intended to serve different functions . 1 The microform catalog (copies available in both film and fiche for- mat) will fulfill the bibliographic function of the catalog. This catalog will contain bibliographic description and provide the traditional access points of author, title, and subject. The online catalog (online terminals are in place at all reference desks and a few public access terminals will also be available) will fulfill the finding or locating function of the catalog. This catalog will contain very brief biblio- graphic description and will only be searchable by author, title, author/title, and call number, and will contain the cur- rent status of every copy of every title in the library system (i.e., on shelf, checked out, at bindery , reported missing, etc.). Why did the Tucson Public Library make this decision? There are two major reasons: l. Accuracy . The location information , if provided in the microform catalog, would always be inaccurate and out of date. Assuming that the locations listed in the latest edition of the mi- croform catalog were completely accurate when the catalog was first issued (an unrealistic assumption to begin with as anyone who has ever worked with location information at a public library with many branches well knows!), the location information would become increasingly less accu- rate with each day because of the large number of withdrawals, trans- fers, and added copy transactions that occur (more than 100 , 000 a year). In addition, at any given time, one-quarter to one-third of the mate- rials in busy branches are not on the shelf because they are either checked out or waiting to be reshelved. Thus, the microform catalog would indicate that these materials were available at specific branches when a significant percentage would in fact not be available at any given time. In short, even in the best of circumstances, easily half of the location information would be incorrect in telling a user where a copy of a title was actually available at that moment. 2 . Cost . A study done at the Tucson Public Library indicated that close to half of the staff time of the cataloging department was spent dealing with location and holding information. This time includes handling trans- fers, withdrawals, and added copies. All of this record keeping is already being done as a part of the online circulation and inventory control sys- tem (the Tucson Public Library has no card shelflist containing copy and location information but rather relies completely on the online file for this type of information) . To "duplicate" the information in the microform catalog would cost an estimated $40,000 to $60,000 a year and the in- formation in the microform catalog would never be accurate or up to date for the reasons outlined above. Figure 1 is a brief summary of how the bibliographic system will work. Would the system in figure 1 be im- proved if holdings were included in the microform catalog? On the surface, the ob- vious answer is yes-more information is 
5282	----	llO journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 the desperation from a downtime situa- tion. Great Neck Library is also planning to use the Apples for other functions, which, it is hoped, will be implemented soon. Multimedia Catalog: COM and Online Kenneth J. BIERMAN: Tucson Public Li- brary, Tucson, Arizona. Like many public libraries, the Tucson Public Library (TPL) is closing its card catalog and implementing a vendor- supplied microform catalog. Unlike most of these other libraries, however, the TPL microform catalog will not include', location or holding information. The indication of where copies of a particular title are actually available (i.e., which of the fifteen possible branch locations) will be available only by accessing a video display terminal connected to the online circulation and in- ventory control system. Conceptually, the TPL catalog will be in two parts with each part intended to serve different functions.' The microform catalog (copies available in both film and fiche for- mat) will fulfill the bibliographic function of the catalog. This catalog will contain bibliographic description and provide the traditional access points of author, title, and subject. The online catalog (online terminals are in place at all reference desks and a few public access terminals will also be available) will fulfill the finding or locating function of the catalog. This catalog will contain very brief biblio- graphic description and will only be searchable by author, title, author/title, and call number, and will contain the cur- rent status of every copy of every title in the library system (i.e., on shelf, checked out, at bindery, reported missing, etc.). Why did the Tucson Public Library make this decision? There are two major reasons: l. Accuracy . The location information, if provided in the microform catalog, would always be inaccurate and out of date. Assuming that the locations listed in the latest edition of the mi- croform catalog were completely accurate when the catalog was first issued (an unrealistic assumption to begin with as anyone who has ever worked with location information at a public library with many branches well knows!), the location information would become increasingly less accu- rate with each day because of the large number of withdrawals, trans- fers, and added copy transactions that occur (more than 100,000 a year) . In addition, at any given time, one-quarter to one-third of the mate- rials in busy branches are not on the shelf because they are either checked out or waiting to be reshelved . Thus, the microform catalog would indicate that these materials were available at specific branches when a significant percentage would in fact not be available at any given time. In short, even in the best of circumstances, easily half of the location information would be incorrect in telling a user where a copy of a title was actually available at that moment. 2. Cost , A study done at the Tucson Public Library indicated that close to half of the staff time of the cataloging department was spent dealing with location and holding information. This time includes handling trans- fers, withdrawals, and added copies. All of this record keeping is already being done as a part of the online circulation and inventory control sys- tem (the Tucson Public Library has no card shelflist containing copy and location information but rather relies completely on the online file for this type of information). To "duplicate" the information in the microform catalog would cost an estimated $40,000 to $60,000 a year and the in- formation in the microform catalog would never be accurate or up to date for the reasons outlined above . Figure 1 is a brief summary of how the bibliographic system will work. Would the system in figure 1 be im- proved if holdings were included in the microform catalog? On the surface, the ob- vious answer is yes-more information is Communications 111 KNOWN-ITEM SEARCH (37 percent of TPL catalog use according to catalog use survey conducted at the TPL in 1971) User searches microform catalog by author and/or title. If user does not find desired bibliographic entry, user either leaves unsatisfied or goes to desk (or public access terminal) for help. If user finds the desired bibliographic entry, he/she writes down call number (or author for fiction) and proceeds to shelf. If user finds book on shelf he/she checks it out. If user does not find book on shelf, user either leaves unsat- isfied or goes to desk (or public access terminal) to obtain holdings information or ask for help (put on reserve, borrow from another library, possible purchase of additional copies, etc.). SUBJECT SEARCH (63 percent of TPL catalog use by public according to catalog use survey con- ducted at the TPL in 1971) User searches microform catalog. User writes down call number(s) and proceeds to shelf. If user finds appropriate material(s), he/she checks it out. If user does not find appropriate material he/she leaves unsat- isfied or goes to desk for help (reference interview, etc.) . Fig. 1. Summary of How System Will Work. always better. But, if we examine the situation in depth, perhaps not. Let us look at some hypothetical situations. If the user is doing a search and does not find the desired entry/entries in the microform catalog, it makes no difference whether holdings are included in the cata- log. The user will still either leave unsat- isfied or go to the desk for help. If the user is doing a known-item search and finds the desired item and notes, and the agency he/she is at is listed as a hold- ing agency, he/she will proceed to the shelf. If the desired material is found, fine . If not (because the material is checked out, reported missing, or with- drawn), he/she will either leave unsatisfied or go to the desk (or public access termi- nal) for help. If the user is doing a known-item search and finds the desired item in the micro- form catalog but notes that the agency is not listed as a holding agency, what are his/her choices? The user can go away un- satisfied without checking the shelves (although there may be a copy on the shelf because a copy may have been added to that agency since the microform catalog was last recumulated) or he/she can go to the desk (or public access terminal) to obtain help; here he/she will have access to the "real" holdings information--on the online system. The user could notice from the holdings in the microform catalog that another branch has the item and drive to the other branch. However, when the user gets there he/she may discover that the item is not available-information that could have been found in the online sys- tem at the original branch if he/she had gone to the desk (or public access termi- nal). · The purpose of the above exercise is to demonstrate that in all cases the user is still going to require access to the online catalog in order to determine holdings more accurately. With time, this access will become increasingly self-service through public access terminals. From the user's point of view, providing inaccurate holdings in the microform catalog does very little good and can actually do harm by leaving the impression that, if a library is listed as a holding library, that library will have the item (a false conclusion be- cause of checkouts, reported missings, and withdrawals) or leaving the impression that if a library is not listed as a holding li- brary, that library will not have the item (a false conclusion because a copy could have been added recently but that fact is not yet reflected in the microform catalog) . If the user is doing a subject search, holdings are of less value in the catalog 112 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 anyway because he is primarily getting suggested classification numbers in order to browse. The Tucson Public Library could not have made the above decisions if it did not have a complete online file of all its holdings (including even reference mate- rials that never circulate). But since this data did exist (after a five-year bar-coding effort) and since more than forty online terminals were already in place through- out the library system to access the online file, the decision not to include locations or holdings in the microform catalog seemed reasonable . In the longer-range future (1990?), it is very likely that the en- tire catalog will be available online . In the meantime, the Tucson Public Library did not want to divide its resources maintain- ing two location records, but rather wanted to concentrate resources in main- taining one accurate record of locations available as widely as possible throughout the library system (by installing more online terminals for staff and public use). Was this decision a sound one? We don't know. The microform catalog has not yet been introduced for public use. By the end of this year we should have some pre- liminary answers to this question. REFERENCES 1. Robin W. MacDonald and J. McRee Elrod, "An Approach to Developing Computer Catalogs," College & Research Libraries 34:202-8 (May 1973). A Structure Code for Machine Readable Library Catalog Record Formats Herbert H. HOFFMAN: Santa Ana College, Santa Ana, California. Libraries house many types of publica- tions in many media, mostly print on pa- per, but also pictures on paper, print and pictures on film, recorded sound on plastic discs, and others. These publications are of interest to people because they contain recorded information. More precisely said, because they contain units of intellectual, artistic, or scholarly creation that collec- tively can be called "works." One could say simply that library mate- rials consist of documents that are stored and cataloged because they contain works. The structure of publications into docu- ments (or "books") and works, the clear distinction between the concept of the in- formation container as opposed to the con- tents, deserves more attention than it has received so far from bibliographers and li- brarians. The importance of the distinction be- tween books and works has been hinted at by several theoreticians, notably Lubetz- ky . However, the idea was never fully de- veloped. The cataloging implications of the structural diversity among documents were left unexplored. As a consequence, librarians have never disentangled the two terms book and work . From the Paris principles and the MARC formats to the new second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, the terms book and work are used loosely and interchange- ably, now meaning a book, now a work proper, now part of a work, now a group of books. Such ambiguity can be tolerated as long as each person involved knows at each step which definition is appropriate when the term comes up. But as libraries ease into the age of electronic utilities and computerized catalogs based on records read by machine rather than interpreted by humans, a considerably greater measure of precision will have to be introduced into library work. As one step toward that goal an examination of the structure of publications will be in order. The items that are housed in libraries, regardless of medium, are of two types. They are either single documents, or they are groups of two or more documents. Items that contain two or more documents are either finite items (all published at once, or with a first and a last volume identified) or they are infinite items (periodicals, intended to be continued in- definitely at intervals). Schematically, these three types of bibliographic items in libraries can be represented as shown in figure l. It should be noted that all publications, all documents, all bibliographic items in li- 
5283	----	112 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 anyway because he is primarily getting suggested classification numbers in order to browse. The Tucson Public Library could not have made the above decisions if it did not have a complete online file of all its holdings (including even reference mate- rials that never circulate). But since this data did exist (after a five-year bar-coding effort) and since more than forty online terminals were already in place through- out the library system to access the online file, the decision not to include locations or holdings in the microform catalog seemed reasonable . In the longer-range future (1990?), it is very likely that the en- tire catalog will be available online. In the meantime, the Tucson Public Library did not want to divide its resources maintain- ing two location records, but rather wanted to concentrate resources in main- taining one accurate record of locations available as widely as possible throughout the library system (by installing more online terminals for staff and public use). Was this decision a sound one? We don't know. The microform catalog has not yet been introduced for public use. By the end of this year we should have some pre- liminary answers to this question. REFERENCES 1. Robin W. MacDonald and J. McRee Elrod, "An Approach to Developing Computer Catalogs," College & Research Libraries 34:202--8 (May 1973). A Structure Code for Machine Readable Library Catalog Record Formats Herbert H. HOFFMAN: Santa Ana College, Santa Ana, California. Libraries house many types of publica- tions in many media, mostly print on pa- per, but also pictures on paper, print and pictures on film, recorded sound on plastic discs, and others. These publications are of interest to people because they contain recorded information. More precisely said, because they contain units of intellectual, artistic, or scholarly creation that collec- tively can be called "works." One could say simply that library mate- rials consist of documents that are stored and cataloged because they contain works. The structure of publications into docu- ments (or "books") and works, the clear distinction between the concept of the in- formation container as opposed to the con- tents, deserves more attention than it has received so far from bibliographers and li- brarians. The importance of the distinction be- tween books and works has been hinted at by several theoreticians, notably Lubetz- ky. However, the idea was never fully de- veloped. The cataloging implications of the structural diversity among documents were left unexplored. As a consequence, librarians have never disentangled the two terms book and work . From the Paris principles and the MARC formats to the new second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, the terms book and work are used loosely and interchange- ably, now meaning a book, now a work proper, now part of a work , now a group of books. Such ambiguity can be tolerated as long as each person involved knows at each step which definition is appropriate when the term comes up. But as libraries ease into the age of electronic utilities and computerized catalogs based on records read by machine rather than interpreted by humans, a considerably greater measure of precision will have to be introduced into library work. As one step toward that goal an examination of the structure of publications will be in order. The items that are housed in libraries, regardless of medium, are of two types. They are either single documents, or they are groups of two or more documents. Items that contain two or more documents are either finite items (all published at once, or with a first and a last volume identified) or they are infinite items (periodicals, intended to be continued in- definitely at intervals). Schematically, these three types of bibliographic items in libraries can be represented as shown in figure l. It should be noted that all publications, all documents, all bibliographic items in li- D D ... D DO __ _ Fig. 1. Three Types of Bibliographic Items: Top, Single-Document Item; Center, Finite Mul- tiple-Document Item; Bottom, Infinite Multiple- Document Item. braries, can be assigned to one of these three structures. There are no exceptions. All bibliographic items, furthermore, con- tain works. An item may contain one sin- gle work. But an item may also contain several works. Schematically, the two situations can be represented as shown in figure 2. An item that is composed of several documents and contains several works may have one work in each document, or several per document. Schematically, the two possibilities can be represented as shown in figure 3. It is possible, of course, for an item to Fig . . 2. Top, Single-Work Document (Example: A Typical Novel); Bottom, Multiple-Work Docu- ment (Example: A Collection of Plays). Communications 113 Fig. 3. Top, One Work per Document; Bottom, Several Works per Document . be composed of several documents but to contain only one work. Figure 4 is a schematic representation of this case. Mixed structures are also possible, as in the schematic shown in figure 5. Ign oring the mixed structure that is only a combination of two "pure" struc- tures, the foregoing information can be combined into a table that shows seven possible publication types that differ from each other in terms of structure (figure 6). All bibliographic items, whether com- posed of one document or many, are known by a title . These titles can be called item titles. In the case of a single- document item (structures a and c), item title and document title are, of course, identical. But in the case of some multi- ple-document items (publications of types d, e, f, and g, for example), two possibili- ties exist: the documents that make up the item may or may not have their own indi- vidual document titles. For purposes of Fig. 4. Multivolume Work (Example: A Very Long Novel in Two Volumes). Fig. 5. Finite Multi-Document Item Containing Many Works, Mixed Structure. 114 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 ONE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT PER ITEM PER ITEM ONE \.JORK PER ITEM a SE VERAL SEVERAL lo/ORKS WORKS PER ITEM PER c DOCUMENT ONE lo/ORK PER DOCUMENT Fig . 6. Publication Types. the bibliographer or cataloger, items that consist of several documents bearing indi- vidual document titles can be described under one of two principles. The entire item can be treated as a unit. Elsewhere I have coined a term for this treatment: the set description principle .1 But it is also possible to treat each document as a sepa- rate publication, to describe it under the book description principle . If we combine all these considerations we find that we can assign to each biblio- graphic item that is added to a library's collection one of the thirteen codes shown in figure 7. How can these codes be useful? Taking a look into the future, let us imagine an online catalog system supported by a data- base that contains the records of a library's holdings . The records in such a database are entered in a definite format . In this format, whatever it will be called , there will be data fields for titles, authors, physical descriptions , subject headings, document numbers, and much else. I propose that to these fields one other be added: the structure code . The structure code would add a new dimension to the retrieval of recorded in- FINITE INFINITE b d e f g formation. Here are a few specific exam- ples . Consider a search for material on subject X. Qualify the search argument by structure codes 1, 3, 7, and 12. Result: the search will yield only major mono- graphic works, defined as items of types a, b,f, and g. Note that subject X assigned to such items is a true subject heading. The mate- rials retrieved in this example would all be works dealing specifically with the topic X. But the same term assigned to an item coded, say, 6, would not be a true subject heading. The term here would only give a broad general summary of what the works in the item are about. The structure code adds sophistication to the retrieval process by enabling a searcher to distinguish be- tween specific subject designators and mere summary subject headings. A search that excludes codes 2, 4, 5, and 6 limits output to materials that are not just collections of essays. The strat- agem used in card catalogs to reach the same result is the qualification of a subject heading by terms denoting format, such as the subdivisions Congresses or Addresses, essays, lectures . This method of qualifying subject headings has never been done Communications ll5 Structure Code Publication Type Description Principle: Book (B) or Set (S) Schematic 1 a 2 c 3 b 4 d 5 d 6 d 7 f 8 f 9 e 10 e 11 e 12 g 13 g Fig. 7. Structure Codes . consistently , however . The proposed structure code would ensure uniform treatment of all affected publications. Qualify the search by codes 9, 10, 11, 13 and all periodicals can be excluded . In the card catalog, format qualifications such B B s B S, with individual document title S, without indiv . document title B s B S, with individual . document title S, without indiv. document title B s fWli ___ wgJ ~-- -~ as Periodicals, or Societies, periodicals, etc ., or Yearbooks are sometimes added to subject headings to reach similar results. Again, the structure code would introduce uniformity and consistency. Present-day card catalogs list publica- 116 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 tions only. They do not list the individual works that may be contained in publica- tions. If an analytic catalog were to be built into a computerized system at some time in the future , the structure code would be a great help in the redesign, be- cause it makes it easy to spot items that need analytics, namely those that contain embedded works, or codes 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13. A searcher working with such an analyt- ic catalog could use the code to limit out- put to manageable stages-first all items of type c, for example; then broadening the search to include those of type d; and so forth, until enough relevant material has been found. The structure code would also be useful in the displayed output. If codes 5 or 8 appeared together with a bibliographic de- scription on the screen, this would tell the catalog user that the item retrieved is a set of many separately titled documents. A complete list of those titles can then be displayed to help the searcher decide which of the documents are relevant for him. In the card catalog this is done by means of contents notes . Not all libraries go to the trouble of making contents notes, though, and not all contents notes are complete and rtliable . The structure code would ensure consistency and com- pleteness of contents information at all times. Codes 10 and 13 in a search out- put, analogously, would tell the user that the item is a serial with individual issue ti- tles. There is no mechanism in the con- temporary card catalog to inform readers of those titles. Codes 4 and 7 would tell that the document is part of a finite set, and so forth. It has been the general ex- perience of database designers that a rec- ord cannot have too many searchable ele- ments built into its format. No sooner is one approach abandoned "because nobody needs it," than someone arrives on the scene with just that requirement. It can be anticipated, then, that once the struc- ture code is part of the standard record format, catalog users will find many other ways to work the code into search strategies. It can also be anticipated that the pro- posed structure code, by adding a factor of selectivity, will help catalogers because it strengthens the authority-control aspect of machine-readable catalog files. If two pub- lications bear identical titles, for example, and one is of structure 1, the other of structure 6, then it is clear that they can- not possibly be the same items. However, if they are of structures 1 and 7, respec- tively, extra care must be taken in catalog- ing, for they could be different versions of the same work. Determination of the structure of an item is a by-product of cataloging, for no librarian can catalog a book unless he understands what the structure of that book is-one or more works, one or more documents per item, open or closed set, and so forth . It would therefore be very cheap at cataloging time to document the already-performed structure analysis and express this structure in the form of a code. REFERENCES l. Herbert H. Hoffman, Descriptive Cataloging in a New Light: Polemical Chapters for Li- brarians (Newport Beach, Calif.: Headway Publications, 1976), p.43. Revisions to Contributed Cataloging in a Cooperative Cataloging Database Judith HUDSON: University Libraries , State University of New York at Albany. INTRODUCTION OCLC is the largest bibliographic utility in the United States. One of its greatest assets is its computerized database of standardized cataloging information . The database, which is built on the principle of shared cataloging, consists of cataloging records input from Library of Congress MARC tapes and records contributed by member libraries. OCLC STANDARDS ln. order to provide records contributed by member libraries that are as usable as those input from MARC tapes, it is im- 
5284	----	116 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 tions only. They do not list the individual works that may be contained in publica- tions. If an analytic catalog were to be built into a computerized system at some time in the future , the structure code would be a great help in the redesign, be- cause it makes it easy to spot items that need analytics, namely those that contain embedded works, or codes 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13. A searcher working with such an analyt- ic catalog could use the code to limit out- put to manageable stages-first all items of type c, for example; then broadening the search to include those of type d; and so forth, until enough relevant material has been found. The structure code would also be useful in the displayed output. If codes 5 or 8 appeared together with a bibliographic de- scription on the screen, this would tell the catalog user that the item retrieved is a set of many separately titled documents. A complete list of those titles can then be displayed to help the searcher decide which of the documents are relevant for him. In the card catalog this is done by means of contents notes . Not all libraries go to the trouble of making contents notes, though, and not all contents notes are complete and rtliable . The structure code would ensure consistency and com- pleteness of contents information at all times. Codes 10 and 13 in a search out- put, analogously, would tell the user that the item is a serial with individual issue ti- tles. There is no mechanism in the con- temporary card catalog to inform readers of those titles. Codes 4 and 7 would tell that the document is part of a finite set, and so forth. It has been the general ex- perience of database designers that a rec- ord cannot have too many searchable ele- ments built into its format. No sooner is one approach abandoned "because nobody needs it," than someone arrives on the scene with just that requirement. It can be anticipated, then, that once the struc- ture code is part of the standard record format, catalog users will find many other ways to work the code into search strategies. It can also be anticipated that the pro- posed structure code, by adding a factor of selectivity, will help catalogers because it strengthens the authority-control aspect of machine-readable catalog files. If two pub- lications bear identical titles, for example, and one is of structure 1, the other of structure 6, then it is clear that they can- not possibly be the same items. However, if they are of structures 1 and 7, respec- tively, extra care must be taken in catalog- ing, for they could be different versions of the same work. Determination of the structure of an item is a by-product of cataloging, for no librarian can catalog a book unless he understands what the structure of that book is-one or more works, one or more documents per item, open or closed set, and so forth . It would therefore be very cheap at cataloging time to document the already-performed structure analysis and express this structure in the form of a code. REFERENCES l. Herbert H. Hoffman, Descriptive Cataloging in a New Light: Polemical Chapters for Li- brarians (Newport Beach, Calif.: Headway Publications, 1976), p.43. Revisions to Contributed Cataloging in a Cooperative Cataloging Database Judith HUDSON: University Libraries , State University of New York at Albany. INTRODUCTION OCLC is the largest bibliographic utility in the United States. One of its greatest assets is its computerized database of standardized cataloging information . The database, which is built on the principle of shared cataloging, consists of cataloging records input from Library of Congress MARC tapes and records contributed by member libraries. OCLC STANDARDS ln. order to provide records contributed by member libraries that are as usable as those input from MARC tapes, it is im- perative that the records meet the stan- dards set by OCLC and that the catalog- ing and formatting of the records be free of errors. Member libraries are requested to follow the nationally accepted cataloging code (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, North American Text, 1 • 2 for records input before December 12, 1980, and Anglo- American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition, 3 for records input later), the Li- brary of Congress' application of the cata- loging code, and the various MARC for- mats in preparing records to be input. 4 • 5 The cataloging rules dictate what kind of bibliographic information should be in- cluded in the cataloging records, a pre- scribed system of punctuation that iden- tifies the various fields of the cataloging record (International Standard Biblio- graphic Description, ISBD), which access points should be provided, and what form the entries should take. The MARC for- mats provide a standardized method of identifying the various fields and subfields in a cataloging record and, through the use of indicators, information necessary to make the record easily manipulated by computers. In addition, fixed fields pro- vide coded information about the catalog- ing records. The form of main, added, and series en- tries can be verified in the National Union Catalog to ensure that member libraries are following the Library of Congress' ap- plication of the cataloging code . By the same token, subject entries can be verified in the appropriate subject heading list (e.g., Library of Congress subject head- ings, Sears subject headings, etc.). A STUDY OF OCLC MEMBER CATALOGING A major problem with the use of contributed cataloging is the amount of re- vision needed to bring the records up to the standards described above. In 1975, a study of the quality of a group of member- contributed catalog records was conducted by C. C . Ryans. 6 The first 700 mono- graphic records input into OCLC after September 1, 1975, to which Kent State University attached its holdings were examined. 7 The analysis included changes in or additions to main, added, or series Communications 117 entries, changes in descriptive cataloging, and changes in or additions to subject headings . The study dealt only with the revision of cataloging; revision of the for- matting of records was not noted. The Kent State study found that 393 revisions were necessary to 283 records. The re- maining 417 records were considered to be acceptable, i.e., they adhered to AACR and ISBD rules and to the OCLC stan- dards for input cataloging. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO QUALITY CONTROL Since these records were studied, the Internetwork Quality Control Council was formed in 1977 by the OCLC Board of Trustees. 8 Its primary purpose is to iden- tify problem areas regarding quality con- trol and distribute information to networks concerning problems and solutions. Its role is to promote quality control through education and by monitoring the imple- mentation of standards. In addition, OCLC' s documentation has steadily improved. The recent publication of the Books Format9 and the recent re- vision of the cataloging manual10 provide clear and specific information on OCLC' s formatting requirements. With these developments in mind, it would seem likely that the quality of the contributed cataloging has improved since 1975. In order to test this assumption, a number of cataloging records were ana- lyzed in an effort to replicate the Kent State study. The analysis of these records differed from the earlier study in that dif- ferences in the treatment of series were not noted because one library's treatment of series can reasonably be expected to differ from that of another . METHODOLOGY The records included in this study con- sist of 1,017 monographic catalog records to which the State University of New York at Albany (SUNYA) Library added its holding symbol during an eight-month period from November 1979 to July 1980. The records included only those that were entered into the OCLC database after 1976. Cataloging revisions that were noted 118 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 Jun e 1981 consisted of changes in main and added entries to make them consistent with Li- brary of Congress form of entry, and the inclusion of other added entries that were deemed necessary to provide adequate ac- cess to the material. In addition, correc- tions or additions to the imprint and the collation· were noted, as were typograph- _ ical errors in all fields . Subject headings that were changed to make them consis- tent with Library of Congress subject headings and subject headings and/or sub- divisions added to provide better subject access to the material were also noted . ANALYSIS OF CATALOGING Cataloging revisions were required for 43 percent of the 1,017 records examined (596 changes or additions were made to 437 records). Changes or additions to sub- ject headings were made to 22.4 percent of all the records in the SUNYA sample, and represented the most common revi- sion . Changes in descriptive cataloging were made to 20 percent of the records, and changes or additions to main or added entries were made to approximately 16 percent of the records. Table 1 compares the results of this analysis with the findings of the e arlier study . It should be emphasized that the two studies are not exactly comparable be- cause the Kent State study included differ- ences in the treatment of series, while this study noted only typographical errors in series statements. The findings of this analysis do not bear out the hypothesis that the quality of member-contributed cataloging has im- proved since 1975. The overall percentage of records requiring cataloging revision is similar in both the Kent State and the SUNYA samples . The percentage of changes made in the various areas of the cataloging records was similar, with the exception of added entries and subject headings . In the SUNYA sample , more re- visions and additions were made to these two areas. This difference between the two samples may reflect variation in the cataloging policies of the two libraries rather than the presence or absence of more errors in member-contributed cata- log records . ANALYSIS OF OCLC REPORTABLE ERRORS AND ADDITIONS In the fall of 1979, OCLC distributed its revised cataloging manual, which includes a chapter dealing with quality control. 11 The chapter delineates the errors and changes that are to be reported to OCLC for correction or addition . The cataloging records examined in this study were also analyzed with these criteria in mind. This analysis (table 2) revealed that 661 reportable errors or changes were found on 486 records (47.8 percent of all the rec- ords). Reportable errors or changes in- cluded formatting errors or omissions such as incorrect assignment of tags, incorrect or missing indicators, subfield codes or fixed fields, and errors affecting retrieval or card printing . Other types of errors in- Table 1 . Comparison of Two Studies of Cataloging Revision Area Needing Kent State Sample* SUNYA Sample Revision or Addition Number Percentage Number Percentage Main Entry 44 6.2 46 4.5 Title Statement 28 4.0 76 7.5 Edition Statement 4 0.6 2 0.2 Imprint 29 4.4 64 6.3 Collation 111 15.9 58 5.7 Series 55 7.9 3 0.3 Subject Heading 88 12.6 228 22 .4 Added Entries 44 6.2 119 11.7 Total Records in Study 700 100.0 1017 100.0 Records Requiring Revision 283 40.4 437 43.0 Number of Revisions Made 393 596 *Source: Constance C . Ryans, "A Study of Errors Found in Non-MARC Cataloging in a Machine- Assisted System," journal of Library Automation 11 :128 (June 1978). Communications 119 Table 2 . Errors and Additions Reportable to OCLC Number Percentage of Total Records Percentage of Total Errors and Additions 19 6 13 17 59 Errors in Transcription of Data Incorrect Assignment of Tags Incorrect or Missing Subfield Codes Incorrect Assignment of 1st Indicator Incorrect Assignment of 2d Indicator Incorrect Fixed Fields Incorrect ISBD Incorrect Form of Entry (less than LC) Errors Affecting Retrieval or Card Printing Bibliographic Information Missing Addition of Access Points 313 8 87 3 1 135 Total Number of Records Containing Reportable Errors or Additions Total Number of Reportable Errors or Additions 486 661 eluded incorrect or omitted access points (added or subject entries, ISBN, LC card numbers, etc.), errors in transcription of data, incorrect ISBN, and the omission of needed bibliographic information. Approximately 40 percent (408) of the records contained formatting errors, with over 29 percent (300) of the records con- taining incomplete or incorrect fixed fields. The apparent unconcern with fixed fields may stem from a lack of understand- ing of the value of correct fixed-field in- formation. The recent addition of date and type of material as qualifiers in a search of the database is one example of the use of fixed fields. In order to underscore their importance, it might be useful for OCLC to highlight this use of fixed fields and further explain to its members how other fixed fields might be used in online search strategies in the future. Errors in or omission of access points were found in 222 records (21.8 percent). These errors were also noted in the study of cataloging revisions discussed above, as were errors in transcription of data, in ISBD, and in omission of necessary bib- liographic information. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Although the quality of the SUNYA sample seems equivalent to that of the Kent State sample, an analysis by date of input of the records examined indicates a slight decrease in the percentage of rec- 1.9 0.6 1.3 1.7 5.8 30.8 0.8 8.6 0.3 0.1 13.3 47.8 2.9 0.9 2.0 2.6 8.9 47.4 1.2 13.2 0.5 0.2 20 .4 100.0 ords needing correction for those records input in 1979 and 1980 (table 3). Perhaps this is the beginning of a trend toward more careful cataloging and formatting of records input by members. In summary, 589 of the 1,017 member- contributed records studied were found to require revision. Of these, 486 records contained er.rors or omissions that may be reported to OCLC, and 437 required cata- loging revision. It is discouraging to real- ize that approximately 60 percent of the member records used required revision. Such a high percentage of records needing revision necessitates the review of all member records .used if a library wishes to adhere to OCLC standards for cataloging. This leads to tremendous duplication of effort and negates, in part, the purpose of shared cataloging. Table 3. Yearly Breakdown of Catalog Records Total Records Percentage Year Number Needing Needing of Input of Records Correction Correction 1977 186 115 61.8 1978 332 202 60.8 1979 339 184 54.3 1980 160 88 55.0 INFLUENCES FOR CHANGE The implementation of AACR2 in 1981 provides the impetus for greater adher- ence to standards. Since all catalogers 120 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 have had to learn the new cataloging re- quirements, greater care may be used in the formulation of records by member li- braries. The publication of clear and specific guidelines for reportable errors may help to alleviate the situation in two ways . First, the careful articulation of errors or desirable additions may impel member li- braries to place more emphasis on the quality control of input. Second, member libraries may report more errors, thus allowing OCLC to correct the master rec- ords. A change in the method of correcting errors and the rate at which they are cor- rected might be beneficial. Presently, errors on the master records can only be corrected by OCLC or by the inputting li- brary if it is the only library that has used the record. Such an arrangement is clum- sy and time-consuming. If other member libraries were trained and authorized to correct errors on master records, errors might be corrected as often as they are detected. In the long run, however, the responsi- bility for inputting catalog records that meet the standards for cataloging and for- matting rests with the member libraries. OCLC and the networks must develop methods of encouraging libraries to input records that are correctly formatted and cataloged . One way of alleviating the problem might be to develop training programs conducted by OCLC or by net- work staff that are aimed at those libraries identified as having high error rates. Another approach might be to give public recognition to libraries that contribute cataloging of high quality to the database. One example of this approach is the Pitts- burgh Regional Library Council's Fred Award, which annually honors the library with the lowest error rate in the PRLC network. 12 Through the use of peer pres- sure the member libraries and networks of OCLC can encourage adherence to the standards. In addition, they must continue to insist that OCLC address this annoying, expensive, and seemingly perennial problem. REFERENCES l. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, North American Text (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967), 409p. 2. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Chapter 6 (Rev. ed.; Chicago: American Library Assn., 1974), 122p. 3. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), 620p. 4. OCLC, Inc . , Cataloging: User Manual (Columbus: OCLC, 1979), 1v. (looseleaf). 5. OCLC Level I and Level K Input Standards (Columbus: Ohio College Library Center, 1977), 1 v. (looseleaf). 6. Constance C. Ryans, "A Study of Errors Found in Non-MARC Cataloging in a Machine-Assisted System," Journal of Li- brary Automation 11:125-32 Oune 1978). 7. Ibid., p . 127. 8. Frederick G. Kilgour, "Establishment of In- ter-Network Quality Control Council" (Un- published document, Ohio College Library Center, 1977), 2p. 9. OCLC, Inc., Books Format (Columbus: OCLC, 1980), 1v. (looseleaf). 10. OCLC, Inc., Cataloging: User Manual, 1v. (looseleaf) . 11. Ibid. 12. "PRLC Peer Council Cites Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Library for High Cataloging Standards," OCLC Newsletter 131:4 (Sept. 1980). 
5285	----	121 N ews and Announcements REDI or Not . .. "Public Libraries and the Remote Elec- tronic Delivery of Information (REDI)," a working meeting, was held in Columbus, Ohio, on Monday and Tuesday, March 23 and 24, 1981. The meeting, jointly spon- sored by the Public Library of Columbus and Franklin County (Ohio) and OCLC, Inc., considered the issues that public li- braries must examine before becoming in- volved in electronic information services . Subjects explored included technology, communications, information providers, information users , social implications, and financial, legal, and regulatory responsibil- ities. Tom Harnish, program dir e ctor of OCLC' s Home Delivery of Library Ser- vices Program, was moderator of the two- day event. Participants at the conference represented a variety of public libraries from throughout the U.S., including New York, Georgia, Texas, California, Colora- do, and Illinois. Don Hammer repre- sented LITA at the meeting; Mary Jo Lynch of the ALA Office for Research also attended . "Geographic distances, " said Harnish, "were the only points of separation among the meeting participants . There was an overwhelming agreement on the concerns for the future of libraries and universal ac- cess to information in the electronic age . " On the second day of the conference it became apparent that the REDI agenda could not be properly dealt with in two days. "We need an organization which will address these issues on an ongoing basis," said Richard Sweeney, executive director of PLCFC . "Librarians at the conference agreed to promote and lead the develop- ment of the electronic library . To that end, this group is seeking recognition by ALA as a membership initiative group with a special interest in the electronic library." The group's founders prepared the fol- lowing mission statement for the mem- bership initiative group: To ensure that information delivered elec- tronically remains accessible to the general public, the electronic library association shall promote participation and leadership in the remote electronic delivery of informa- tion* (REDI) by publicly supported libraries and nonprofit organizations . Goals of the organization are to: • identify services and information that are best suited to remote electronic de- livery; • plan , fund, and develop working dem- onstrations of library REDI services ; • communicate the availability of elec- tronic library services to the user com- munity; · • inform the library profession of trends, specific events , and future directions of REDI; • create coalitions with organizations in allied fields ·of interest. Public libraries and nonprofit organiza- tions with information interests, such as information and referral groups, are in- vited to join the electronic library associa- tion . The group plans to meet at the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco. Meeting details will be announced as soon as they are available . It was the goal of the "Public Libraries and the Remote Electronic Delivery of In- formation " meeting to provide th e fram e work within which to address the myriad issues in REDI. The electronic li- brary group will validate the role of li- braries in technology .... REDI or not here we come. *Information delivered electronically where and when it is needed, in the library and elsewhere (home/office/off-site). 122 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 ARL Adopts Plan for Improving Access to Microforms A plan aimed at improving bibliographic access to materials in microform by build- ing a nationwide database of machine- readable records for individual titles in microform sets was approved in principle by the ARL Board of Directors on January 30, 1981. The plan concentrates on mono- graph collections, and is aimed at provid- ing records for individual titles in both current and retrospective sets. Records add~d to the database will also aid coop- erative efforts in preservation microfilm- ing. Elements of the plan include: • inputting of records conforming to accepted North American standards to the major bibliographic utilities by libraries and microform publishers; • d~ve_lopment of "profile matching" by the b1blwgraphic utilities permitting the cataloging of all individual titles in a series or microform collection with single oper- ation; • cooperative cataloging of current and retrospective microform sets by libraries and publishers; • compensation for publishers who input acceptable bibliographic records to the bibliographic utilities to offset loss of rev- enue from card set sales. Cooperation among libraries pub- lishers, networks, and others ha's been stressed throughout the development of the plan, and initiatives on a number of fronts are necessary and encouraged in order to accomplish the goal of improved bibliographic access to microforms. ARL will s_eek outside funding for a program coordmator to facilitate implementation of the elements outlined above, and recruit- ment for the one-year position will begin short!~ . The coordinator, advised by a committee of librarians (from ARL and ~on-ARL institutions) and microform pub- l~shers, will work with libraries, pub- lishers, and the bibliographic utilities to help get the plan off the ground. The plan is the result of a one-year study funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and con- ducted for ARL by Richard Boss of In- formation Systems Consultants, Inc. Dur- ing the course of the year, he interviewed librarians , microform publishers, repre- sentatives of the bibliographic utilities, and others interested in bibliographic ac- cess to microforms, gradually building the plan from elements on which there was agreement and discarding ideas that were not widely accepted. The effort to build a consensus among the various interested parties was aided by the advisory commit- tee, comprising both ARL librarians and microform publishers, which assisted and advised throughout the course of the proj- ect. ARL will publish the study this spring. ARL sponsorship of this project and its follow-up reflects the long-standing com- mitment the association has had to im- proving access to microforms . Two earlier ARL studies on improving bibliographic access contributed to the development of standards for descriptive cataloging of mi- croforms, reinforced the importance of mi- croforms for preserving and disseminating scholarly materials, and identified some of the problem areas that the current study has addressed . Today, as the amount of materials in microform in ARL libraries continues to grow-ARL libraries hold more than 146,660,000 units of micro- form-improving access to these materials has taken on even greater urgency. The Association of Research Libraries is an organization of major research libraries in the United States and Canada. Mem- bers include the larger university libraries, the national libraries of both countries and a number of public and special librar~ ies with substantial research collections . There are at present 111 institutional members . Battelle Studies Using Computers to Access Unpublished Technical Information Engineers may be able to use comput- ers to store, call up, and otherwise display some technical information not currently published in professional journals as a re- sult of a study recently begun by Battelle's Columbus Laboratories. In a four-month study sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Battelle researchers are examin- ing ways to use computers as an alterna- tive to publications for communicating with the technical community. ASME is a technical and educational organization with a membership of 100,000 individuals, including 17,000 stu- dent members. It conducts one of the largest technical publishing operations in the world, which includes codes, stanc dards, and operating principles for industry. According to Battelle's Gabor J. Kovacs, certain types of information traditionally are not covered in monthly or quarterly technical journals, yet they often have widespread appeal among engineers. "Recent advances in computer and tele- communications technologies, coupled with rapidly rising publication costs and postal rates, have created an ideal en- vironment for organizations to consider using computers as an alternative mode of communication," Kovacs said . "Data bases can be used to maintain information that is impractical for conventional publication, and it is now possible to use them for many other types of communication as well." During the study, researchers will de- termine the feasibility of using a computer database to disseminate to ASME mem- bers such information as short articles dealing with design and applications data, News and Announcements 123 catalog data, and teleconference messages. With the help of the ASME, Battelle spe- cialists will define the information require- ments for such a system. While technology is sufficiently ad- vanced to accommodate virtually any type of information, costs can become prohibi- tive unless practical compromises are made, Kovacs said . As part of the study, Battelle researchers also will analyze the costs associated with systems of varying capabilities. Researchers then will define several alternative database systems, which will include such attributes as: • online, interactive retrieval features • simple-to-use retrieval language • user-aid features • a minimum of seventy-five simul- taneous users • ability to send, store, and broadcast messages • compatibility with a variety of hard copy and CRTs (cathode ray tube termi- nals) • sixteen or more hours per day availa- bility to accommodate different time zones • a minimum of thirty-characters-per- second transmission rates Two of these alternative system de .- signs-one representing a minimum capa- bility and the other a maximum capabil- ity-then will be selected for further eval- uation by Battelle and the ASME. 
5286	----	124 Book Reviews Theory and Application of Information Research. Edited by Ole Harbo and Leif Kajberg. London: Mansell Publishing, 1980. 235p. £16.00. ISBN: 0-7201-1513-2. This book reproduces twenty-one papers presented at the Second Intemational Re- search Forum on Information Science, which was held at the Royal School of Li- brarianship in Copenhagen during August of 1977. The title of this work may be mis- leading since the majority of the papers could better be described as the founda- tions of information science. The papers that advanced the theory of information science were the exception, and the con- tributions dealing with practical applica- tions were even rarer. The contributors included many familiar names: Kathleen T. Bivins, Anthony Debons, William Goff- man, Manfred Kochen, Allan D. Pratt, and Hans H . Wellisch from the United States; Nicholas J. Belkin, J. M. Brittain, B. C. Brookes, Robert A. Fairthorne, J.-M. Griffiths, M. H. Heine, S. E. Robert- son, B. C. Vickery, and T. D. Wilson from the United Kingdom; and many names from Europe that may be less familiar on this side of the Atlantic. The forum was organized into five sessions: general models of information science, in- formation science in relation to other sci- entific disciplines, measurement, the in- formation retrieval process, and the future tasks of information scientists in Europe. Within the book, the distinction between these sessions generally is not obvious. Appendixes give the forum program, summarize the discussions of the papers, and report on group discussions. In the introduction, it was stated that it was hoped that the forum would bridge the gap betwe~n theory and research on one side and practice on the other. The book does not fulfill this hope, but it does present a good collection of papers dealing with a variety of aspects in information sci- ence. The view that the main problems of information science are cognitive rather than technical is evident in many of the papers. However, Bradford's law, Shan- non's theory, and the epidemic model are addressed in several of the papers. With a few exceptions, the papers are quite read- able and do not require a mathematical background to be understood and appreci- ated. The summaries and group discus- sions are disappointing, possibly because several of the authors were unable to attend the forum. Kathleen Bivius was the only American contributor present. There is no index, although one would have been helpful. The book is valuable and should be part of any library collection covering informa- tion science. Anyone interested in in- formation science should be able to find several highly relevant papers. However, only a limited number of scholars will find it necessary to read the entire work.-Ed- ward T. O'Neill, Matthew A. Baxter School of Information and Library Sci- ence, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Personal Documentation for Profession- als-Means and Methods, by V. Stibic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub!. Co., 1980. 214p. $29.25 (Dfl 60.00). ISBN: 0-444-85480-0. While there have been many a number of books written on the design, develop- ment, and use of large-scale database sys- tems, there have been few that focus on the control of one's own personal collec- t ion of reprints, memoranda, reports, drafts, slides, and related miscellanea, which accumulate so rapidly in any profes- sional " information -handler's" office. Stibic's book addresses this problem in a thoroughly professional and competent manner. His first two chapters introduce the general nature of the problem, and discuss professionals' information needs and sources. The third, "Document De- scription," covers the record structure, ab- stracting, subject descriptions, keywords and classification methods, and their var- ious combinations. The fourth chapter de- tails the various technical means for stor- age of original documents, microfilm, and such control meobanisms as card indexes, peek-a-boo cards, and computer-supported indexes. All of these chapters draw on the ex- perience and practices familiar to users of large-scale systems. Stibic recommends the use of ISO and other standardized practices, and endeavors to emphasize the need for constructing one's own system in accord with generally accepted design principles. Stibic is careful to point out, however, that if one is in fact designing a personal documentation system, then personal idiosyncrasies and preferences can be built into it. It is not necessary to use an estab- lished and standardized vocabulary or clas- sification system without modification. One may alter it to suit one's own pur- poses. However, the structure of the sys- tem (whether descriptors, classification numbers, or other means} must be con- trolled; otherwise the system will become useless. The next four chapters are case studies of different systems. The first is a card in- dex technique used by an individual. The second describes a computerized index to support the documentation needs of a project team. (Essentially an augmented KWIC index, published quarterly.) The third case study is one of particular interest to many professionals at the mo- ment-the use of a personal computer as an indexing control system. The system, though not explicitly identified, is roughly comparable to many of those available in the U.S.; a microcomputer with 64K RAM, a display of 80x24 lines, two floppy disks with 512K bytes/disk, and an SO- character-per-line printer. The indexing is done via a faceted classification system of about 250 terms, which are hierarchically linked, providing automatic up-posting from specific to generic terms. A hash- coding technique is used to minimize the storage space required on the disk, and searching is performed by simple serial Book Reviews 125 searching of the index records. The fourth case study is an examination of the upgrading of the manual card index described in the first study to a system supported by a large main-frame comput- er, using a terminal in the professional's office. A combination of automatic keyword extraction and manual classinca- tion is used for indexing. Complex Bool- ean searches are possible with this sys- tem. Stibic concludes with a chapter on fu- ture prospects, touching briefly on such things as internal and public viewdata/tele- text systems. He also provides a checklist of desirable features of "a multi-purpose personal work station." Such a station is not merely a special-purpose device used to aid in some parts of one's work, such as retrieval, but is an integral part of all of one's work; computer, calculator, text- processor, mail-dispatch system, calendar, in/out box, and so forth. The author, a scientist of long standing with Philips in Holland, has provided a valuable guide to this area. There are two relatively minor points of criticism, however. Whether it was the author's or the publisher's choice is not clear, but there is an excessive use of italics through- out the text. This lavish use seems more appropriate to teenagers' romantic novels than to a serious work. In this case, it is more distracting than helpful. Secondly, but more understandably, the extensive references Stibic gives are frequently to documents not easily available in the U.S. Some are OECD papers, some refer to the German DIN standards, and some to internal Philips technical reports. These are minor points, however, regarding an excellent book. It is recommended not only for the information professional, but for anyone who is seriously concerned with the problem of keeping track of what one needs to know.-Allan D. Pratt, Uni- versity of Arizona Graduate Library School, Tucson. Viewdata Revolution, by Sam Fedida and Rex Mahle A Halsted Press Book. New York: Wiley, 1979. l86p. $34.95. LC: 79- 23869. ISBN: 0-470-26879-4. Sam Fedida is the inventor of Prestel, 126 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 the British Post Office's viewdata system . With this as his license, he and Rex Malik have written a 186-page volume explaining the Prestel system. Prestel is a series of databases, which are accessed by a keypad similar to a calculator. The common televi- sion takes on the characteristic of a CRT for viewin·g alphabetical and numerical in- formation. The connection to the comput- er is by telephone, and, in Britain, the post office is in charge of the telephones . Overall, in spite of several printing errors, this book does provide information about the system. The authors explain the types of in- formation that will be available on the Pres tel system, such as "Buying a Car," "Houses for Sale," "Entertainment," "Education," "An Evening Out," and "News . " They have also devoted indi- vidual chapters to electronic mail, electronic funds transfer, and education, explaining how each works in the system. The authors stress the benefits and attributes of their system almost to the point of redundancy . In each of the chap- ters, the manner in which the information is going to be accessed is repeated. De- spite the repetition, the primary focus is what Prestel will do for the betterment of mankind. The uniqueness of Prestel is the sim- plicity of its access process. According to the authors, being able to access the in- formation in one's own home will make Prestel a major tool for dissemination of information for many agencies and businesses. At times, the "hard sell" is very obvious throughout the volume. However, the diagrams are good and help to explain the authors' points. The problems Fedida and Malik antici- pate in the electronic mail and protocols are realistic. In the chapters "Future I" and "Future II," the authors go off on a tangent, using a time line, on what they see in the future. Again, it is basically a repetition of what was said in the previous chapters, only from a futuristic point of view. Here, the reader gets a distinct feel- ing of what is really bothering them now in the system; that is, government bureaucracy . They cite the different groups trying to control the information by means of legislation. They delve into the problem of uniformity of standards. Tele- vision is an example . What will be stan- dard for convertors and adapters for the computer hookup? This is a real problem that was well explored throughout the work. This volume is good for librarians who are interested in cable, telecommunica- tions, and computers . However, be aware of its poor organization. There are numer- ous printing errors that affect its readabil- ity. Nevertheless, if a person can wade through these errors and the repetition of ideas, he/she can obtain some useful in- formation from this text. There is a dis- tinct feeling throughout this work that it was put together hastily . Nonetheless, there is a dearth of information on this subject, and this book will serve some useful purpose for libraries .-Robert Mil- ler, Memphis/Shelby County Public Li- brary and Information Center, Memphis, Tennessee . ALA Filing Rules. Filing Committee, Re- sources and Technical Services Division, American Library Association . Chicago: American Library Assn., 1980. 50p. $3.50. LC: 80-22186. ISBN: 0-8389-3255-X. Library of Congress Filing Rules. Pre- pared by John C . Rather and Susan C. Biebel. Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1980. ll1p . $5. LC: 80-607944 ISBN: 0-8444-0347-4. Available from Cus- tomer Services Section, Cataloging Dis- tribution Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20541. These two works represent the culmina- tion of over a decade of effort within the library profession to overhaul the tech- niques by which entries are arranged to form catalogs. The impetus for this work came from recognition that computer tech- nology would soon be enlisted to perform the arrangement of entries for the produc- tion of catalogs, and that filing rules cur- rent at the time would be impossible to implement in their entirety on the com- puter. Although the original intention was to develop rules appropriate for the arrange- ment of entries by computer, those at the Library of Congress and the ALA commit- tee working on the problem soon realized that, from the point of view of catalog users, it would be very undesirable to have different sets of filing rules in opera- tion depending on the physical medium of the catalog. Therefore, the scope of the effort was broadened to rules that could be applied both manually and by machine using headings that were formulated according to more than one set of catalog- ing rules. Now that we have these new rules, the question arises whether they are better than what preceded them . The criteria for "better" ought to be whether the rules make entries easier to find both for known-item searches and browsing within the complex device called a library cata- log. Or to state the same criteria negative- ly: it should be more difficult to lose an entry in the catalog if it has been filed according to the rules . The evaluation of these rules against other possible approaches to catalog arrangement ought to be centered on observation of the needs of a variety of both experienced and un- sophisticated catalog users and on measurement of the effectiveness of the alternative approaches to meet these needs. The complex problems of filing clearly exemplify the need for research as recent- ly expressed by Herb White in his col- umns in American Libraries. Lacking any empirical data on which to base an evalua- tion, we must rely on our professional judgment and personal biases to argue the case for the new rules. To this reviewer, it seems that common sense supports a set of rules that are sim- ple, consistent, and easy to explain to li- brary users. The need for simplicity and consistency directly implies the "file-as-is" principle (i.e., file exactly as the heading is visually constructed, not by some inter- pretation of it), which should be applied even at the cost of having to search in more than one place in the arrangement; e .g., numeric digits and numeric words , Mac and Me, Muller and Mueller. The file-as-is principle has been more consistently applied in the ALA rules than the LC rules, the latter undoubtedly a re- sult of the anticipated complexity and size Book Reviews 127 of LC's catalogs, although there is no jus- tification argued for these departures from the basic principle. Of specific interest to readers of the journal is whether these rules can be im- plemented for computer sorting of catalog entries . Do the rules succeed in meeting their original objective? The ALA rules certainly appear to be amenable to very straightforward systems analysis and programming. For this the committee and its chairperson, Joe Rosen- thal, need to be commended. From some sources there are already claims of systems that fully implement the new ALA rules, which certainly could be the case . Howev- er, it would be interesting to know how these systems deal with the follow ing, which seem to be potentially troublesome: • The lack of consistent support in the MARC format for handling initial articles when the rules call for ignoring initial arti- cles in corporate names other than person- al or place names, title subheadings ($t subfield), and subject headings. The En- glish articles obviously present no prob- lem, but the table of articles in appendix 2 shows more than thirty words that can be both an article and the cardinal numeral l. In addition, the footnote , "In H awaiian, the '0 emphatic' must be carefully dis- tinguished from the preposition 0, but 0 also serves. the H awaiian language as a noun and a verb (each with several mean- ings), an adverb, and a conjunction," must surely give pause to the diligent systems designer. The recent Library of Congress practice of dropping nonfiling initial articles from heading fields still does not solve the problem of initial articles in the several million MARC records that already exist in library catalogs . • The requirement that Roman numer- als be filed numerically presents an oppor- tunity to construct an interesting but not overly complex algorithm . However, although the MARC format makes the identification of Roman numerals in head- ing fields fairly straightforward (the $b subfield), the identification of Roman numerals embedded in a long title is much more ambiguous . For example, does IV mean "4" or "intravenous"? 128 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 • The rules require that punctuation in an Arabic numeral that is included to in- crease its readability is to be ignored in filing, but decimal points are significant in determining the numeric value of the number (i.e . , .003 files before 1) . How does one specify an algorithm to deal with the title, "5.000 kilometres dans le sud"? Using European practice, this number is obviously 5,000, but why not 5 according to the computer algorithm? • The special rule for nonroman alphabets (rule 7) is interesting: "If, in the arrangement of bibliographic records, it is necessary to distinguish access points con- taining characters in different nonroman alphabets, scripts and syllabaries (cf. Rule 1, Order of Characters) the following order of precedence is used. . .. " There follows a table beginning with Amharic and ending in Tibetan. That is the entire rule. Systems designers who have im- plemented this rule clearly have transcen- dent skills! Reliance on the MARC lan- guage code in the 008 field has both theoretical and practical problems. • The introductory text advises libraries to include in the file information notes and references that explain filing practices to catalog users . However, the rules do not specify where these references are to file in relation to other headings. Admonish- ment to provide these at "appropriate points" is not much help. • The ampersand is ignored in filing (for which we should be grateful) . But, by in- cluding the optional rule 1.3, which allows filing the ampersand "as its spelled-out language equivalent," the ALA committee has put systems designers in the position of having to explain why this rule cannot be implemented on the computer-at least not until the MARC format includes a code for language of the field (not a like- ly development, and even then not all ambiguity would be eliminated). Interest- ingly, the Library of Congress treats all ampersands as a character filing between blank and the letter A . • The optional rule 9.1, which allows the inclusion of "the role of a person or a corporate body in a legal action in arrang- ing access points," presents a problem when the rule requires suppression of all other relators . How is the computer pro- grammed to recognize a legal action? Is there a finite list of such relator words? Differences between AACR2 and previous cataloging practices further complicate the use of this option . Admittedly, many of these problems are marginal in terms of the number of entries in a catalog affected, but to a systems de- signer, even though there is only one in- stance, it must be accounted for in the com- puter programs if the system can claim a "full" implementation of the rules. Clear- ly, full implementation will require some changes in the MARC format before all rules can be applied absolutely consistent- ly and unambiguously . The Library of Congress rules, although applying similar principles, depart signifi- cantly from the ALA rules in detail and complexity. A full analysis of the imple- mentation problems would require much more space than this review will allow. Suffice it to say that although the Library's LIBSKED program has been under de- velopment for twelve years, and its strengths and limitations have undoubted- ly influenced the development of these filing rules, there are elements in these rules that have not yet been implemented in LIBSKED, and several where no one has yet figured out how to do it. Although the work on these rules is complete, there are two more projects the profession should undertake that would be most useful for those concerned with cata- log development . In both sets of rules, there is mention in the introduction of the need for a brief version of the essential rules, which could be handed out to cata- log users . Why did the committee not de- velop such a brief guide and include it as an appendix to the rules? Those of us who work on computers are familiar with the reference cards for programming lan- guages put out by computer manufactur- ers . A similar format for the filing rules would be very useful. Another more difficult but equally use- ful project would be the publication of a standard design implementation of the ALA filing rules expressed in terms of the MARC format . Such a design would in- clude the MARC fields and subfields necessary for each possible entry from a bibliographic record and a description of any special processing required for par- ticular data elements. The design would be expressed at a level that is independent of programming languages and computer hardware . We need a standard reference that translates the filing rules into the lan- guage of the MARC format. T he ALA rules, in some tantalizingly brief instances, begin this process. Both sets of filing rules are significant improvements over those previously avail- able to systems analysts. Reference librar- ians should find these rules easy to explain Book Reviews 129 to beleaguered catalog users. For their simplicity and relatively slight departure from the "file-as-is" principle, the ALA rules are to be recommended . The Li- brary of Congress rules, in their attempt to retain the classificatory structures that support the browsing user, further compli- cate the task of the user performing a known-item search. Library research has indicated that the preponderance of cata- log searches in research libraries are known-item searches .-] ohn F. Knapp, Ringgold Management Systems, Beaver- ton, Oregon . TPS TIES THEM TOGETHER ® AEGISTERED TR ADE MARk OCLCI!!> A T S A C C I RCU L AT I®O N L 0 S G I® R L I N® N G TPS Electronics provides on-line and off-line interfaces • one-step item processing • error-free data entry • back-up storage TPS Electronics 4047 Transport St. Palo Alto, CA 94303 41 5-494-6802 
5287	----	130 Highlights of LIT A Board Meetings The highlights of LITA board meetings are published here to inform division members of the activities of their board . The highlights are not the official minutes of the meetings . 1981 ALA Midwinter Meeting Washington, D.C. First Session February 1, 1981 The meeting was called to order by S. Michael Malinconico, president . The following board members were present : S. Michael Malinconico, Barbara Evans Markuson, Brigitte L. Kenney, Nancy L. Eaton, Kenneth J. Bierman, Ronald F . Miller, Bonnie K. Juergens, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Heike Kordish, and Donald P. Hammer, LITA executive director. Staff: Laura Stewart. The minutes of the 1980 Annual meetings were approved and adopted with the correction that Brigitte Kenney be reported as present at the Wednesday, July 2, 1980, meeting. MARBI COMMITTEE REPORT (report by Eleanor Montague). Montague reported that the MARBI Committee is continuing its work, and that the mem- bers do not feel that the value of their work has been lessened by the new arrangement with the Library of Congress . The committee has discussed chang- ing its mode of operations by introducing teleconferencing and by establishing a steering committee, but these things may be in the future . Board discussion took place on the value of ALA input to the MARC format and whether or not LITA should support a representative to the two LC- sponsored meetings. Montague requested a budget of $2200 to support that representative and the board decided to vote on that matter when it considers the 1981182 LIT A budget later in the week. NEW LITA BUTTON AND NEW AVS BROCHURE (report by Donald Ham- mer). The new LITA button, "LITAship Is for Everyone," was introduced, and copies of the Audiovisual Section's membership recruitment brochure "Who Says ALA Doesn't Do Anything about A V?" were distributed to the board members . JOINT LITAIRTSD BOARD MEETING. Malinconico announced and dis- cussed the joint LITA/RTSD board meeting to take place later in the week. He pointed but that there are many areas of joint interest and many activities the two divisions could cooperate in . He mentioned specifically discussion groups, Highlights of Meetings 131 cosponsorship of programs, Z39 representation, problems concerning ALA poli- cies , the coming five-year review of the ISBD, and other things. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT (report by Joan Maier). The board was brought up to date by Maier on the preconference the Telecom- munications Committee plans to sponsor at San Francisco. It will be concerned with the "office in the home" concept and the support the library should pro- vide to that "electronic cottage" mode of operating. The second day will consist of a tour of "Silicon Valley's" Mission College where that college will demon- strate its new approach to education and its use of automation . Additionally, the Silicon Valley electronic manufacturers will demonstrate their technology . Joyce Capell, who represented Mission College, gave the board information about the college and the potential exhibitors from Silicon Valley. VACANCY IN DIVISION COUNCILOR POSITION. Hammer reported that the request was made to the ALA Bylaws Committee to ask Council to change the ALA bylaws to allow for an alternate councilor to be elected by each divi- sion, and for that alternate councilor to have the vote if a division's councilor cannot complete the term of office. LIT A will elect an alternate councilor in the coming ALA election and it is expected that the ALA Bylaws Committee will present their proposal to Council this week. PROPOSED INCREASE IN ALA OVERHEAD CHARGES . Hammer re- ported that the ALA controller has proposed that ALA raise its overhead charges from 13 percent to 16.5 percent. This is the ALA charge against insti- tutes , preconferences, and other special activities. · The board decided to establish a task force to determine ho~ these overhead · charges are arrived at and exactly what items are included in them . . The task force will consist of Ronald F . Miller, chairperson; Barbara Marku- son, Bonnie Juergens, and Donald Hammer, resour~e person. The following motion was made by Ronald Miller, seconded by Kenneth Bierman , and passed: That a Task Force be formed to obtain additional information about over- head charges which are assessed the Division . Toward that end, the Task Force will accomplish the following : (1 ) Describe in writing the steps required for determination and approv- al and adoption of an overhead rate; (2) Define the component costs included in the overhead rate ; (3) Suggest services which overhead covers which might be contracted for in other ways . The Members of the Task Force are : Ronald F. Miller, Chairman Barbara E. Markuson Bonnie K. Juergens Donald P. Hammer, Resource Person The dates for accomplishment of the three items are: (1 ) May 1, 1981 (2) June 1, 1981 (3) ALA Annual Meeting 132 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 REPORT ON FREE ]OLAS. To date, twenty-six requests have been received from LITA members for free copies of back issues of JOLA. This offer was approved by the board at the last Annual Conference as a means to reduce the supply of back issues of JOLA. It was suggested that new members of LITA should be notified that these issues are available. REPORT ON FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR SAN FRANCISCO PROGRAMS . The ALA Conference Program Committee allocated to the LIT A units the fol- lowing funds for programs at the San Francisco Annual Conference . ISAS/TESLA "Technical Standards: The Good, the Bad, the Missing" VCCS "Use of Video by and for the Deaf" VCCS "Viewdata-The Electronic Delivery of Information" End of first session. Second Session February 2, 1981 $100.00 $350.00 $700.00 The meeting was called to order by S. Michael Malinconico, president . The following board members were present: S. Michael Malinconico, Brigitte L. Kenney, Barbara E. Markuson, Nancy L. Eaton, Kenneth J. Bierman, Ronald F. Miller, Bonnie K. Juergens, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Heike Kordish, and Donald P. Hammer, LITA executive director. Staff: Laura Stewart . LITA STANDARDS COMMITTEE. A problem has arisen concerning an overall standards committee in LITA in that those seeking information about technical standards have no one or no unit within LITA to contact except TESLA, which is concerned only with computer and data processing standards. An example of the situation is that of Steve Salmon who was appointed liaison to LITA from the ALA Standards Committee . He can only contact TESLA and has nowhere to go concerning standards in any of the other areas of interest to LITA. There is also no unit in LITA empowered to establish standards policy for the entire division. After discussion, the board asked the LITA executive director to contact Mr. Salmon and discuss the matter with him to determine what, if any, problems he felt the present arrangement made for him . The board will later reconsider the matter. RTSD CATALOG FORM, FUNCTION, AND USE COMMITTEE. This is a committee RTSD is proposing that would be an interdivisional committee con- cerned with the evolving and the proliferation of library catalogs and with de- velopment of programs and workshops " to inform and develop professional thinking on the form, function, and use of library catalogs." It was decided to bring the matter up at the LITA/RTSD joint board meeting and to ask for additional information at that time. LITA LEGISLATION AND REGULATION COMMITTEE (report by Judith Sessions). The Legislation and Regulation Committee has made arrangements to hold a reception in the Russell Senate Office Building at which librarians will be able to meet their legislator and/or the legislators' staff members. The re- Highlights of Meetings 133 sponse to the invitations has been excellent as about one hundred RSVPs have been received from legislators and their staff members. A report was given on the revision of the Communications Act of 1934 and the provisions that librarians should be working to have included. The Copy- righ~, Law was also discussed, especially the lack of a clear definition for "fair use. INFORMATION BILL OF RIGHTS. About a year ago the Information Indus- try Association compiled and published a statement called the "Information Bill of Rights." The LITA executive director brought the statement to the attention of the board because it was felt that the statement was written from the aspect of the profit-making organization only and perhaps should be broadened . The board decided that this was not in its province and asked the LITA executive director to forward the matter to the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom for any action they feel is warranted. MARC USERS & LIBRARY AUTOMATION DISCUSSION GROUPS. The Marc Users Discussion Group has decided that it would like to merge with the Library Automation Discussion Group (formerly COLA) but would like to re- tain the four-hour time slot it has· had for many years. A motion was made by Kenney, seconded by Ron Miller, and passed: That the LITA Board permit the merger of the MARC Users Discussion Group (MUDG) and the Library Automation Discussion Group (LADG) and that they be called Library and Information Technology Discussion Group. A motion was made by Kenney, seconded by Juergens, and passed: That the discussion groups (MUDG & LADG) after they merge retain the four-hour time slot for the combined new group. A motion was made by Juergens, seconded, and passed: That the chair of the Library and Information Technology Discussion Group be instructed to contact the LIT A Program Planning Committee chair for coordination of discussion topics prior to each LITDG meeting. A motion was made by Kenney, seconded by Ron Miller, and passed: That the Library and Information Technology Discussion Group elect a deputy chair to assist the chair from now on. End of second session. Third Session February 2, 1981 The meeting was called to order by S. Michael Malinconico, president. The following board members were present: S. Michael Malinconico, Brigitte L. Kenney, Barbara E. Markuson, Nancy L. Eaton, Kenneth J. Bierman, Angie W. LeClercq, Helen Cyr, Bonnie K. Juergens, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Heike Kordish, Charles Husbands, and Donald P . Hammer, LITA executive director. Staff: Laura Stewart. APPLE EDUCATION FOUNDATION GRANTS. Brigitte Kenney reported that the Apple Foundation had been flooded with grant requests and that they 134 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 have decided to restrict their grants to software development only. President Malinconico asked Kenney to determine exactly what the limitations are before the board considers the matter further. HONORARIA PAID TO LITA SPEAKERS. The question raised was whether or not the people on the LIT A Board -of Directors or any of the LIT A Program Planning Committees should be paid honoraria when they serve as speakers at LITA institutes. A motion was made by Juergens, seconded by Helen Cyr, and passed: That LITA will not pay honoraria to LITA Board members or LITA mem- bers of program committees for participation in institute programs . (This will take effect after end of next Annual Conference.) (This will take effect immediately for Board members.) ALA SURVEY OF PRIORITIES OF MEMBERSHIP (report by Ron Miller). Five priorities the ALA Membership Priorities Committee has determined are access to information, legislation and funding, intellectual freedom, public awareness, and professional and staff development. Some board members expressed surprise that some of the areas of concern to the White House Conference were not included as ALA priorities and that one of the expressed priorities (legislation) is only a means to an end. Malinconico asked the board members to send their comments by April 1 to Miller, who will then distribute a proposed amendment to the board. A task force of three, Barbara Markuson, Brigitte Kenney, and Ron Miller, was appointed by consensus to write the proposed amendment. It was suggested by Juergens that the LITA statement be published in American Libraries as a letter to the editor in the same issue that the proposed ALA priorities are published. LITA TELECONFERENCING SYSTEM. A representative, John Sehnert, from The Source, gave a presentation of that system to the board. After a long discussion about the capabilities of such systems and the needs of the board, it was decided that by March 1 the recommendations for a pilot project would be provided, by March 15 the system should be operational, by April 1 a set of criteria should be made up to evaluate the project, and by the next board meeting (in San Francisco) an evaluation should be held with a decision made as to the permanency of the system. It was suggested by Barbara Markuson that the "electronic mail" system should be demonstrated during the LIT A President's Program and input should be sought from the members as to what their needs are along this line. PROGRAM PLANNING COMMITTEE (report by Kaye Capen). The commit- tee is in the midst of a transition of the chair. Sue Tyner will be the new chair- person. Capen discussed the joint RTSD/LITA/RASD preconference on online cata- logs to be held in Philadelphia. NATIONAL CONFERENCE PLANS. Berna Heyman reported on plans for the LITA national conference planned for Baltimore in the spring of 1983. If for Highlights of Meetings 135 any reason it cannot be held in the spring of 1983, she stated that the fall of 1984 would be their second choice. The Maryland Library Association would be interested in cosponsorship. The committee is considering asking for help from the Council on State Governments. The conference format would include exhibits, workshops prior to the confer- ence, invited papers, contributed papers, a poster session, and panel sessions. A survey of the LITA members is being considered in order to get ideas on subjects of interest. Discussion followed, but no action was necessary. End of third session. Joint LITA/RTSD Board Meeting February 2, 1981 INTRODUCTIONS. Both boards, guests, and staff introduced themselves. AGENDA . There was no set agenda. Karen Horny, RTSD president, sug- gested that one topic that might be discussed or at least recognized is that both LITA and RTSD have retrospective conversion discussion groups . Both appeared to have different focuses on their discussion of retrospective conver- sion. BACKGROUND . Michael Malinconico, LITA president, gave background on the reason for the joint board meeting. There has been created an uneasy sort of division between technology, application of technology, and technical ser- vices systems. This uneasy division is thinking of technology as the form in which library services are delivered, thinking of the technical-services interests as reflected in RTSD as concerned primarily with the content of that service. The distinction between form and content obviously falls apart very rapidly. In previous LITA discussions, Barbara Markuson p"ointed out that there are perhaps three stages of implementation of technology . In the first phase, there is exploration of the potential of technology. That is the domain of LITA. In the second phase, there is an implementation and a certain amount of acclimatiza- tion that is ne<;essary. This is the gray area. The third phase is where the tech- nology becomes integrated into the operation of a library. This is the concern of the traditional technical services. The gray area needs to be addressed. With automated cataloging systems in particular, they are beginning to ma- ture, and it is no longer clear who should be concerned and addressing the problems. Thus there is overlap. We need to meet together to consider ways to make more efficient use of time that is expended at ALA meetings. Currently there are a number of joint ventures: cosponsorship of the Catalogs Preconference, 1982; the establishment of a Joint Committee on Catalog Form, Function, and Use; cosponsorship of a program in San Francisco on union lists of serials. Three things should be considered: l. How to organize to take joint action on matters that concern us mutually. 2. Think of the joint programs as pilot ventures and attempt to set up a structure that can be used for future joint ventures. 136 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 3. Consider what other projects we might want to do jointly. Bill Gosling, RTSD past president, stated that one of the points in terms of overlap is the factor of growth ofboth divisions . The factor of growth is related to two things: (1) interest and (2) the desire or need to have official affiliation with the association . This is not unique to RTSD and LITA. ALA, as well as the divisions, is growing; more and more people are involved and want to be involved. Michael Malinconico stated that we should let the growth be a result of con- scious action, it should not be something that happens without our conscious intent or control. It may be that there are instances where overlap is necessary and desirable. Let the overlap occur as something done by intention. Norman Dudley stated that ALA does have mechanisms for resolving over- lap, which we are just beginning to use . We can never identify the gray areas because of the very nature of the technology. Every new application of technol- ogy presents us with new or possible gray areas . What is needed is the sensitiv- ity, willingness, and ability to approach the other unit and ask for cospon- sorship. Michael Malinconico stated that the divisions had experimented with liaisons to their boards. The meetings often conflict, so this seems an enormously in- efficient method of communication. Another example of perhaps peripheral interest to LITA is the ISBD five- year program. There might be some value in having a joint review of the ISBDs . Arnold Hirshon suggested that the division executive directors exchange min- utes or summary board minutes . At this time RTSD does not do summary min- utes. The RTSD Newsletter reports RTSD board action as well as section and committee reports, however. Bill Gosling, RTSD past president, stated that when talking about units of a division, even as an officer, it is difficult to ensure information communication . An orientation session is very important. If two or three people miss this, the information has to be picked up by sitting in meetings. For programming, a mechanism to be used is a screening for all programs . The planners have to include what affiliation is appropriate and what contact has been made. Perhaps , to return to Mike Malinconico's point about structure, we should charge our Organization committees, who review recommendations for new committees, also to look at possible affiliation. This happened with the Catalog Form, Function, and Use Committee. It was suggested that RTSD and LITA ought to exchange representatives to the Organization and ByLaws committees. Michael Malinconico suggested ex- panding this to exchanging representatives to the Division Level Programming Committees . RTSD does not have one as yet. Bill Gosling agreed that when the structure becomes defined, this is another area of exchange . Michael Malinconico suggested two other areas that LITA and RTSD could explore--the proposed increase in the ALA overhead rate for workshops, insti- tutes, preconferences, etc., and the difficulty of getting publicity for forthcom- ing programs in American Libraries. LITA has formed a task force to look into the proposed change in the over- head rate to look at what ALA central provides for the overhead charges and to identify those things that might be more economical to contract for separately. Highlights of Meetings 137 This is perhaps another area for cooperation. The sense of the LITA Board was that they would like RTSD participation in the task force. Nancy Williamson agreed to sit in on the task force as an RTSD observer. The task force's function statement has three aspects: 1. To identify the procedural steps that a dues increase would have to go through and how to effect those steps. 2. Determine what it is we get for the overhead we pay. 3. Determine those things that we get that might more economically be con- tracted for separately. STUDENT DUES AND GRADUATED DUES. The LIT A Board acted in sup- port of student dues. RTSD had a concern about the impact of student dues on publications as the current $7.50 fee from the $15.00 membership fee does not cover the cost of publications. RTSD on the proposed graduated dues structure for new members, felt that it was difficult to assess the impact of new division members until they saw the effects on the ALA general membership. The LITA Board was in favor of the graduated dues structure for new division members. INTERDIVISIONAL COMMITTEE ON CATALOG FORM, FUNCTION, AND USE. This committee would replace the Book Catalog Committee. Cur- rently RTSD is receiving responses from other divisions on their interest in forming such an interdivisional committee . ALA/COO would have to look at this committee. Michael Malinconico stated that the formation of this commit- tee would be one way of addressing some of RTSD and LITA's mutual con- cerns. ON-LINE PRECONFERENCE. The division executive directors were charged with writing an agreement on the responsibilities of each division with respect to this program and then circulate it to the respective boards. The joint board meeting was adjourned at 5:42 p.m. Fourth Session February 3, 1981 The meeting was called to order by S. Michael Malinconico, president. The following board members were present : S. Michael Malinconico, Brigitte L. Kenney, Barbara Evans Markuson, Nancy L. Eaton, Kenneth J. Bierman, Angie W. LeClercq, Helen Cyr, Bonnie K. Juergens, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Heike Kordish, Charles Husbands, Donald P. Hammer, LITA executive direc- tor. Staff: Laura Stewart. DISCUSSION OF MARBI COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR FUNDS. A discus- sion of the MARBI Committee and LITA representation at its meetings took place. The following motion was made by Barbara E. Markuson, seconded by Bon- nie K. Juergens, and passed : The LIT A Board approves the expenditure of up to $2200 to cover ex- penses for one LITA representative at the two 1981 MARBI meetings held 138 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 outside the two annual ALA meetings . This matter will be reviewed again at the next Midwinter meeting. (Amended by S. Michael Malinconico, and approved unanimously.) LITA'S PLACE IN STANDARDS SETTING. A long discussion took place on the past contribution of LIT A in standards setting and what its position should be now and in the future in the standards field. The place of MARBI, TESLA (ISAS), and the ISAS International Mechanization Consultation Committee was considered. The discussion culminated in a decision to ask the executive direc- tor of LITA to write a background paper on the history of LITA's involvement with all standards activities, including actions with other groups, and what re- sults were achieved . The report is to be available at the next Annual Confer- ence. NATIONAL CONFERENCE REPORT (report by Berna Heyman) . It was re- ported that the National Conference Program Committee would ask the ALA Executive Board to approve a conference for LITA in the spring of 1983. A discussion took place on the audience at which the conference would be aimed. Concern was expressed for the inclusion of beginning-level programs and papers as well as activities for the more knowledgeable. The tutorial approach to all aspects of areas of interest to LITA members and others was advocated by several board members. After a discussion on the registration fees and on the individuals who should be present to represent the LITA board before the ALA Executive Board, a motion was made by Bonnie K. Juergens, seconded by Brigitte Kenney, and passed: The board approves the request of the Program Planning Committee to proceed with current plans to hold a LITA conference entitled "Informa- tionffechnology : LITA Brings It All Together." Such approval includes a vote of appreciation to the Committee for the effort that has gone into this plan. End of fourth session. Fifth Session February 3, 1981 The meeting was called to order by S. Michael Malinconico, LITA president . FUNDS ALLOCATED BY ALA TO LITA FOR SAN FRANCISCO PRO- GRAMS. Hammer reported that $900.00 was allocated by ALA to each division to be distributed by their boards for San Francisco conference programs. Also---$100.00 was given to TESLA by ALA. Also---$350.00 was given to LITA VCCS "Video for the Deaf" program. Also---$700.00 was given to LITA/VCCS "Viewdata" program; VCCS requests at least $300.00 more for this . A motion was made by Kenneth J. Bierman, seconded by Bonnie K. Juergens, and passed : That TESLA be awarded $550.00 and VCCS Program Planning Committee be awarded $350.00 for additional support for their programs for the San Highlights of Meetings 139 Francisco conference. These funds are to come from the "Regular Confer- ence Program Funds." BYLAWS AND ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE (report by Heike Kordish). No action items to report . PROGRAM PLANNING COMMITTEE (report by Sue Tyner). No report given as Sue Tyner had just recently become chair. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE (report by Joan Maier). After dis- cussion it was decided to double the number of registrants expected for the "Office in the Home" preconference from 150 to 300. A revised budget was presented to the board. The LIT A Telecommunications Committee would like to publish in the LIT A Newsletter a listing of electronic mail systems, a listing of paperless information technology consultants, and a dial-order-type services listing. These items have been turned down by the editor of ]OLA, but have been accepted by the editor of the LITA Newsletter . The LITA Board gave its enthusiastic endorsement. NOMINATING COMMITTEE . Malinconico reported on the 1981 elections slate as follows: Vice-president/President-elect: Kevin Hegarty, Carolyn Gray Director-at-Large: Hugh Atkinson, Emma Cohn Council: Bonnie Juergens, George Abbott, Lynne Bradley LITA SECTION REPORTS: ISAS (report by Bonnie K. Juergens). No action items to report. PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE (report by Charles Husbands): Brian Aveney has augmented the JOLA staff by getting David Weisbrod to be Book Review editor, and Tom Harnish to be an assistant editor for Video Communications- which we think will bring some new focus to those areas. As the committee has begun to organize the division's publications program, it is questioning whether or not an editorial board and a publications committee are needed . The committee proposes that LITA have a publications committee, and that the journal and the newsletter have editorial boards. The committee recommends the chairperson of the Publications Committee be an ex officio member of each of the editorial boards, and that the chief editor of each of those publications be an ex officio member of the Publications Committee. The newsletter editorial board would consist only of the staff, i.e ., the chief editor, and the section editors; and the journal editorial board would consist of the chief editor, the various assistant editors, and additional people to serve as a core of reviewers (but not necessarily limited to that function) . The relationship to the LITA Board is something of a question. The bylaws state that the JOLA editor is a member, ex officio, of the LITA Board . The roster shows that Charles Husbands, as chair of the Publications Committee, is the ex officio member. There is a question as to whether either needs to be a member of the LITA Board . The Publications Committee feels that there should be only one ex officio member on the LITA Board-the chair of the Publications Committee-and asks the LITA Board to resolve this question. 140 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 After discussion it was moved by Ronald F . Miller, seconded by Brigitte L. Kenney, and passed : That the Board officially recognizes and approve s the establishment of two editorial Boards; the first for the Association's newsletter, the second for its journal. Furthermore, the Chairperson of the Publications Committee should appoint a liaison to the LITA Board for reportorial purposes, and the bylaws shall be amended to delete the journal editor as an ex officio member of the Board. The Publications Committee recommends that the LITA budget be published each year in the newsletter. The committee suggests changes in the form of the LITA budget that would more accurately and/or more specifically indicate ex- penditures. The Publications Committee also suggested that some narrative be included with the budget to explain various aspects of it. No board action was necessary . The suggestion came up, in reference to items for the newsletter, that it might be interesting to try getting the headlines from the newsletter into some kind of electronic distribution. NEXIS was suggested. Tom Harnish suggested The Source as another possibility, keeping in mind legal and copyright consid- erations . The LITA Board is considering an electronic mail pilot project, but the LITA Telecommunications Committee is already in the process of setting up such a project of its own at this time . The board asked the Newsletter Editorial Board to draw up a proposal for the LIT A Board to consider at the San Francisco Annual Conference . AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE COMMITTEES . Ham- mer brought to the board's attention two recent problems concerning LIT A's representation on American National Standards Institute (ANSI) committees . 1. ANSI sent LITA an invoice for $50.00 for membership in ANSI. When it was pointed out to ANSI that LITA is a division of ALA and ALA is a member of ANSI, the $50.00 charge was dropped. 2. As was reported to the board at the last Annual Conference meetings, the Computer & Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA) billed LITA for $1,125.00 for a partial-year 1980 membership on X4 ($1 ,500.00 for a full year), and later information revealed that membership on X3 would cost $2,500.00. X3 and X4 have now been combined, but no information has been received on what the dues are for the "new" X3 committee . The problem is that letters to CBEMA asking what provision has been made for representation from nonprofit users groups are ignored . LITA, therefore, no longer has any representation on the computer-standards-setting committees. After discussion , it was suggested that the LITA executive director continue to try to communicate with CBEMA. SPONSORSHIP OF LITA INSTITUTES BY OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS . Bonnie Juergens, chair of ISAS, brought up the matter of outside organizations asking to hold LITA institutes for their members. The specific incident con- cerned is that of the Law Library Association's request for sponsoring the "Data Processing Specifications and Contracting" workshop as a preconference work- shop prior to their conference in June. The board indicated a willingness to allow such arrangements, but felt that LIT A should gain some financial return from them. Highlights of Meetings 141 In this case, the board, by consensus, indicated that the Law Library Asso- ciation should be asked for 20 percent of the costs (with 15 percent being least acceptable) as remuneration to LITA. LITA BIBLIOGRAPHY . Juergens brought up the question of continuing the LIT A Bibliography on Library Automation . The last one published included the years 1973--1977. She wanted board reaction as to whether or not it is a viable project and whether or not ISAS should prepare a working plan and a budget to be presented to the board at the next Annual Conference. The board, by consensus, asked ISAS to proceed to develop a plan . LITA REPRESENTATIVE TO IFLA ( International Federation of Library Associations) . IFLA REPRESENTATIVE NOMINATIONS. Kenney presented a statement concerning the need of, and the requirements for, nominees to IFLA. Her recommendations for nominees were Fred Kilgore, Susan Martin, Russell Shank, and Dick DeGennaro . Members of the LITA Board were in- vited to submit additional names of possible nominees, especially as there is no limit to the number of nominees. ALA OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH DIVISIONS . At one of the COPES meetings, there emerged a new ALA operating agreement for the divisions written by Robert Wedgeworth, now being discussed by all units . There was a negative reaction to the vagueness of the document as it now stands. The presi- dent of the board suggested that the board members put their comments in writing to send to him around March 1. STUDENT MEMBERSHIP DUES PROPOSAL . Ron Miller asked the board if it wanted to reconsider its approval of the reduced student dues proposal in the light of recent discussions and actions in ALA Council. After discussion, the board confirmed its approval of reduced student dues and also took the position of being in favor of "local," i.e., divisional control of d~es . ALA MEMBERSHIP PROMOTION TASK FORCE (reported by Blanche Woolls) . The Membership Promotion Task Force is going to arrange special dis- counts to members of ALA to go to museums and so forth in San Francisco . LITA might want to mention in the LITA Newsletter places of interest and things to do that the members might not otherwise know about. More specif- ically, LITA might want to highlight the technology that exists in the San Fran- cisco area that LITA members might be interested in going to see on their own . MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE (Blanche Woolls). The LITA Membership Committee recommends that LITA prepare information for ALA members who are not members of LITA, to suggest that they should belong to LITA by stressing those areas of the division that could attract individual participation in the association, such as the discussion groups and programs. It was moved by Brigitte L. Kenney, seconded by Kenneth J. Bierman, and passed : That the LITA Board authorize up to $700.00 for a mailing to ALA mem- bers who are not LITA members . 142 journal of Library Aut01nation Vol. 14/2 June 1981 The Membership Committee requests support of the LITA Board for student chapters. Though there is only one, University of Michigan, there should be a letter sent to welcome the students into LITA. Woolls offered to write the "greetings" letter. Bringing into LITA people who are not librarians was presented to the board and discussed . AECT is having their national meeting in Philadelphia in April. As a member of AECT as well as LITA, Blanche Woolls would like authorization to arrange a very small reception at this meeting to attract members to LITA . It was moved by Kenneth J. Bierman , seconded by Brigitte L. Kenney , and passed: That the LITA Board authorize up to $300.00 to the Membership Commit- tee for a reception for the AECT national convention, April 5--9 . The pur- pose of this reception is to encourage new members for LIT A. Membership Committee is going to have a microcomputer in the LITA booth at ALA with a "LITA game" on it-telling what LITA is all about . They are aiming at zero cost to LITA for both the microcomputer and the game . LITA ORAL HISTORY TASK FORCE . S. Michael Malinconico suggested that board members read the report on this subject that was made to the board by Robert Miller. AVS & VCCS PROPOSED MERGER. Brigitte L. Kenney announced that both the A V Section and the VCCS Section have expressed an interest in merg- ing into one section and in expanding the telecommunications interests in LITA into another separate section. S. Michael Malinconico suggested that the AV Section and VCCS meet in San Francisco and, in a joint meeting, discuss this matter and see that their memberships are informed of the results of that meeting. End of fifth session. LITA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS RECORD OF VOTES - 1981 MIDWINTER Motions (In order of appearance in the "Highlights" ) Board Member 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 S. Michael Malinconico y y y y y y y y y y y y y Brigitte L. Kenney 0 y y y y y y y y y y y y Barbara E. Markuson y y y y y y y y y y y y y Nancy L. Eaton y y y y y y y y y y y y y Kenneth J. Bierman y y y y y y y y y y y y y Ronald F. Miller A y y y y y y y y y y y y Angie W . LeClercq 0 0 0 0 0 y y y y y y y y Helen Cyr 0 0 0 0 0 y y y y y y y y Bonnie K. Juergens y y y y y y y y y y y y y Marilyn J. Rehnberg y y y y y y y y y y y y y KEY: Y = Yes N = No A = Abstain 0 = Absent 143 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The journal of Library Automation welcomes manuscripts related to all aspects of li- brary and information technology . Some specific topics of interest are mentioned on the masthead page . Feature Articles, Communications, Letters to the Editor, and News Items are all considered for inclusion in the journal. Feature Articles are refereed, other items generally are not. All material is edited as necessary for clarity or length. Manuscripts must be typewritten and submitted in original and one duplicate . Do not use onion skin. All text must be double spaced, including footnotes and references. Manuscripts should conform to A Manual of Style , 12th ed., rev. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969). Illustrations should be prepared carefully as camera-ready copy, neatly drawn in a professional manner on separate sheets of paper. Manuscript pages , bibliographic references, tables, and figures should all be numbered consecutively . Feature Articles consist of original research, state-of-the-art reviews, or comprehen- sive and in-depth analyses . They may be from ten to twenty-five pages in length. An abstract of 100 words or less should accompany the article on a separate sheet. Headings should be used to identify major sections. Authors are encouraged to relate their work to other research in the field and to the larger context of economic, organizational or management issues surrounding the development, implementation, and use of particular technologies. Communications consist of brief research reports, technical findings, and application notes . These may be up to ten pages in length; an abstract need not be included. Letters to the Editor may offer corrections, clarifications, and additions to previously published material , or may be independent expressions of opinion or fact related to cur- rent matters of concern in the interest area of the journal. A' letter commenting on an article in the journal is shared with the author, and a response from the author may appear with the letter. Letters should be no more than three pages in length . . News Items may announce publications , conferences, meetings, products, services , or other items of note. These should be limited to two pages in 'length. Book Reviews are assigned by the Book Review Editor. Re;1ders wishing to review books for the journal are invited to contact the Book Review Editor, indicating their special areas of interest and expertise. Names and addresse s of the journal editors may be found in paragraph three on the masthead page. In all correspondence please include your own name, institutional affilia- tion, mailing address , and phone number. 
5288	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012112749 147 Who Rules the Rules? "Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?" wondered Henry Higgins, implying that a lack of widely and consistently followed rules of usage created linguistic backwardness and anarchy. Higgins' ques- tion might be rephrased today as: "When will the code teach its founders how to catalog?" The Library of Congress has historically fitted catalog codes to its own practices rather than following them slavishly. The best example is the lamentable policy of superimposition: continued use of preestablished forms of names that are not in compliance with the Paris Principles or AACRl. This was a cause of widespread confusion and complaint and the practice was eventually discontinued ... well, sort of discontinued. The various interpretations of AACRl, the inclusion of new rules, and pressure for further modifications eventually led to the drafting of AACR2, a code that was supposed to end variance and controversial practices. One might assume that including LC as a principal author of the new text and an LC official as one of the editors might result in a code that it could actually follow. Judging by the spate of exceptions and interpreta- tions made so far (more than 300), this has not been the case. In the place of superimposition, we have new impositions known as "compatible head- ings." They may not be readily ascertained according to the rules, but have been granted a sort of bibliographic squatter's rights. Although it would be simpler for catalogers to follow the rules consis- tently, they must instead check several Cataloging Service Bulletins and Name Authorities to see whether LC has determined that a given personal, corporate, or serial name is already "compatible" with AACR2. This can result in cataloging delays, higher processing costs, and inconsistent en- tries. AACR2 and uncertainties regarding its application by LC have been widely credited with lower cataloging productivity. This is not to imply that LC is behaving in a strictly arbitrary or capri- cious manner vis-a-vis the code. They can be seen as caught on the horns of a trilemma, with vast internal needs and increasing external demands competing for a shrinking budget. President Reagan may have whispered sweet nothings during National Library Week, but during budget hearings it became clear that libraries are not as "truly needy" as impoverished generals and interior decorators. Decisions to depart from AACR2 have been based primarily on cost factors. The decision by the RTSD Catalog Code Revision Committee and the Joint Steering Committee not to consider cost and implementation factors has led both to widespread opposition to the code resulting in a one-year delay in implementation, and to the modifications that LC has made and is making. Some variations such as using "Dept." for "Depart- - 148 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 ment" and "House" for "House of Representatives" make fiscal and com- mon sense. Many other LC changes are simply bibliographic nit-picking, minor irritants to catalogers who must flip back and forth between the text of AACR2 and half a dozen Bulletins to settle a minor point of description. Why didn't LC representatives attempt to say, "Wait a minute-we just can't do that now," while the code was being considered rather than after it was published? Anyway, considering that LC was starting up a whole new catalog and closing the old one, one wonders why rules not to be applied retrospectively had to be tinkered with to such an extent. Major questions still to be resolved include not only the compatible- name quandary, but the treatment of serials, microform reproductions, establishment of corporate names and determination of when works "ema- nate from" corporate bodies, and the romanization of Slavic names. The decision to use title entry for serials and monographic series even in the case of generic titles has been controversial. There are, of course, exceptions to the rules, and there will be differences in how uncertain catalogers construct complex entries with parenthetical modifiers. Unfor- tunately, rules establishing entries for serials have sometimes been mud- died rather than clarified in the Bulletin. Consider the example in the Winter 1981 issue wherein the bulletin of the Engineering Station of West Virginia University is entered under "Bulletin," while the same publica- tion for the entire university is entered under "West Virginia University Bulletin." Also, consider the complex cross-reference structure required to direct users between the two files, both of which may well be split again,' historically, between author/ title and title main entry. This is a special problem in the case of large monographic series generated by corporate bodies. The LC position on microform reproductions of previously published works is clearer, but is still a point of controversy. They have decided to provide the imprint and collation (er, make that "Publication, distribu- tion, etc., area" and "Physical description area") of the original work, with a description of the microform in a note. In other words, they're sticking to AACRl. The RTSD CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Ac- cess is currently trying to resolve this conflict, one in which many research libraries have sided with LC. This body is also trying to unravel the mys- tique of "corporate emanation'' introduced in AACR2. Another sore point has been the LC decision to follow an alternative rule, which prefers commonly known forms of romanized names over those established via systematic romanization. That LC is correctly follow- ing the spirit of the general principle for personal names is little comfort to research libraries with large Slavic collections. How are other libraries responding to the murky form of AACR2? Some are closing old card catalogs and continuing them with COM or temporary card supplements. Some of these are establishing cross-reference links be- tween variant forms of names between catalogs, while others are not. Editorial/DWYER 149 Some are keeping their catalogs open and shifting files, while others are splitting files. Some are shifting some files and splitting others. AA CR2 was intended to provide headings that could be easily ascertained by the user. Ironically, the temporary result is scrambled catalogs: access systems in- volving multiple lookups and built-in confusion . Until most bibliographic records are in machine-readable form under reliable authority control this will continue to be the case. Authority control, it would seem, has long been an idea whose time has come but whose application is yet to be realized. The cooperative efforts of the Library of Congr~s and the major biblio- graphic utilities to establish reliable automated authority control will do much to ameliorate the problems presented by AACR2. It would also be helpful if LC, perhaps with the financial assistance of other libraries, networks, and foundations, would publish what might be called AACR2¥2-not a new edition of the code but one accurately reflecting actual LC practice. Finally, future code makers would be wise to consider cost and other implementation factors in their deliberations. Professor Higgins, ever the optimist, would rather sing "Wouldn't it be !overly" than hear another verse of "I did it my way." JAMES R. DWYER EDITOR'S NOTES Title Change It often seems that the only things that change their names as often as library publications are standards organizations. Not to be left out, JOLA will be called Information Technology and Libraries beginning with Volume 1, Number 1, the March 1982 issue . This name was approved by the LIT A Board in San Francisco this June as more accurately reflecting the true scope of the journal. New Section With this issue, we are initiating a new section: "Reports and Working Pa- pers." This is intended to help disseminate documents of particular interest to the]OLA readership. We solicit suggestions of documents, often developed as working papers for a specific purpose or group but of interest and value to our readership. In general, documents in this section are neither refereed nor edited. Mitch I take great personal pleasure in publishing Mike Malinconico's speech upon presenting the 1981 LITA Award to Mitch Freedman. Readers' Comments We do continue to solicit suggestions about the journal but receive few. Is anybody reading it? If you have any thoughts about what we should or shouldn't do, we would welcome your sharing them. 
5289	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012115244 - 150 The British Library's Approach to AACR2* Lynne BRINDLEY: British Library, Bibliographic Services Division, London, England. The formal commitment of the British Library to AACR2 and Dewey 19 entailed substantial changes to the U.K. MARC format, the BLAISE Fil- ing Rules, and a variety of products produced for the British Library itself and for other libraries, including the British National Bibliography. The British Library file conversion involved not only headings but also al- gorithmic conversion of the descriptive cataloguing. Along with the U.S. Library of Congress and the national libraries of Australia and Canada, the British Library was formally committed to the adoption of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) and Decimal Classification, 19th Edition (DC19) in 1981. This entailed fairly substantial changes to the MARC format as published in the U.K. MARC Manual, 2nd Edition as well as the implementation of the new and more sophisticated BLAISE (British Library Automated Infor- mation Service) Filing Rules. 1 There is, of course, never an ideal time for making major changes- politically, economically, or technically; and the Bibliographic Services Division (BSD) found itself having a large number of preexisting separate systems, particularly for our batch processing work, which had grown up over a long period of time and had in most cases been tailor-made to the individual products. Whilst relatively small, BSD is nonetheless responsi- ble for a multiplicity of products and services, almost all of which were to be affected to some extent by the change toAACR2/DC19. Briefly, then, a comment on the different services and the degree to which they were affected, thus setting the scene for our decisions on machine conversion. *Based on a talk given at the Library Association seminar "Library Automation and AACR2," held in London on January 28, 1981. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the British Library or the Bibliographic Services Division. Manuscript received June 1981; accepted June 1981. SERVICES AND IMPACTS Printed Publications British Library!BRINDLEY 151 The major printed publication of the division is the British National Bibliography. It is arguable that for the printed publications (especially the weeklies) there would have been little justification for retrospective conversion. The files could have been cut off at the end of 1980 and started afresh for 1981-it might, however, have precluded, or certainly have made more messy, the possibility of any multiannual cumulations across this period. Microform Products These are mostly individual COM catalogues, both within the BL, espe- cially the Reference Division, and externally, provided through LOCAS (BSD's Local Catalogue Service) to some sixty libraries in the U.K. In many ways those libraries that plunged into automation early, building up files of records derived from central U.K. and LC MARC, were likely to be worst affected. Individual machine-readable files had grown very large and exploited not only relatively current cataloguing data, but also full retrospective U.K. holdings back to 1950. Also we foresaw no lessening of use by libraries taking our catalogue service of the U.K. retrospective 1950-80 file after AACR2 implementation. Therefore the grounds for attempting automatic retrospective conversion of records were indisput- able. Tape Services U .K. exchange tapes, either as a weekly service or through the Selective Record Service, are supplied to nearly one hundred organisations. The same arguments that there will be continuing selection from the retrospec- tive files apply-therefore, for compatibility and ease of use we needed to consider conversion. The weekly exchange tape service makes a clean AACR1/AACR2 break, but obviously libraries have back files of AACRl records. Mindful of our responsibility to other organisations and agencies utilising our records, we decided to make our own converted tapes of LC and U.K. MARC records available to tape-service customers to aid their own conversions. Online Services Regarding the BLAISE Online Information Retrieval System for U.K. and LC MARC, our concern was to ensure continued easy searching and printing across the total span of files. Without automatic conversion it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to ensure consistency in search elementsandindexentries (e.g.: In U.K. MARC, seriesfields400, 410, and 411 no longer exist, so without conversion a searcher would have to re- member specific search qualifiers for pre-1981 records, and different ones thereafter). Without conversion the searcher would need a lot more knowl- 152 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 edge of MARC and the history of cataloguing practices to formulate effec- tive strategies. Outside Users of MARC Last and very much not least was a consideration of what we could do to help the now large community of U.K. MARC users in coping with the changeover. This is now a very large and diverse group relying on BSD for the provision of bibliographic records for whatever purpose. Our own conversion enabled us to provide a multiplicity of aids to libraries. Of particular note are (1) U.K. and LC exchange tapes of converted records, and (2) machine-readable and microfiche versions of our own Name Con- version File, which is being used as the basis for the new Name Authority Fiche. So, in the context of the variety of our services the case for conversion was strong. RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION The extent of the retrospective conversion exercise is discussed below. In conjunction with this work we were faced with the necessity of rationalis- ing our COM and print product software (Library Software Package), both to enable it to drive each of the previously separate print applications and to ensure that it had sufficiently sophisticated output facilities to cope with the complexity of AACR2/U.K. MARC 2 records, with their increase in numbers of subfields, their repeatability, all or some, and varying se- quences, to produce the specified layout and punctuation across our ser- vices. Extent of Conversion We are now in a position to discuss the retrospective conversion exercise. Having decided in principle to become involved with conversion, the ex- tent of our involvement had to be established. British libraries have never had the tradition of building and utilising name authority files, and cer- tainly the concepts fit more easily in the North American primarily online system context rather than in the predominantly batch cataloguing systems established in the U.K. The BL therefore found itself without a machine- readable authority file and began to create one from scratch to enable the important heading changes required by AACR2 to be handled automati- cally. Again because of the overriding importance of COM catalogues in the U.K., considerable attention was paid not only to automatic heading changes but also to automatic MARC coding and text conversions bringing the descriptive cataloguing elements also into line with AACR2/U.K. MARC 2, so that catalogue records could be consistent on output whether derived from the conversion or newly created . The third consideration for conversion was our Library of Congress file British Library!BRINDLEY 153 (Books All1968- ), used in the U.K. as part of our cataloguing services and as a file in the BLAISE online system. We had always performed certain conversions on LC records to bring them more into line structurally with the U.K. MARC format. However, U.K. libraries using these records for cataloguing purposes still had to undertake substantial editing. It was therefore decided to use the opportunity to enhance this conversion and bringLC records into line with U.K. MARC 2 to make them of maximum use to British librarians. To summarise, then, the retrospective conversion comprised three main parts: 1. That part which utilised information stored in the Name Conversion File, which records the AACR2 and AACRl forms of names. This enabled the automatic conversion of major, commonly occurring personal and corporate headings. 2. Automatic MARC coding and text conversions-this consisted of specifications at MARC tag and subfield level of algorithms for auto- matic MARC coding and scme bulk text conversions. It resulted in records being converted to a pseudo-AACR2/U.K. MARC 2jormat, so that all output specifications, whether by profile or by online inversion, had only to cater for the new format. These two parts of the conversion are inexorably linked, both conceptually and in programming terms , with frequent references to alternative courses of action dependent on whether a match has been found on NCF. The details of conversion are in "Specification for Retrospective Conversion of the UK MARC Files 1950-1980,"2 pre- pared in the Computer Services Department. 3 . The third facet of conversion was to our Library of Congress files (Books All1968- ), to bring records in line with U.K. MARC 2 as far as possible. Only conversions of tags, indicators, subfield marks, punctuation, and order of data elements have been included; no attempt has been made to bring textual data into conformity with BSD practice. The converted records are therefore in AA C R2 form to the extent that LC applies AACR2 to a particular record. The next section highlights major points of each part of the conversion, commenting particularly on aspects of programming and testing. Name Conversion TheN arne Conversion File was built up by BSD's Descriptive Catalogu- ing Section over nine months of 1980 and comprises authenticated AACR2 headings with theAACRl form where different. It will form the basis of an authority file of headings and references for future BSD cataloguing and will be the first publicly available U.K. authority file. The file was main- tained using existing LOCAS facilities. Pseudo-MARC records were cre- ated recording the AACRl and AACR2 forms of headings in the format shown in example 1. 154 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 FIELD 001 (control number) 049 (source code) 110.1 $a Great Britain $c Accidents Investigation Branch (Name Heading in AACRII Form) 710.1 $a Great Britain $c Department of Trade $c Accidents Investigation Branch (Name Heading in AACRI Form) 910.1 $a Great Britain $c Department of Trade $c Accidents Investigation Branch $x See $a Great Britain $x Accidents Investigation Branch (Reference for AACRII Name Heading) Name Conversion File Record Example! The file being used for conversion comprised some 12,000 records, of which 4,000 had AACR2 heading changes. The remaining records were authenticated by BSD as correct AACR2 headings without alteration. Of the changed headings most were prolific personal and corporate (particu- larly U.K. government) headings. The first stage of the conversion process for U.K. MARC records (1950-80) involved all records being processed against the Name Conver- sion File to replace AACRl with AACR2 headings and associated refer- ences. In programming terms, the name conversion was relatively easy- relatively, that is, in the context of bibliographic programming. The matching program used was not particularly sophisticated. It took each NCF record, identified the 7xx (AACRl) field, created a key of fifty char- acters stripping out all blanks, embedded punctuation and diacriticals, and then tried to match the key against each 1xx heading in whatever file was being converted. If there was a match on the key, then the program proceeded to match character by character through the data looking for an exact match. If this was not found, then the NCF record was not processed. Example 2 shows this procedure more clearly. Of course, this file has not converted all AACRl headings, but it has ensured that the majority of headings likely to recur (i.e., of any signifi- cance in catalogue collocation of headings) have been automatically changed. Automatic MARC Coding and Text Conversions This is commonly known as the format conversion program and forms the bulk of the "Specification for Retrospective Conversion." The original specification was extremely complex, particularly bearing in mind the tight time scales that we were working to. The major difficulty throughout all parts of this facet of conversion was having to specify procedures to accommodate the variety of usage of MARC across thirty years, including previously automatically converted 1950-68 U.K. MARC records; it has British Library!BRINDLEY 155 NCFRECORD 710 (AACRI) $a Great Britain $c Civil Service Department $c Central Computer Agency# 110 (AACRII) $a Central Computer Agency# 910 (AACRII) $a Great Britain $c Civil Service Department $c Central Computer Agency $x See $a Central Computer Agency# KEY: 10$AGREATBRIT AIN$CCIVILSERVICEDEPARTMENT$CCENTRALC Matching on data- would match Central Computer Agency would not match Central Cataloguing Agency N.B. KEY EQUALS 50 CHARACTERS (Upper Case) NCFRECORD 700 (AACRI) 100 (AACRII) $a Walker $h David Esdailel $a Walker $h David E. $q David Esdaile $r 1907 -1 900 (AACRII) $a Walker $h David $c 1907- $x See $a Walker, David E.# KEY: 10$AW ALKER$HDAVIDESDAILE BOOK RECORD Before: 100 Walker $h David Esdaile# 900- Ajter: 100 $a Walker $h David E. $q David Esdaile $r 1907 -# 900 $a Walker $h David $c 1907- $x See $a Walker, David E. $z 100# N. B. Addition of new reference Name Conversion Matching Example2 been almost impossible to verify absolutely that any of the automatic changes would cover all cases. Not surprisingly, this was an extremely complex program. It had to allow for manipulating in fairly precise ways nonstandard and variable data, and had to be designed to cope with occurrences in many different combinations . The programmer had to code for these combinations, some of which may possibly never have been used. It is probably the case that certain combinations do not exist, but this could not be guaranteed over such a large number of records until the total file had been converted. A good example of the complex logic of this kind of processing is found in the 245 field, where seven complex conditions were allowed for: (1) (2) (3) FIELD245 If $e ___ then _ __ else _ _ _ If$£ then else _ _ _ If $d or $e ___ or ___ or _ _ _ or ______ or ______ or ______ or ____ __ 156 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 then __ _ else if $d or $e ___ or ___ or __ _ or ___ or ___ or or __ _ or __ _ then __ _ (4) Iftags ___ then __ _ (5) If008 and or ___ or __ _ then __ _ (6) If $h then and __ (7) If $e then __ _ else if first $e then _ _ _ else __ _ else __ _ Repeat for all levels of 245. Another variation on this theme is that the specification catered for what it expected to find. Again, because of the voiume and span of data the expected was not always found. For example, a lot of processing of refer- ences is dependent on the presence of a $x. What do you do when you find a record accidentally without one? A third problem was that of interdependency of fielch and subsequent actions . A good example of this is found in llOs and related 910s. If a 110 is changed, you may have to create a 910 , replace a 910 with another one, or reorganise existing subfields. Then you may have to reorder the field and also flag the action to come back to later in the program. Hence you are switching back and forth across fields throughout the program . You can- not simply start at field one, process sequentially, and then stop. Clearly this makes program testing that much more complicated. However, those were the problems-really a very small percentage of the whole. From all that has been seen of the converted files so far it has been a highly successful exercise. All of the major MARC changes and many of less significance have been converted automatically by this program-Treaties, Laws, Statutes, Series, Conferences, Multipart works-the resulting records being consistent in MARC tagging structure and in significant headings and areas of text. Library of Congress File Conversion It has already been stressed that the automatic MARC coding and text conversions for U.K. MARC were very complex programs. Perhaps even more complicated was the conversion program written to transform LC into U.K. MARC format. The main reason for this is that the U.K. and NCF conversions are one-off programs and a great number of the manipu- lations could be hard-coded. However, it is intended that the LC conver- sion program will be used on an ongoing basis against each weekly LC tape. Thus each conversion has been treated as a separate parameter to the British Library!BRINDLEY 157 program so that it is general purpose and easily alterable in the light of changes of practice by LC. To give you some idea of the complexity, there are well over 600 separate parameters to the program. I say separate, but in fact they are interrelated parameters, so that if a minor change is made to one it can potentially affect many others. Many of the problems relating to this program could again only be really apparent in volume testing, not in writing. Each parameter written and tested in isolation was satisfactory, but when they began to be put together in modular form, then the problem of unusual combinations began to show. Although the conversion parameters for LC records are extensive, they cannot touch the cataloguing data, certainly not nearly as much as in the U.K. MARC conversion. There are added problems in the fact that the records coming to us from LC do not show the clean AA CRl/ AACR2 break that BSD is adopting. We are having to allow for mixed records from LC at least in the foreseeable future. Details of the LC-to-U.K. MARC conver- sion are published in a detailed specification. 3 COMMON ISSUES IN CONVERSION Testing It is possible to draw out common problems applicable across all the conversion work, particularly in testing. They are as follows: 1. Variability of records; 2. Complexity of records; 3. Volume of data; 4. Nonstandard data; 5. Repercussions throughout system. Variability This is an obvious problem in the handling of MARC records, but partic- ularly pertinent when trying to do such complex manipulations. The rec- ord format itself is of course variable-there are very few essential fields or data elements; most need not be present at all; if they are present, they can be there once or ten times. Standards of cataloguing, and therefore MARC coding, have changed considerably over the period in question, adding to the variability. In some exceptional cases BSD practices are different from those prescribed in the MARC manual, e. g., nonstandard use of title refer- ences. All of this results in additional difficulties from specification, through programming and testing. On average we found that one conver- sion process took two to three times the amount of coding required for more normal computer processing. Complexity This is linked with variability and was manifest particularly in the fact that it was extremely difficult to ensure that the programs catered for all 158 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 conditions. We found that testing threw up oddities not allowed for in the original specification. In an ideal situation with no time constraints a totally tailored and comprehensive test file should have been drawn up for each facet of conversion. This exercise alone would have taken a good year and would still not have catered for the unexpected data problems. In practice, whilst BSD's Descriptive Cataloguing staff were able to provide several hundred records that tested the majority and most important of the conversions, we always faced the possibility of coming across exceptions. This soon became apparent when volume testing commenced and each new file threw up another combination and a different program route not previously tested. Volume The third major factor adding to the complexity of the whole operation was the sheer volume of data to be processed. Approximate figures are as follows : U.K. MARC 0.7 million records LC MARC 1.4 million records LOCAS 2.5 million records The combination of these three factors-variability, complexity, and volume of data- made testing extremely difficult and expensive in ma- chine terms, in that large test batches of material had to be processed. Nonstandard Data Like any large file, U.K. MARC has its share of incorrect data, most of it of no particular significance. However, some problems arose in conversion testing resulting occasionally in corrupted records. One example that springs to mind was the incorrect spelling of months in Treaties, giving problems in the 110 $b conversion to 240 . Repercussions throughout System A cautionary note, really: we made a decision that postconversion rec- ords should not be put back and overwrite existing master files until they had been through validation programs (i.e., those used for validating new input for BNB and LOCAS); it was felt that this was a necessary safeguard against reintroducing any structurally incorrect records postconversion. It was here again that testing threw up timely reminders of just how much the validation programs had been upgraded and changed since many of the original records had been input through the system. Scheduling The scheduling of such a large, complex exercise was extremely difficult, with interdependency of processing related to the success or otherwise of overnight runs . A lot of time was spent before the conversion period in British Library/BRINDLEY 159 discussion with our computer bureau to ensure maximum cooperation throughout the difficult time. They were extremely helpful in ensuring operator coverage throughout weekends and priority for our work. One of the problems we encountered was having to forecast the approximate number of machine hours that would be required throughout January 1981 when the bulk of conversion work was carried out. At the time the figures were needed we were still in early stages of programming so no volume tests could be run. Equally, although we were experienced in large-volume processing it was difficult to draw any direct comparisons with production work. Additionally, we had to allow for a heavier than normal production work load towards the end of the year, which always sees annual volumes, cumulations, online file reorganisation, and so on. Scheduling therefore was a fine art to ensure correct priorities for produc- tion, the bureau's own work, and conversion , and to minimise contentions for files and peripherals. Staffing Of interest is a picture of the human resources involved in this project . What is striking is the magnitude of the task achieved by very few people. The overall management of the project was taken on by existing line man- agement within BSD's Computer Services Department. Two project leaders were appointed, one a librarian and one a systems analyst. The librarian had a team of four temporarily seconded staff who were totally responsible for all output profile specifications (printed products and COM), testing, and implementation. They also did a considerable amount of checking of test file conversion runs . The systems analyst was a project leader for three analyst-programmers and one JCL writer. Between them they were responsible for LC and U.K. conversion programming and the new filing rules. Existing operations staff and others as appropriate within the division were called upon for other tasks. Disruption to Services Whilst disruption to our normal production services was kept to an absolute minimum, it was decided that it would be necessary to temporar- ily suspend certain services through the month of January 1981 while the bulk of the file conversion took place. Throughout the period, the BLAISE online information retrieval system continued to be operational : associ- ated online facilities that would normally allow the despatch of MARC records to catalogue files were suspended to avoid any non-AACR2 or nonconverted records inadvertently updating converted LOCAS files. The production of COM catalogues through LOCAS was suspended for a single month, and the first issue of BNB for 1981 was not scheduled until early in February. The schedule for the conversion exercise was adhered to with no major slippage except in the case of our LC file conversion; this exercise 160 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 stretched on into the spring for a variety of technical reasons largely con- cerned with the characteristics of the LC data. CONCLUSIONS Having been so closely involved in this project it is difficult to draw out general conclusions as yet. However, there are some already obvious bene- fits both for BSD and the wider library community: the rationalisation of our software for COM/printed products will lead to easier maintenance and future upgrading; the introduction of the BLAISE Filing Rules across all our products is an improvement; the new LC conversion will make our LC files much more easily usable by the British library community; we have the basis of a U.K. Name Authority File for the first time. This was a vast and sophisticated conversion exercise and will result in U.K. MARC files probably more uniform in structure than they have ever been. It forms an excellent basis for the continuation of BSD services, especially those based on utilising records across the whole time span, e. g., BLAISE information retrieval, Selective Record and cataloguing services. Equally, because our conversion has been so extensive we have been able to share it: the specification, the Name Conversion File, and the converted U.K. and LC files were all available at minimal cost to libraries in the U.K. Of course, it is not the 100 percent solution- it was never intended to be- so of course if you look hard enough you will find inconsistencies. However, it has proved that very extensive automatic conversion is possible even with today's state of the art of computing and that BSD had led the way, indeed eased the path of transition to AACR2 for British libraries. REFERENCES 1. British Library, Filing Rules Committee, BLAISE Filing Rules (BL , 1980). 2. British Library, Bibliographic Services Division, Computer Services Department, "Specification for Retrospective Conversion of the UK MARC Files 1950- 1980" (un- published with limited distribution). 3. British Library, Bibliographic Services Division, "Specification for Conversion of LC MARC Records to UK MARC" (unpublished with limited distribution). Lynne Brindley is head of c ustomer services for the British Library Automated Information Service (BLAISE). 
5290	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012112916 AACR2: OCLC's Implementation and Database Conversion Georgia L. BROWN: OCLC, Inc., Dublin, Ohio. 161 OCLC's Online Union Catalog (OLUC) contains bibliographic records created under various cataloging guidelines. Until December 1980, no system-wide attempt had been made to resolve record conflicts caused by use of the different guidelines. The introduction of the new guidelines, the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) , exacer- bated these record conflicts. To reduce library costs, w hich might increase dramatically as users attempted to resolve those conflicts, OCLC con- verted name headings and uniform titles in its database to AACR2 form. The purpose of the conversion was to resolve record conflicts that resulted from rule changes and to conform to LC preferred forms of heading if possible. BACKGROUND In May 1978, upon receiving an advance copy of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules Second Edition (AACR2), OCLC formed an internal task force of librarians who were professional catalogers to study the new rules. The AACR2 Task Force was charged with identifying differences between AACR2 and AACRl as applied by the Library of. Congress. The task force compared the two sets of rules on a rule-by-rule basis to deter- mine: (1) effects of rule changes on the MARC record formats , (2) who benefited from the changes, and (3) relative costs of the changes on both a one-time and a continuing basis. Each change was assigned a number from 0 to 5 to represent the cost to libraries (0 being no cost and 5 being maxi- mum cost) . The task force identified a total of 454 significant rule changes or new rules . The task force categorized each rule's effect, and in its judgment, 56 percent of the changes would benefit neither the librarian nor the patron, 23 percent would benefit librarians, and 21 percent would benefit patrons. The estimates of the percentage of changes along the cost spectrum are illustrated in table 1. Manuscript received Ap rill981; accepted Aprill98 l. 162 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 Table 1. Estimates of AAC R2 Changes in Terms of Costs Cost Range 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pe rcentage of Changes- One-Time 18 54 13 9 4 2 Identification of Conversion Requirements Percentage of Changes- Con t inuing 20 56 20 0 2 2 Originally, the findings of the task force were to be used to adjust the OCLC online system and card production programs to accommodate AACR2 changes. However, in light of estimated costs to individual li- braries to convert existing headings and uniform titles to AACR2 form, the task force studied the requirements for an OCLC machine conversion. The machine conversion required that information within the record be con- sistently identifiable. The task force used work sheets to record and keep track of its findings . The first column of each row on the work sheet represented one rule. The row was completed with the rule number, the AACR2 form with tagging, the pre-AACR2 form with tagging, instructions, and comments. Figure 1 illustrates a work sheet. An analysis of the work sheets indicated that one method to convert to AACR2 form was to develop an OCLC authority control system based on AA CR 2 AA CR2 Fo rm Prc-AACR2 Form Rule with Tagging with Tagging Instructions Comments 22.501 100 10 Zerotina, 100 10 z Ze rotina Withi n l a z could be Fo r Czech and Slovak Karel z Ka rel searched , dele ted , and names only a dded at end o f field 25.4B l xx ! a ... lxx !a . . . Set up table of uniform T h is would requ ire 240 ta Theaetet us 240 t a Theaitetos titles where Greek reading of ! a . . . OR fo rms change to Latin c hecking against ta ble 240 !a Theaetetus fo rms. Change 240 ta Greek fo rm to L atin form 21 .26 100 10 Parker, 100 10 Ra msdell , No way to and Theodore tc Sar ah A. automatically recognize 22.14 (S pirit) 700 10 70010 Par ker , those records requ iring Ramsdell, Theodore change Sarah A. 25 .9 240 t a Selections 240 t a Selected If text of 240 ! a is This will require wo rks "Selected works" reading tex t of l a c hange to " Selections" Fig. 1. Task Force Conversion W orksheet AACR2: OCLC/BROWN 163 the LC name authority file. Due to time constraints and the complexity of developing such a system, however, OCLC decided on a second method: to convert Online Union Catalog headings and uniform titles using the LC name authority file and some additional data manipulation techniques that would detect changes not done by the authority processing. Preconversion Testing Using the work sheets, the task force assigned the rule changes to pattern sets. Pattern sets were defined as combinations of character strings, punc- tuation, subfield coding, and other characteristics that indicate that the heading could be algorithmically changed to conform to the new rules. These changes were further divided into those that could be converted by machine and those that could not be converted by machine. Approxi- mately 100 pattern sets were initially identified. Before making a commitment to convert all 100 of these pattern sets, tests were run to determine the approximate number of bibliographic records that would be changed. A test file obtained by selecting records at random from the Online Union Catalog as of September 2, 1978, already existed at OCLC. The test file represented a 1 percent sample of the data- base on that date, or 41,212 records. Programs run on the test file identified the patterns within the bibliographic records and counted the number of times each pattern occurred in the test file. Table 2 illustrates selected results of pattern set sampling. Patterns not found in the test file were later eliminated from those to be applied against the entire Online Union Cata- log. " U.S." was found in qualifying fields 754 times, and "Covenant" was found only once. "University of' was found 486 times on the test sample; however, it could be incorrectly converted frequently enough to eliminate it from the list of pattern matching to be done. Tests also indicated that some changes that appeared straightforward, when applied , introduced further errors that would have to be resolved after the conversion. Of the 41,212 records , 100 records were manually checked for system changes that would need to be made for the existing bibliographic records Table 2. Selected Results of Pattern Sampling Rule Number Number Matched Comments 21.39A 32 !a ... !k Liturgy and ritual 21.39C 7 ! a Jews ! k Liturgy and ritual 24.1B 7l State University 21.33 28 Constitution 3 Charter 1 Covenant 21.35 27 Treaties 25.15 206 Laws, etc. 25.681 0 Books, Parts, Numbers 25.9 19 Selected works 24.2782 0 Pope 164 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 to comform toAACR2. General findings included: Change Number of Records None 33 More than one 21 Minor personal name change 19 Personal name modification 13 Single change other than 14 personal name Specific changes that would be needed are shown in table 3. As noted in the table, personal name changes account for more than two-thirds of all required conversion changes. As a final note, name headings to be converted by authority processing could not be estimated by sampling, since the LC name authority file was not available online when the tests were run. Early estimates, based on the tests and anticipated name authority matches, called for conversion of 8 percent of the Online Union Catalog, or 560,000 records, to AACR2. However, samplings done by the Library of Congress indicated that 17 percent of all MARC records contained one or more headings that needed to be converted. OCLC assumed that this statistic would also apply to its database. The task force's study, in general, showed that OCLC could convert by machine a large portion of its biblio- graphic records to conform to AACR2. DESIGN METHODOLOGY OCLC formally initiated the AACR2 project to : (1) accommodate the use of AACR2 format in the online system, and (2) convert existing biblio- graphic records to AACR2. Accommodating AACR2 formats required validating additional content designators, modifying card printing to al- low for the new content designators, and training users. Also , the seven bibliographic format documents (Books, Serials, Audiovisual Media, Scores, Sound Recordings, Maps, and Manuscripts) were rewritten to in- clude the new content designators and AACR2 input conventions and Table 3. Modifications Needed for AACR2 Conversion (Based on a Sample of 100 Records) Modification Personal name Parenthesize geographic location U.S.-United States, Ct. Brit.-Great Britain Uniform title modification Drop geographic location from corporate name tk dropped University heading Conference date and place inverted U.S. Congress Total Occurences per 100 Records 57 8 3 3 5 2 2 2 1 83 Percent of Modification 69 10 4 4 6 2 2 2 1 100 AACR2: OCLC!BROWN 165 examples. The remainder of this paper will deal with the conversion of existing bibliographic records in the Online Union Catalog, OCLC's bib- liographic database. The purpose of the conversion was to resolve record conflicts that resulted from rule changes affecting name headings and uniform titles. Functional Specifications Two sets of functional specifications were written based on the preproj- ect studies by the AACR2 Task Force. Set 1 functional specifications ad- dressed the conversion of bibliographic records to AACR2 by matching the records in the LC name authority file and then incorporating data into the bibliographic records. Set 2 functional specifications addressed the ma- chine manipulation of character strings that formed a given pattern. Set 1 Functional Specifications Three constraints were placed on the conversion described in set 1 func- tional specifications. First, the pre-AACR2 form of a converted field must be retained. Second, the bibliographic record must be retrievable by both pre-AACR2 and AACR2 forms. Third, the field that was changed must be identified to users, and the record must indicate that it had been modified by machine conversion. Set 1 functional specifications listed the fields in the bibliographic and authority records that should be considered in the conversion, grouping bibliographic fields that should be matched with given authority fields. For each field, characters were eliminated that might inadvertently cause a no-match result. Subfield codes and delimiters, multiple blanks, and diacritics were eliminated from the character string used for matching. All alphabetic characters were converted to uppercase letters and certain sub- fields were eliminated from the matching strings. This process was applied to both bibliographic and authority records. The resultant matching strings, for a bibliographic and an authority field, were compared on a character-by-character basis. If any character was different, there was no match. Matches were treated differently depending on the contents of the name authority field . Four cases for matching were defined: Case 1. Bibliographic field matches AACR2 authority field. In case 1, the only change needed was to indicate in subfield w of the bibliographic field that it conformed with AACR2. Case 2. Bibliographic field matches non-AACR2 authority field; AACR2 form present in authority record. Case 2 called for the following changes: (1) replacing the bibliographic field with the AACR2 form from the authority record; (2) moving the replaced bibliographic data to another field (an 87x field); and (3) indicating in the converted bibliographic field that conver- sion had been done. 166 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 Case 3. Bibliographic field matches non-AACR2 authority field; AACR2 form not present in authority record . In case 3, the authority record contained the form preferred by LC, but not the AACR2 form . If the bibliographic field matched a "see from" reference ( 4xx authority field), case 3 called for the fol- lowing changes: (1) replacing the bibliographic field with the authoritative field (lxx authority field); and (2) moving the replaced bibliographic data to another field (an 87x field) . No indication was added that the field was machine-converted, since the form supplied was not AACR2. Case 4. Bibliographic field tagged as personal name matches authority field tagged as corporate name. In case 4, the bibliographic tag was corrected to a corporate- name tag. Case 4 was used to clean up the database and to allow more fields to be converted. Set 2 Functional Specifications For set 2 functional specifications, the pre-AACR2 form of the entry also must be retained and the record retrievable by both pre-AACR2 and AACR2 forms. These functional specifications called for conversion of six pattern sets. Each pattern set might apply to multiple fields and, within the fields, to multiple character strings. Some of the pattern sets were further subdivided into various conditions . For example, pattern set 2 specified the conversion of form subheadings. This pattern set looked only at one field, the 110 field, but held two conditions. In the first condition, any one of ten character strings might be matched. In the second condition, either of two character strings qualified for matching. Pattern set 2 was actually one of the easier sets to work with since it involved minimum data manipulation and testing. The most complicated pattern set concerned music uniform titles where only two fields were involved but six possible conditions had to be consid- ered. One of these conditions required conversion of forty-two character strings, provided other information was present. Development Plan After reviewing the two sets of functional specifications, a development plan was established. This plan outlined the steps involved in software development for the project, named an individual responsible for each step, estimated the duration of each step, identified the objectives of soft- ware development, and identified potential time conflicts for staff and machine resources. The time estimates were constantly monitored and revised during the project cycle to ensure that the work would be com- pleted on time. Development Method Based on a thorough analysis of the functional specifications, the follow- ing basic design was chosen: AACR2: OCLC/BROWN 167 1. Read a bibliographic record. 2. Identify a field in the bibliographic record for potential conversion. 3. Derive a key from that field. The key derivation used would be the same as that used for the online system, except that it would be extended to include fields not normally indexed but that needed to be converted to AACR2. Derived search keys are formulated by extracting a certain number of characters from the words in a name. For personal names, a 4,3,1 key is used; i.e., the first four characters from the surname, the first three characters from the forename, and the middle initial. 4. Perform a keyed search of the LC name authority index files. 5. For each hit on an index record, read the corresponding name au- thority record and check for a match of the authority and biblio- graphic fields. When a match is found, merge the bibliographic and authority data. 6. Repeat steps 2 through 5 for every field in the bibliographic record that qualifies for conversion. 7. Scan the bibliographic record for fields that might be converted using the machine-manipulation pattern matching and compare these fields with the various patterns. Should a match occur, manipulate the string accordingly. 8. If a record has been converted, add the 040 field if it is not already present in the record; or, edit the 040 field to include a subfield d indicating that OCLC has modified the record. 9. Repeat the entire process for every record in the Online Union Cata- log. Design Method for Conversion The method presented a complex design. Because it required indexing fields not normally indexed by the OCLC system, the search keys would have to be specified. Also, the 130,430, 530 uniform and variant title fields in the name authority file would have to be indexed and the keys defined. This could be done by adding the search keys to the existing name index file , which contains indexes to the LC name authority file , or by creating a separate file. Adding to the existing name index file would result in incon- sistent data within the file , mixed names and titles, and, more important, interference with the online system . Using a separate file would mean more maintenance, necessitate slightly more machine space, and require two searches to cover all search possibilities for derived name authority search keys. (It should be noted that currently online system users cannot search the name authority file using a derived title search key.) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT Project software design defined activity along the two lines of conver- sion, corresponding to the functional specifications: conversion of name 168 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 headings by matching bibliographic headings with headings in the LC name authority file , and conversion of name and uniform title headings through machine manipulation of existing bibliographic data. Conversion by matching name authority headings was broken down into subactivities as specified by cases 1 through 4 in the functional specifications. Conver- sion by machine manipulation was subdivided into: 1. Conversion of conference name headings. 2. Conversion of uniform titles-music. 3. Conversion of uniform titles-general. 4 . Conversion of form subheadings. 5. Conversion of general material designators. 6. Conversion of "United States" and "Great Britain" abbreviations. The entire conversion was designed to be directed by a series of run- time parameters that specified which subactivities were to be performed, whether the conversion was to be run concurrently with the online system , the names of files to be used (including audit and checkpoint files), and the range of OCLC numbers to be processed. The run-time parameters al- lowed multiple processes (programs) to be run simultaneously, with each process running against a different part of the Online Union Catalog. The design also included use of an audit trail, where a record is written to a file every time a change is made to a bibliographic field. The trail consisted of the OCLC number and the type of subactivity applied to the field . Conversion restarts were specified to be automatically controlled through a checkpoint file. Checkpoint records in this file contained the latest OCLC number processed, total number of records processed, total number of records, and time stamps to calculate elapsed time. To effect a restart, the conversion was simply rerun and the checkpoint file handled file positioning to ensure against duplicate reprocessing of records. An overriding development priority was to design the software to be flexible enough to handle both the conversion of the Online Union Catalog and the conversion of incoming MARC tapes. In this way, pre-AACR2 headings would be converted (if they met the specifications) before being loaded into the database. Growth Requirements At the same time that the coding began, the project staff studied the design to determine its effects on the existing system. Additional disk space was projected based on the estimate of bibliographic records to be con- verted. Based on past research of field lengths, project staff estimated that 66.42 bytes (characters) would be added to each converted record . Based on earlier samplings by the Library of Congress, it was assumed that 17 percent of the database would be converted (a figure that turned out low). Therefore, 79.04 additional megabytes would be used. Because an addi- tional 13 percent of this would be needed for file management, the total AACR2: OCLCIBROWN 169 requirement for the expansion of the bibliographic file was projected as 89.3 megabytes. The bibliographic index files would also expand with the conversion. Not only would the old index keys be retained but new keys would be added. It was estimated that 4 percent of the bibliographic records would generate new keys (duplicate keys are not added to the files), for an addi- tional requirement of ten megabytes. It was also calculated that six mega- bytes would be required for the new name authority index file. The total additional space required for the expansion of the bibliographic file, the expansion of the bibliographic index file, and the addition of the name authority index file was thus 105.3 megabytes. This space would have to be available before the conversion could be run. Testing As coding progressed into the testing phase, it became obvious to the project staff that existing testing methods were not well suited to testing the conversion software. Therefore, a utility program was developed to enter bibliographic records in a test file using techniques similar to those used by the online system. These test bibliographic records included both good and bad data, and records that should and should not be converted. An attempt was made to cover as many situations as practicable. For example, a given record might have multiple fields that would convert and, within a given field, multiple conversions might apply. Images of the converted test rec- ords were manually compared with the original entry. At the same time, the accuracy of the audit trail was verified. The conversion process was tested using a utility debugger to simulate error conditions that did not occur as a result of other tests. Changes to the online system code were tested using a simulator. All testing and development work was done on a development machine. Calibration tests were made on the Data Base Processor (DBP), the database management portion of the online system. The calibrations were taken in a stand-alone environment to calculate the length of time needed to run the conversion and to test the conversion software on a larger data- base than the test files. At the time of the calibration tests, the LC name authority file held about 250,000 records; it was not distributed across the various disk packs but rather restricted to a fairly small number of packs. Between the time of the calibration and the conversion run, the LC name authority file grew to 450,000 records and was distributed evenly across the disk packs on the DBP. According to the calibration tests, the conver- sion to AACR2 was expected to take ninety-two hours, with sixteen copies of the software processing different ranges of the bibliographic file. The calibration tests also estimated that 28 percent of the bibliographic records would be converted, much higher than originally estimated. After the calibration tests, the software underwent quality assurance tests. The conversion software was run against test files on the DBP to 170 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 verify the conversion process and to provide the data for the next phase of quality assurance, the regression test. During regression testing, each sub- system in the online system, with new software changes included, was tested by OCLC staff. Additional tests were made of normal work flows to ensure that all functions that previously worked still functioned correctly and all functions that should not work still did not work. No problems were uncovered during these tests and no software changes were made. CONVERSION OF THE OCLC ONLINE UNION CATALOG The conversion was designed to run either in a stand-alone mode or concurrently with the online system. The major drawback to running in a stand-alone mode was that the online system would be unavailable to users for some period of time. However, this was not deemed as great a problem as running the conversion while the online system was operational. With the online system operational, the conversion would have to "lock" the bibliographic record as it is processed, thus potentially affecting system performance. For example, if a user wanted to retrieve a record that was locked, he or she would have to wait until the record was unlocked. Since theAACR2 conversion process locks the bibliographic record when it reads it and keeps it locked until the conversion for that record is complete, the record could stay locked for several seconds. Before the conversion could be run, various files had to be created on the DBP . The bibliographic file on the DBP is partitioned across twenty-nine disk packs, each pack holding 250,000 records within a range of OCLC control numbers. The start-up commands and parameters were put into one file for execution. One audit file was created for each process to be run. The conversion began running with sixteen processes . Ten of the processes were run against two disk packs, with four processes running against a single disk pack. At the time of conversion, the DBP contained fourteen CPUs; twelve of the processes ran alone in a CPU, and two processes ran in each of two CPUs . As soon as the conversion began, on December 13, 1981, at 4:00a.m., another calibration test was done to estimate completion time. The results showed that the file redistribution that was expected to lower the time estimates significantly had not produced the expected result. Attempts were made to explain the discrepancies, but it was concluded that the processes simply were slow. The 110 rate and CPU utilization rate were high. Based on these calibration test findings, it was decided to start up additional processes so that one process would be run on a single disk pack, with two processes per CPU. The original sixteen processes had to be stopped, the range of OCLC numbers processed redistributed, and addi- tional audit files created. Twenty-eight processes were then started up. All records in the twenty-ninth disk pack, records with control numbers greater than seven million, were to be handled by the twenty-eighth process. AACR2: OCLC!BROWN 171 The conversion ran smoothly until some of the processes encountered a problem they could not handle. The conversion was then stopped. Because the problem was not immediately obvious, the records being processed at the time of the error were skipped and the conversion restarted using the checkpoint file. The problem was later identified-if the converted field held more than 255 characters, the length of the field was incorrectly calculated-and software was corrected. The audit files were saved up to the point of the correction to identify the problem records. Using these audit files to find records that had been converted, a preconversion copy of the bibliographic file was scanned for records that would need correction. Fifty-six records were identified and sent to the Bibliographic Mainte- nance Section, User Services Division, of OCLC for manual correction. From this point on, the conversion ran smoothly but slowly, processing an average of 28,500 records per hour. The checkpoint files were read every two hours to monitor the speed of the conversion. Because this moni- toring in itself proved to be quite cumbersome, a program was written to format the checkpoint data for easier readability. The resultant reports showed a breakdown by process of how much of the conversion had been done, the rate at which it had been done, and how much remained . By using these reports, as a process would finish, another slower process could be divided and started up to balance the load and finish faster. Periodi- cally, converted records were written on hard-copy printers for OCLC staff to use to check the accuracy of the conversion. The checkpoint reports showed that 39 percent of the records in the Online Union Catalog were being converted to AACR2. This percentage was much higher than anticipated by the calibration tests, and conse- quently the disk space needed for expansion was more than anticipated. Files not used by the conversion were deleted and index files were moved to other disk packs to allow the bibliographic files to expand. The last record was converted and all processes stopped by 10:45 a .m. on December 21, after 246 hours of work. The bibliographic file and its indexes were reorganized, slack space squeezed out, and all files that had been deleted were put back. The online system was made available to users at 7:00a.m., December 23, 1980. A total of 3,704,440 changes had been made on more than 2, 767,000 records. Table 4 lists the number of fields converted for each activity. SUMMARY Some records could not be converted because: (1) the data within the field were incorrect or inadequate, or (2) the record would have exceeded field number and record length limits. OCLC has made a continuing effort since the conversion to correct problems. The most difficult and numerous problems involved the LC name authority file. In some cases the data within the authority records are incorrect, while in other instances multiple authority records exist. The 172 ]ournalofLibraryAutomation Vol.14/3 September1981 1'a ble 4. Fields Converted for Each Activ ity Activity Mistagged corporate na me fie lds Direct AACR 2 match Match where AACR2 form is e lsewhe re in the a uth ority record Ma tc h on LC prefe rred form Conversion of conference name headings Conversion of uniform titles- music Conversion of uniform titles-general Conversion of form headings Conversion of general material designators Conversion of " United States" and " Great Brita in" abbreviations Nu mber of Fields Co nverted 1,268 2, 685. 211 614,333 23,611 96,382 68,905 2,263 3 1,278 49,978 13 1,211 conversion used the first matching authority record it encountered. The most desirable record, as it turned out, was sometimes not the first encoun- tered . A series of eight fixes was programatically applied to the OLUC to correct problems, using either the audit file or database scans to select the record to be corrected. Fixes 1 and2 were similar in that each was the result of a bad authority record and the original form was restored . Headings converted to "Voice of America (Radio program)" were changed back to " United States. Dept . of State" by fix 1. "United States Bureau of the Census . Census of construction industries (1972)" was changed back to "United States. Bureau of the Census" by fix 2. Fixes 3 through 7 were needed to correct programming problems, omissions in the functional specifications, and changes in LC procedures . Subfields x, y, and z were deleted from 600 fields by the conversion. Fix 3 moved the subfields back into the 600 fields. Fix 4 reordered the e and q subfields in personal name headings that had been moved into the field in the wrong order by the conversion. The conversion had supplied a subfield g between the word "Manuscript" and the following text in 110 fields. Fix 5 changed subfield coding g to n when LC began using the n . Fixes 6 and 7 restored some fields to the original form, which had been unintentionally converted. Fix 6 corrected form subheadings, and fix 7 corrected music uniform titles. "Constitutional" had been treated as " Constitution," i.e., it was deleted from the field. Some terms within music uniform titles were to have been pluralized. However, the conversion did not differentiate be- tween terms needing pluralization and those that were already plural . " Masses" ended up as "Masseses. " Fix 7 corrected this problem . Forty-six headings, including Chopin, Shakespeare, and Beethoven , were identified as unconverted headings, resulting from the multiple au- thority record problem . Fix 8 adjusted the name authority file so the desired record would be the first encountered, scanned the OLUC to select records containing the forty-six headings, and ran those selected records through the conversion process. Approximately 80,000 records were con- verted by fix 8. AACR2: OCLCIBROWN 173 Other problems were expected to filter in, although the stream has slowed to a trickle. These problems continue to be dealt with by OCLC librarians. On the whole, problems were expected, planned for, and han- dled in a timely fashion. OCLC originally envisioned the conversion of its large database to encompass 8 percent of the total records online; 39 per- cent of the records were converted, and they were available to OCLC users before the January 1, 1981, deadline set by the library community. Georgia L. Brown is manager, Cataloging Section, in the Development Division of OCLC. 
5291	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012125101 174 OCLC's Database Conversion: A User's Perspective Arnold WAJENBERG and Michael GORMAN: University of Illinois Library, Urbana-Champaign This article describes the experience of a large academic library with head- ings in the OCLC database that have been converted to AACR2 form. It also considers the use of LC authority records in the database. Specific problems are discussed, including some resulting from LC practices. Nev- ertheless, the presence of the authority records, and especially the conver- sion of about 40 percent of the headings in the bibliographic file, has been of great benefit to the library, significantly speeding up the cataloging operation. An appendix contains guidelines for the cataloging staff of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in the interpretation and use of LC authority records and converted headings. The library of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is the largest library of a publicly supported academic institution, and the fifth largest library of any kind, in the United States. In the last year for which figures are available (1979-80), the library added more than 180,000 vol- umes representing more than 80,000 titles. The library is currently cata- loging more than 8,000 titles a month; more than 80 percent of the records for these titles are derived from the OCLC database (Library of Congress and OCLC member copy). Because our cataloging is of such volume and because we are actively engaged in the development of an online catalog, we decided to use the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) earlier than the "official" starting date of January 1981. We began to use AACR2 for all our cataloging in November 1979. This early use of AACR2 has led to two consequences. First, we now have OCLC archival tapes represent- ing about 150,000 titles cataloged according to AACR2. This represents a valuable and continuously growing bibliographic resource that can be used without modification in our future online catalog. Second, we have a considerable and unique collective experience in the practical application of AACR2. The minor problems of working with AACR2 in an AACRl Manuscript received June 1981; accepted June 1981. OCLC's Database Conversion/W AJENBERG and GORMAN 175 plus superimposition environment (until January 1981) were more than compensated for by these two positive results. OCLC CONVERSION With our practical background in the use of AACR2 and our continuing need for a high volume of cataloging, we were, naturally, keenly interested in the (to our mind) progressive decision of OCLC to use machine match- ing techniques to convert the form of name and title headings in its database-the Online Union Catalog (OLUC) - to conform to AACR2. We recognized the limitations of the project, essentially those defined by the capabilities of the computer for matching character by character, but felt that this was a major venture that would, when completed, produce major benefits. What follows is an assessment and analysis of the results of the project in the light of the experience of a library that is dedicated to achieving high- volume, quality cataloging. We deal with the LC authority file as well as the OCLC headings because the LC file was the basis of the project and because, from the practical point of view, the two files are complementary aspects of the same service. The greatest value of the conversion, and its greatest claim to unique- ness, lies in the sheer size of the project in terms of headings checked and changed. Our catalogers, and others who work with current materials, estimate that more than 40 percent of the name and title fields we use in our current cataloging have a w subfield indicating that the name or title has been changed to its AACR2 form. Since OCLC estimates that 39 percent of the name and title fields were affected by the conversion, it would appear that the headings that were changed are the headings that we are more likely to use. In other words, the project has brought us more than a 39 percent benefit . We are also greatly encouraged to find that the number of headings coded dn (meaning AACR2 "compatible," or, more bluntly, LC's modifications of the provisions of AACR2) is a very tiny minority of all converted headings. This means that when, in the future, this policy of "compatibility" is lessened or dropped, there will be rela- tively few changes to be made. LC AUTHORITY RECORDS We also benefit from the presence of LC authority records in the OCLC database when we establish headings that are new to our catalogs. There is one problem with the use of these records, which was revealed by a sample of new University of Illinois authority records (see table 1). This sample of 368 new University of Illinois records reveals that LC authority records are available relatively rarely for new headings. This is not surprising as these new headings are established most often as part of the process of original cataloging, which , almost without exception , occurs in our library only when OCLC copy is not available. It seems to us to be unfortunate that 176 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 Septem her 1981 Table 1. Recently Established Headings No Record Record Record Authority Coded Coded Coded Record c• d* n• Given name headi ngs 13 5 0 1 Single surname headings 212 26 2 2 (Number of this category with (132) (7) (1) (2) initial isms ex- panded in parentheses) Compound surname headings 29 12 0 (Number of this category with (2) (0) (0) (0) initialisms ex- panded in parentheses) Single surnames plus 3 0 0 0 uniform titles General corporate 34 12 0 0 headings General headings with 7 2 0 0 subdivisions Government headings 4 2 0 Total 302 59 2 5 *Key: c-in subfield w, indicates an AACR2 form , as established by Library of Congress. d- in subfield w, indicates an AACR2 " compatible" fo rm, as established b y Library of Congress. n-in subfield w, indicates that the input operator could not determine which set of rules governed the form of the heading. member libraries cannot contribute their authority records to the OCLC database. Our experience suggests that the online authority file would grow very rapidly if that were the case. To put it another way, the OCLC conversion provides an enormous and valuable resource of AACR2 head- ings. It did not, and could not, provide new authority information. OCLC will be complementing its valuable work in upgrading the retrospective file when it devises and implements a scheme for making available author- ity records for new headings derived from a wide range of sources. Since so many headings were converted to AACR2, it may seem churlish and un- grateful to complain that more was not done. The following descriptions are not intended to form part of an attack on OCLC's project or to mini- mize its achievement. FORM SUBDIVISIONS The project failed to delete form subdivisions (such as "Liturgy and ritual" and "Laws, statutes, etc.") from added entry headings and subjects. The program correctly deleted them from main entry headings, but the inconsistencies resulting from their retention elsewhere makes the job of ensuring consistency in a large copy cataloging operation that much harder. OCLC's Database Conversion/W AJENBERG and GORMAN 177 This inconsistency in treatment is illustrated by examples 1 and 2. Example 1 originally was entered under 110 10 Illinois. k Laws, statutes, etc . The program correctly changed the main entry heading to 110 10 Illinois and added a subfield w, coded mn (them indicates a conversion by ma- chine to theAACR2 form; then means "not applicable," and indicates that there is no title element in the heading) . Example 2 has as main entry 110 20 Illinois Community College Board but has as added entry 710 10 Illinois. k Laws, statutes, etc. t Illinois public community college act Under AACR2, the subfield k, "Laws, statutes, etc.," should not be present in the heading. Unfortunately, the program looked only at 110 fields, not at 710 fields, and so the heading was not corrected in the conversion. It must therefore be edited manually by every library that uses the record. PROGRAM PROBLEMS Our direct use of the online authority file is somewhat hampered by the programming oversight that makes it impossible to search uniform titles. Of course, uniform titles that are accompanied by a 100 field (notably in music) can be retrieved by an author search, but those without 100 fields (anonymous classics, sacred scriptures, etc.) are virtually inaccessible. There were a handful of specific instances in which the specifications were inadequate or the programs seem to have malfunctioned. These re- sulted in some oddities such as the conversion of the subject "Jesus Christ" to "Sermon on the Mount" and the (surely not politically motivated) switch from "U.S. Department of State" to "Voice of America." OCLC has been scrupulous in identifying and publicizing these errors. They are few in number and, though conspicuous, have rarely caused us many problems. As can be seen, the problems caused by what we see as failures on OCLC's part are few and affect few cataloging circumstances. There- maining problems either result from the decisions and actions of the Li- brary of Congress and, hence, are wholly or mostly out of OCLC's control, or are of such a nature that they cannot be solved by computer matching techniques without extensive editorial intervention. Whether such human intervention is possible and, if possible, cost-beneficial is not for us to say, though it must be recognized that to transform the OLUC to pure AACR2 conformity would be a herculean task . That task would undoubtedly in- volve many of the hundreds of thousands of records that are seldom or never used. OCLC's Database Conversion!W AJENBERG and GORMAN 179 SERIALS The most troublesome example of the kind of problem that cannot be resolved by machine matching is that of serials. The OCLC conversion project was, quite properly, not concerned with choice of entry (AACR2, chapter 21). This seems a simple and clearly defined decision. When we come to consider serials, this clear distinction between choice and form of entry becomes blurred. The major change brought about by AACR2 (rule 21.1B2) is that many serials previously entered under the heading for a corporate body are to be entered under their titles. In fact, the great majority of serials will now be entered under title. The upshot of this is that the citation (or form of heading) for a serial changes from, for example, National Society for Medical Research. Bulletin to Bulletin I National Society for Medical Research The restriction of the OCLC project to forms of heading means that most serials in OLUC will be found under headings the form of which may be correct but are inappropriate for citations. This problem, which, of course, cannot be resolved by computer matching, has led to difficulties for us in copy cataloging, because a degree of expertise is needed to apply AACR2 rule 21.1B2 and to distinguish between the majority of serials where the 110 field should be changed to a 710 and the small minority where the 110 field should remain as it is. Since most serials are to be entered under their titles, it occurs to us to suggest that the OCLC conver- sion project could have changed all 110 fields in records identified as relating to serials to 710 . By that method, the majority of serials would be correctly entered and the potential for mistaken citations greatly reduced. MULTIPLE PERSONAL NAMES Persons who write under more than one name (real names, pseudonyms, etc.) and who are not primarily identified by one of those names (AACR2 22.2C3) pose a special problem. Under the provisions of AACR2, such persons are to be represented in the catalog (and the database) under two or more names. Despite the fact that "Creasey, John" and "Marric, J. J ." and" Ashe, Gordon" are all names used by the same man, they will appear as separate headings from now on. Under AACRl plus superimposition one of those names ("Creasey, John") was used as the heading for all works. Within the confines of the OCLC project, there was no method available to distribute the various records under the various headings. It occurs to us that some method based on matching the name found in the 245 $c subfield with the 100 field might, at least, have resulted in the project recognizing probable cases calling for multiple headings. For example: 100 a Hibbert, Eleanor 245 a Bride of Satan I $c Jean Plaidy 180 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 could alert the system to a case for change. We recognize that this would call for more sophisticated computer matching techniques and that it would call for editorial intervention. A good example of the problem this has caused for us is the case of the Danish author Karen Blixen. She wrote under that name and under the pseudonyms Isak Dinesen and Pierre An- drezel. Records in the database that were added before 1981 will use "Blixen, Karen, 1885-1962" as the heading for all her works including those published under pseudonyms. Since the Blixen heading is a perfectly acceptable AACR2 form, the conversion program codes it as an AACR2 heading, which it is for the Blixen books but is not for those published under other names. The authority record (example 3) includes a note identifying both pseud- onyms as valid AACR2 headings, but, of course, the programs as written cannot interpret such a note and match them with appropriate records. CORPORATE NAME CHANGES Corporate bodies present a similar problem when one is dealing with those that have changed their name. Until1967, the Library of Congress used the latest name of such bodies with see references from the earlier names. Both editions of AACR require that works issued under the earlier names be entered under those names and works issued under the latest name be entered under that name, the various names being connected by see also references. However, records in the OLUC for earlier works cata- loged before 1967 will show those works entered under a later name. FOR BIB RECORD ENTER t>1b DISPLAY RECD :o: END R~c: stat : n Entrd : 80 11 :::1 U!;eooj : 80 1121 T·,p~ : = B1b lvl : G~vt A9n : ~ang : Suurce : ~· t tt:o : 004 InLC: :.. En-: lvl : n H~ad ref: a H~ad : c•: I i~ ;;\ d s t ol. t •J s : ;1_ N-3-n~~.? : o:t Mod h:~ c : A•J t h status : a 1 0 10 n 7~0077 1 9 '2 1(•0 10 Bl1 ~~'' t:-:·~r:"no d t:::=:3C.- J '=~62 . w r.001790::1~-:t.·'l.C.:t.nn----n r.n n :..; 4(H) 10 Andrb'i-::'1?1· PJ."'r' \!' w rp;.Jo:::790::15a•:Ht.snn----nnnd 4 4 0c"i t ll D1 n,~ '='1::n. ls·"l ~ w nl"l•) 37"''021 ~;,:toln-tnr.----nr.r.d 5 /;..(.7 Th.: f-(.•11 r.• w lnq Ps~ •Jd•:•n•R•S. ~r i.· val l •j AA(R 2 h~adlrt:a~ : a Ar.,jr- be,;:el, r" l ·:?r 1"' €'. u:::::5- l Ctt,~·~ .a D l l1(•!5-er. ~ I !.•-:\1 1 1f::35- J '="162 w n 0047902 15>i<:Ln0l nr. -·--- r•nr.n NO HOLDING~. I N UIU - FOR IIOLDH~C·. EN TER .1h DEPRESS DISF'LAY RECD ~·END F'\~ o: r t .:... t: ,- En t r d: 7507 11 Used : 8 10725 T,pe : ·"i:L Btb lvl : m C• o vt r ~•JI• : _ L~r,9 : ..:tn9 ::::.;:, tJ rce : IJ I ll•Js.: R~::Pr: [I•·= 1·11: r C.:onf P•Jb: _t-rr. : __ Oat tp : _ M/F/B : _ _ _ Ind ;.. : _Mod rec : F~s.ts•: t-.r: _ C·:.or.t : D-?~·: : lr:.t lvl: 0dt~~ = 196:?.. _ l 0 1 0 63-11618 2 040 ~ ORL 1 OC.L ~ ~.~: . ::: 0'::·0 0 PZ 3. 86;2(126 b El • 4 0~..,2 Fl •- 5 09:.· t; 6 04.;, tiiUU 7 100 10 Bl1xen ~ Ka~ en , d 188~ ·1 962 w e n :::: _::.q•:; 1 Ehr·.:-n9ar-d c (b·,·) 1~<1 1 D1 nEs.-?n [,. .. :-~ ... :Jd) Q 260 0 New Yor~. bRandon. House. c fi~~~J 10 "30•) 111 "· c 22 err •• Example3 OCLC,s Database Conversion/W AJENBERG and GORMAN 181 Because those later names are valid AACR2 headings in terms of their form , they are coded en (i.e., AACR2 validated) by the program , even though they may not be the right headings for the records to which they are attached. A good example of this problem is that of the "Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod ." An earlier name of this religious body is "Deutsche Evangelisch-Lutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio, und Andern Staaten." Unfortunately, the authority record (example 4) does not even show that the earlier name is valid according to AACR2. The conversion program, on encountering the earlier name used as a heading, would change it to the later name and code that form as being the AACR2 heading. Another example of the problem is: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Interna- tional Department This is identified as the AA C R2 form (example 5) but, in fact, the depart- ment has changed its name to "International Division." LC PRACTICE Another problem we have encountered is that of the literal-mindedness of the computer programs in matching like with like. This problem is compounded by inconsistencies in cataloging practice resulting from vari- ations in LC cataloging practice. An example of this problem is that of the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe. The heading "Achebe, Chinua" is marked as being AACR2 despite the fact that the authority record shows ~;.:rt:oen 1 ot .. ~ FUR f< I B RECO:.ORD ENTE:f~ to1b OI'SF'LAY RECO SEND f;:.,.,: ~ t~ t : 11 F r.t r· d: :::(' 1 ~~:::::: 1.1•3-.:o•j! 801~::.2:3 T ·tPe! :;:: 8Jb lvl : C'o:•vt A9n : L~l.n9 : 'i-t:••Jr•:.: : ·; lt E- : 0 11 l'nLC : .:;:~ E: n•: lvl : r• H e.]_ d 1 ...:.·t : a H~a. d: c I •) 10 :<)•)57t)65 :.: 11•.) .:-l~· ' • • ,~··.;t r, ,-hur•:h--11J.SS<:••Jr J :_::..·, .,-l( .. j , t LI' n(l(ol:::(lll(l~:::;.ao3•:~.r • r•----r,r.r+n 3 4 J. O .:•: L '~ '' '=' <E.· I l.•: ·!il Lutt, i·r.:s. n :.··,·r ... :ocl of Ml ~!•)tJ r l, Oht•)• ar,d Oth~;..:r· ·~;tat_~ w rH1 0:2~:(1! 1 't•S.;:t.-~ lo•ln r,--·--nr•na 4 .. 11 0 .·;:· f'll S!-<:• u rl S ·,nod w nc"J(•3801105aanann----~~~.r.a ~. 41•) 2 t) (i(·r·m.;.n Ml$:S.•)tJrt -:. .• nno1 u.. lt0d4:.:;:0 ll ('l':j d.-1.n;}nn -----nnn.'l. 6 410 .:·o Oe u t ~·:he Ev;:In9~ ll ~·~ h -L•.Jtt'. cot- t s•:. h~ :~. -.,r, (I(J.;? V(H• t'1t. ss •:•UIJ . • Oht •.• und AndePn ·~;t·.l·l.t~n 1.1.1 nf.•f)S:::0 1 1 0'3·.l·lr•-Lnn--- - nnr.-3. st~aten w n00680J 1 0~~anan~----nnn~ 8 4 10 20 Ger man Evan9Cl t c al Luthard.rl s .n o d o f Mt SSOUf' ll Ohl vt •nd Other St~ t e5 w n00780 1 1 05a~nann----- nnna Scr~?e-n ~ o f 2 10 5 10 ~0 Evan9~ltcal Luthera n s.nod J c al confer~n ce o f Nor th Amertca w n000801105aan~nn----nnn~ 11 667 AACR 1 f or m: a Lyth e r a n Churc h --Mt sso urt SYnod w nO 1080 1 1 05aolnann----nn r.r. 1 2 1;,./-.7 Th .:- f·:·l l ow t n 9 f'Jbd t VlSl•.•r• has n"t t•eo:n us e-•1 as a h~adtr,g : a Lutheran Church--Mlssourt S .nad . Ft sca l Off t ce w n0 1 180 1 105a anann ----nnnn Example4 182 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 •:; ,~ r c-~r, 1 •:O f :: FOR BIB REC(Ifi[, ENTER ~1b [I! '~PLAY RE U J ·_.nm R~=-( ~ t o:tt : ·= l=n t rd : 80 1 ~'•)"1 t.k,.-,j : :7: 1 nr:;31 ToP!.:'! :: Btb lv1 : ,.,_,vt ~~~r,: L-J. r•~~ = ·.·•.•IJr •..:€: : ·:.l t·? ! (loY/ Irtl. (! r\ f: r••- l vl : r, Ht}·l•1 ~-~ f~ l H<:·td! ~·~~ d 5 tatu s : ~ N~n.~: d Mud f@c: Aut~ ~ l ~ tu ~ : ~ 1 0 1 0 ,,. 80 l u:.Z..; l7 :.:. llt'J 20 r· r,. t n·b~ • •.• f C<:•rTIIT•~?r ( <.? .:•f t r. v ur, lt <::·d ·~. l -lt:·~ ··· t ,'\m ~ 1 •--3 . t· J r.tt-r na t t•:,nal DeFt. w r.OO t ;;;() LO::l.:io'3•~·.in r•- ---,, ,,,..,,, ;: 41 0 _::o C t.-3.mb E-" r o t C •:o n.nu:o r ·•:e •:Of 1 h~ Ur. tt ~ j "=; t .lt.:.~ .:•f f lnt<~r l• ~ . to F(t l t.' J~n r.:.:. rr.n.~rct?-r"ore t 9r, F' c•lt•: , D~Pt . w ,.,·,o.:::?.O l 0.2 l.ao:ln~t+r• - · ~r.r•IH 4 41(1 ,::(1 (h~mb ~ r .:· f C O fl'i lll - r('\? ,·,f th <.? l.l l tL t \'· d ~- t ,tc··~ r)f. r. n, e.. rt • ~ . lo Commerc~ DePt . ~~ n00480 1 0~1~ana nn----nrlnd (:. 510 2 0 (h•lmt• ..:- r r'l f C(•rnn,._:. r ,··~ ,-, f thi' IJr,J t ~d :::. !~t :·=- •' t ;::. rr.~:- r· J • .'}. I• l nte~n~tton•l Rel~tton s De Pt . w n00580102 laanann--·--nnn~ S..:r ~~n 2 •.•f 2 7 1_-,1_,7 Th e f•:.ll <:!lLll n q h~.t.Jdlna t (•f th i• fo atlL .~r flo3Uaf' J r.~ \.a ltd AA( R .;;. head1n9 : a Chan1b er ut C o:•rMt.cro:e of th~ Un1l e •j ·:. tat -e· ~ (1f fHr1<.•r 1•>'3. . rori?l91• Commerce-Fc•rc~ I'Ein F'olL c, [I~ Pt. w n(u_l~.:?o l ').:· l ·'l.-3.f1~rtn --- -nflrar' 8 67(1 Ar, t ntr odu·:tt or. t.~· do1n9 LffiF'•Ht •• • 19 4 7- w n007:~:t) t 02' 1 aananr.---- nn n n Example S that he was born in 1930. LC's announced policy is to give dates "whenever the information is readily available," but only for headings established after December 1980. This restriction creates inconsistencies in LC prac- tice that are hard to predict. The result is that we often establish a personal heading with a date, only to discover that LC is not using it. The definition of " readily available" is clearly elastic and does not provide clear guidance to other libraries. It is irritating and occasionally burdensome but does not create a quantitatively serious problem . One unfortunate result of LC's machine conversion of its authority file to AACR2 forms has been to make notes on the authority records harder to understand. This is because only headings and references were changed; notes were not affected. This means that the wording of the notes may refer to a state of affairs that has altered as a result of the AACR2 conversion. Example 6 is the authority record for theAACR2 form of heading for the University of Illinois prior to the change of name in 1966. The history note (field 667) incorrectly says that the heading for works published before 1966 is "Illinois. University" (the pre-AACR2 form) . Since the AACR2 form as established by LC looks very much like the new name, "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign," the authority card is very difficult to understand. Nothing short of revising the note, and/or the use by LC of a less confusing qualifier than "(Urbana-Champaign campus)," will make the authority record intelligible. An example of how LC practice has affected the OCLC program ad- versely is in the area of the so-called compatible headings. These are in- stances of when LC has chosen to depart from the provisions of AACR2 for one reason or another. Leaving aside the utility and morality of such a policy, it presents a considerable problem to those of us who use OCLC OCLC's Database Conversion/W AJENBERG and GORMAN 183 records. The example that follows is of the worst of these "compatible" practices. LC has decided to ignore the common form of name for persons who are not "famous or published under an American imprint." 1 Thus, the writer P. C. Boeren would be recorded as "Boeren, P . C. (Petrus Cornelis), 1909- " under the provisions of AACR2, but, because Boeren is neither famous nor American, the "compatible" heading will be "Boeren, Petrus Cornelis, 1909- ." This heading is not acceptable in an AACR2 catalog. Scr-e-er. 1 Qf 4 FOR BIB RECORD ENTER btb DISPLAY RECD SENLI Rec stat: c Entrd : 801122 Us~d : 810718 fype: z Bib lvl : ~ Govt A9r : Lang: Source: Site: 038 InL~: ~ Enc lvl: n H@ad r~f: a He~d: ~ ~ie~d status : a Name : a Mod rec : Auth ~t~tus: a 1 010 n 7904c•l04 2 110 20 Untvt:-rsit-.~ of IlltnC•lS <Urt-~na-(hamPal911 ~.o .:jmPus) w n029801115aac-l.nn----nnrll• 3 410 20 Illtnois Industrtal Untvers1t. w n0027?08~9aananll----n~na 4 410 :20 Unlverstt. of Illir•OJ.c; w rt0 '?7800::: 17aanar.r,----r•rtn;;J 5 4 1010 Illinois. b lJfllVf!fSltY. ttJ no::::o:::(1\l l5a .Jaa.r·u----nnn.J. 6 41 0 10 Ur· b ar.a <Ill . ) . b UnJver!_;"tt-.. c•f Tlllr••:•lS {l lrt•-:l.n.:l--·(h.amf ·.:& l~n ~amPus) w n031810616~dn~nn----nnna 7 410 10 1111no1s . t• Un1vers.1t. (IJrl•ana--ChantPal!=lr• .:~ntP&..I!) w n038810616aanann----nnn~ 8 510 20 UnJver-slt-·, of Jlltn•w•lS at Chtca~..:.· Ctl"' cle w n00779t')8~~~~-:~r•"-t~n---­ nnna 9 510 20 UniversitY of Tllinuis ~t the Medical Cent~r w n008700829aar•a~n-­ - -nnna Scr·een 2 '='f 4 10 510 20 llntve-rs1t ·, ~>t 11 510 20 Un1ver~1t. nrtna Ill tnot~ \~Ystem) w n00Q7Q082Qaanaen----nnn~ J lltn.:•is at Ur bana.-ChamPa.t9n w n0~:2810616aar.ae-n---- 12 510 ·io lirnverc;.Jt •• t Illtno ls at C(•l'l91"'toss Circle, Cht•:a~o w n0:3:.::81061 6a:lrtae r,-- ,tt,;i·• Scl"'e€-n 3 of 4 13 665 The Illin~1 5 Industrial Un1v~r~1t~ wa s ch~rtered in 1867. Jr, 1885 the name wa~ cha~~ ~ d to UnJ,·erslt~ of Ill1nnts and in 1966 to UntversttY of Illtn ots at Urban~-Ch~mFat9n . a Worls b~ th1s bod v Publt~hed befor~ the chan9E" of narr,~ 1n 1 <"~66 ar~ found und~r a Un1ver~1t.· t:•f llltr• OlS CUrt•ana-ChamPal9n camPus) a WorJs P~bl1she~ ~ft~r th~t ch~n9e of n~m~ ~r efound under~ Untverstt' of 11lln01t- at Urband - ChaffiPal9n . a The Ch i c ago Undergraduate Dtvls:.ion of the l_ lniver~slt·-. .,f Ill1n01S wa5 ~stabll !, hed 1n 1946 . Ir. 1.:-,~.:: th€- naffi~ was chan9ed to Untver-slt( o)f lllllll)lS at c,.n9r es.s C lrCll?, Lhl•:ol.9o), and in 1964 t..--. UnlVforsltl of IlllnC•lS:. at ChJC.:l~O:• C1 rr:.l~. a WorJ ~· t.··.- th1 s t•r.•dl Published befor t: the char•9t:- t.:tF nam.:- 1r1 1':'64 ~.r· ·-~ fc•ur.d und~r a Ur,1V fi:r·5t' of IlliO•)lS at C:on~_.ro?ss C'trclt?~ Chica~·' · a Wor• ~ P•lt• lJ ·_;t,t:"•J :.1fter that char.~e of name are found und€-r a Untvers t t ~, of 111 inoi£ at (t,Jc-a.9(1 Ctrcle • .a Jr, 196(:, the llnlverstt. c· f Illlnot s- at Urbana-(h-arr•P.aJ~n .. the l.lr,Jv ~~ r4;.Jt, f•f l11Jnt:•ts at Screen 4 t;:. t 4 13 Ccont> Chi•: a9o Cir·cl€, artd the Univer·sit -..-· .:·f IllJr .. :.ts at th E- t-tedto:·a.l Center~ o1e-r·f=' reorganized into equal administr·ative ca~Puses with1n a universitY s . stem with a •:entral admintstr·attve staff in llr· ba,r,a . a Wor•-s P•Jbllshed bY th~s~ b(•dles after the reorgantzatton tn 1966 are found under a Un1v~rs1tv of llltnots at Urbana-ChamPat9n . a Un1vers1tY of 11 l1no1s at Ch1ca9o C trcle. a Un1vers1tY ot lll1nots at the Medical Center . a Untver·st t. of llltr.ots (Srstem) a SUBJECT ENTRY: Wor• s about these bod1es are ~nte-red •Jnder th ~?- name o:·r· n>3m~s tn e .:..::: 1stence d•Jrln~ the 1ate5-t Period fc•r wht•:t. siJt•Je:t c.·.vera9-e ts 91V~r.. In the c ase wher~ the required name is rePresent~d 1n tht~ ~ at~lo~ onl, un·j~r ~ later Form of th e• rtame. ~r.tr··r 1s ma.j-e un·j ~r· tht.:o la t ~r f.:·r·m. w n010:3 t061C·a'lnur.n--- - nnrtn 14 667 llltno1s Indus t r1al UniversitY. w n004790s=a4dnann----nnnn Example6 184 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 More, it is quite possible that if Boeren' s works are published in America or if LC suddenly decides that Boeren is "famous," the heading will be changed. This is an infrequently encountered problem for us but one where LC's peculiar policies have created problems that have nothing to do with OCLC or AACR2. CONCLUSION The problems that we have cited above are real but not numerically significant (except in the case of serials and multiple personal names- neither of which are under OCLC's control). They are far outweighed by the tremendous value of the more than 40 percent of OCLC headings that have been converted to their AACR2 form. The OCLC conversion has made it possible for us to do AACR2 catalog- ing more quickly than in the period November 1979-December 1980. We have issued guidelines to our professional, paraprofessional, and clerical cataloging staff who deal with all the headings we encounter in using OCLC (see appendix). Problems such as those we have described are dealt with in our guide- lines, and in practical terms now in day-to-day work. They may take some extra time, but overall our cataloging operation has been greatly speeded by OCLC's conversion . REFERENCE 1. Cataloging Service Bulletin , no.6:6(Falll979) APPENDIX University of Illinois Library at Urbana Champaign Copy Cataloguing Guidelines Authority Records LC authority records, now available on OCLC, can be very helpful in determining the correct AACR 2 form of headings, and should be cited on authority cards we prepare, when we use them in establishing headings. The tag numbers used on authority records sometimes have different meanings from the numbers used on bibliographic records. The meanings are: lxx Heading 4xx See reference (i.e. from the form in this field to the form in the lxx field) 5xx See also reference (i.e. from the form in this field to the form in the lxx field) 6xx Notes (e.g. the authority used by the LC cataloguer) Each field concludes with a w subfield, consisting of 24 characters indicating in coded form various types of information about the heading. The 13th character, the 3rd past the six-character date, consists of one of five letters indicating the rules governing the form of heading in that field. The codes are: OCLC's Database Conversion!W AJENBERG and GORMAN 185 c AACR2 d Compatible with AACR 2 b AACR, 1967 ed. a Earlier rules (e.g., ALA rules of 1949, etc.) n Not applicable or not applied Here is an example of an LC authority record, omitting the fixed field and some of the references: 010 n 790558820 110 20 State University of New York at Buffalo. w n008801115aacann----nnnn 410 10 Buffalo. b University w n002791105aaaann----nnna 41010 New York (State). b State University, Buffalo. w n009801115aaaann----nnna 667 The following heading for an earlier name is a valid AACR 2 heading: University of Buffalo. w n007791105aanann----nnnn When OCLC carried out its AACR 2 conversion project, the data about the rules encoded in subfield w was added to headings in bibliographic records, if those headings were altered by the conversion. For bibliographic records in OCLC, subfield w contains 2 characters, each of which must be one of the following: c (for AACR 2 heading) d (for ACCR 2 compatible heading) m (for machine converted heading) n (not applicable or not applied) The first character applies to the name portion of the heading; the second, to the title portion. Obviously, in many cases there is no title portion, in which case the second character will ben. The code m (machine converted heading) is used when a heading is altered directly by program, rather than being extracted from an authority record. An example would be the elimination of subfield k Laws, statutes, etc. 1. USE OF SUBFIELD WIN CATALOGUING Since OCLC does not want member libraries to apply the letter codes in subfield w for their original input, the presence of a cord in subfield w should always indicate an LC decision identifying an AACR 2 or AACR 2 compatible heading. Supply subfield w for all cataloguing to be added to OCLC's data base. The codes to be used are given in ILLINET's Information Bulletin #92, from which this table is copied: 1 AACR 2 form found in on-line LC Name-Authority File 2 AACR 2 compatible form in on-line LC Name-Authority File 3 AACR 2 form supplied by inputting institution with copy in hand and piece not in hand 4 AACR 2 form supplied by inputting institution with piece in hand 5 Author or title portion of heading not converted to AACR 2 form. This subfield (#w) is always the last subfield in the field. It must contain a two character code. The first character applies to the name portion of the heading; the second character applies to the title portion of the heading. If the heading is a name heading and does not include a title portion, use "n" as the second part of the code. If the heading is a uniform title heading, use "n" as the first part of the code. Examples: 700 10 Day Lewis, C. #q (Cecil), #d 1904-1972 #wIn 600 10 Schmidt, H. R. #q (Heinrich Rudolf) #w 4n 130 00 Bible. #p N.T. #s Authorized. #f 1974. #w n4 Accept headings coded c in subfield was correct AACR 2 headings, unless the heading is for an author entered under surname who writes in a non-Roman alphabet language. For such 186 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 authors, use the form given only if it is a standard romanization of the name in the original alphabet. If a form other than the standard romanization is used, substitute the standard romanization, and trace an x ref. from the form coded c. 2. LC AUTHOR HEADINGS WITHOUT DATES LC recently announced that it will not add dates to a heading already established without dates, unless the dates are needed to resolve a conflict. When there is no conflict, the dates will be recorded in the authority record in a 6xx field , but will not be added to the heading. Dates will be routinely added to newly established headings at the time the headings are established, if the information is readily available. LC codes such headings c, not d, because AACR 2 does not require that a date be added to the heading, except to resolve a conflict. If such an LC authority record is available when a heading is being established, use the LC form , without adding dates to the heading, unless dates are needed to resolve a conflict in the new catalogue. Record the dates on an authority card. If LC authority is not available wh(;ln a heading is being established, use dates in the heading if the information is readily available. If, later , LC authority is found that omits date from the heading, do NOT change the heading as already established for the UIUC new catalogue. Since records in OCLC may contain headings without dates for persons we have established with dates, some conflicts will be generated. These should be resolved by catalogue maintenance staff, who will add dates in pencil to headings on new cards that lack dates, but are otherwise identical with headings in the new catalogue. Such conflicts in the machine record will be cleaned up gradually, after FBR is up . 3. ACCEPTABLE dn FORMS Headings coded d in authority records (dn in bibliographic records) are the AACR 2 "compatible" forms. In many cases, the difference from AACR 2 is trivial, and the form can therefore be used. In such cases, if LC authority is available, use the form as established by LC, and record the information on an authority card. If LC authority is not available when a heading is being established, follow AACR 2. If, later, LC authority is found that establishes a "compatible" form , do NOT change the form in the UIUC new catalogue to the LC "compatible" form. It will sometimes happen that "compatible" forms will be found on records in OCLC (coded dn, usually) . Such headings may be used only if they fall into one of the categories listed below . This will sometimes result in "compatible" forms and true AACR 2 forms both being used in the new catalogue. In some cases, the two forms can be interfiled; in other cases, Catalogue Maintenance staff will need to correct "compat- ible" headings in pencil. Acceptable dn form s are: a . LC will omit hyphens between forenames if the heading has been established without hyphens, even though rule 22.102 would require hyphens. Use the LC form , if found . Catalogue Maintenance will interfile headings identical except for the presence or absence of hyphens. b. LC will continue to place the abbreviation ca. after a date in the heading for a person, if the heading has already been established in that form , even though rule 22.18 specifies that the abbreviation should precede the date. Use the LC form, if found . Catalogue Maintenance will interfile headings identical except for the placement of the abbrevia- tion ca. c. LC will not correct the language of an addition to a personal name heading; i. e . will not change to the language used in the person's works. (E.g., a heading already established as Louis Antoine, Father will not be changed to Louis Antoine, pere, even though the latter is the author's usage.) Use the LC form, if found . Catalogue Maintenance will correct conflicts in pencil, to the LC form. d. LC will not change a personal name heading to a fuller form of the name, even if the shorter form is not predominant. Use the LC form , if found. Catalogue Maintenance will correct conflicts created by personal name headings that vary in fullness to the form to which a "see" reference has been made. If there is no "see" reference, Catalogue OCLC's Database Conversion!W AJENBERG and GORMAN 187 Maintenance will refer the conflict to the appropriate cataloguing service. e. LC will continue to use additions to surname headings supplied by cataloguers, for headings already established with such additions. Use the LC form, if available. Cata- logue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by adding qualifiers in pencil to headings that are otherwise identical with the forms with qualifiers. f. LC will continue to use titles of honor, address, or nobility with headings that have already been established with such titles, even though the authors do not use such titles. Use the LC form , if found. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by adding qualifiers in pencil to headings that are otherwise identical to the forms with the qualifiers. g. LC will not use initial articles in uniform title and corporate headings, even when they are required by AACR 2. We will follow LC practice in this, and use the LC form when found. Catalogue Maintenance will interfile uniform title and corporate headings that are identical except for the presence or absence of initial articles. h . LC will continue to use the abbreviations Bp. and Abp. for personal name headings that have already been established with those abbreviations used as qualifiers, instead of spelling out the qualifiers in full. Use the LC form, if found. Otherwise, follow AACR 2 and spell out "Bishop" and "Archbishop". Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by correcting in pencil to the form spelled out in full. i. LC will not add terms of incorporation to corporate headings already established without them, nor delete them from corporate headings already established with them, even though LC interpretation of AACR 2 would require such adjustment. Use the LC form, if available. Otherwise, retain terms of incorporation in corporate name head- ings only if the term is an integral part of the name, or if, without the term, it would not be apparent that the heading is the name of a corporate body. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by adding, in pencil, terms of incorporation to headings identical to established forms except for the absence of such terms. j. LC will not add geographic qualifiers to corporate headings established previously without such qualifiers, even though they have chosen to apply the option in rule 24.4 that allows qualifiers to be added when there is no conflict. Use the LC form, if available. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by adding qualifiers in pencil to headings identical to established headings except for the absence of such qualifiers. k. LC will not reduce the hierarchy of Far Eastern corporate headings, established before 1981, even though AACR 2 rules would require that intervening superior bodies would be omitted from the heading. Use the LC form , if available. Catalogue Maintenance will refer conflicts to the appropriate cataloguing agency for resolution. The Asian Library Cataloguer is the final authority for such headings. l. LC will not change the capitalization of acronyms and initialisms to conform to the usage of the corporate body, if the acronym has already been established with a differ- ent capitalization. Use the LC form, if available. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by interfiling acronyms and initialisms that are identical except for variations in capitalization. m. LC will not supply quotation marks around elements in a corporate heading that has already been established without quotation marks, even though this varies from the usage of the body. Use the LC form, if available. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by interfiling headings identical except for the presence or absence of quota- tion marks. n. If LC is attempting to resolve a conflict (i.e. two different people with identical author statements), and neither dates nor expanded initials are available to resolve the c:onflict, LC will add an unused name in parentheses to the heading if the information is avail- able. E.g.: established heading: Smith, Elizabeth new author: Elizabeth Smith 188 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 (New author's full name, Ann Elizabeth Smith, is available) LC heading: for new author: Smith, Elizabeth (Ann Elizabeth) Use LC forms if found in name authority file. Catalogue Maintenance will refer prob- lems to the appropriate cataloguing agency. 4. UNACCEPTABLE dn FORMS In a few cases, the AACR 2 "compatible" forms, coded d in authority records and dn in bibliographic records, are unacceptable in the UIUC Library. Instead, we will follow AACR 2 in constructing these headings, and record the LC form on authority cards when they are found. We will also make references from the LC forms, if they would file differently from the forms we use. For many of these, Catalogue Maintenance will have to refer conflicts to the appropriate cataloguing agency. In a few cases, Catalogue Mainte- nance can make the corrections on the cards. The unacceptable dn forms are: a. LC will sometimes, but not always, continue to use headings established prior to 1981 with names spelled out in full , when the authors represent some of those names with initials. Follow AACR 2 in constructing headings for these names. Use initials in con- formity with the authors' usage, and add the corresponding full names in parentheses, in subfield q, when the information is available. Whenever an element in a compound surname or a first forename is represented by an initial, make a reference from the fuller form. Usually, a reference will not be needed if a forename other than the first is represented by an initial. b. LC will continue to add " pseud." to personal name headings already established with that qualifier. Do not use the qualifier "pseud." when establishing personal name head- ings, and delete the term from OCLC records that use it, including records added by LC. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by lining out the qualifier "pseud." in headings. c. LC will continue to add 20th century fl. dates to personal name headings already established with such dates. Do not use 20th century fl. dates when establishing personal name headings, and delete such dates from OCLC records that use it, including re- corded added by LC. Catalogue Maintenance will resolve conflicts by lining out 20th century fl. dates in headings. 5. 87x FIELDS One part of the AACR 2 conversion project by OCLC was the addition of fields tagged 870, 871, 872, or 873. These fields contain the pre-AACR 2 forms of headings that were changed by the conversion. OCLC participants can add 87x fields to records they enter into the data base. However, we will not supply these fields in our cataloguing. 6. AUTHORITY CARDS Prepare authority cards whenever references are needed, and whenever an LC authority record for the heading is found , even if we do not use the LC form. Citation of the authority record takes the form: "LC Auth. Rec." followed by the record number and the indication, in parentheses, of the code for rules given in subfield w. Example: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur (Mainz, Germany) LC Auth . Rec. 80076417 (en) If the LC form differs from the form used as the heading in muc, give the LC form in parentheses, following the sub field w code. Example: Abrahamson , Max W. (Max William) LC Auth. Rec. 78064817 ( dn) (Ab-rahamson, Max William) It will sometimes happen , when establishing the heading for a corporate body, that an LC OCLC's Database Conversion/W AJENBERG and GORMAN 189 authority record for a subdivision of the body you are establishing will give you the AACR 2 form of the body you are setting up. Precede the citation to the authority record with the word "From". Example: United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Region V. From LC Auth . Rec. 80159375 (en) (The LC authority record is for the Water Division of Region V) 7. REFERENCES The basic rule for making references is given in AACR 2, rule 26.1: "Whenever the name of a person or corporate body or the title of a work is, or may reasonably be, known under a form .that is not the one used as a name heading or uniform title, refer from that form to the one that has been used. Do not make a reference, however, if the reference is so similar to the name heading of uniform title or to another reference as to be unnecessary." Ulti- mately, this decision depends on the cataloguer's judgement. Usually, make a reference only if it would file differently from the established heading and from all other references. Refer from variant forms found in works catalogued for this library, and in standard reference sources. LC authority records will often suggest useful references. However, we may need references not traced by LC, and we may not need all of the references LC traces. Notice especially that LC authority records will often give a reference from the pre-AACR 2 form, even when it would file with the AACR 2 form. For example, the authority record for Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur (Mainz, Germany) traces a reference from Adakemie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz-the pre-AACR 2 form. These two forms would file together, so we do not need the reference. We will trace "see also" references from forms that can legitimately be used as headings, whether or not they have been used yet in the UIUC library. We will no longer observe the former restriction, which allowed "see also" references to be made only if both headings had been used. For further information on authority records and references, see the cataloguing manual, section A79. AW:lgo Arnold Wajenberg is principal cataloger and Michael Gorman is director, technical ser- vices, at the University of Illinois Library. 
5292	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113204 190 Communications Automation and the Service Attitudes of ARL Circulation Managers James R. MARTIN: University of Rochester Library, Rochester, New York. The circulation function in our large aca- demic libraries has undergone two impor- tant transformations since the turn of the century. The first of these is departmentali- zation; the second, automation. The de- partmentalization of the circulation func- tion has tended to separate the circulation department from the library's educational and information functions , the more "pro- fessional " aspects of librarianship. Laurence Miller makes this point in his dis- sertation, "Changing Patterns of Circula- tion Services in University Libraries, " which focuses on the rise of circulation de- partmentalization.1 Miller surveyed large academic libraries to determine if certain services-reference, interlibrary loan, ori- entation, catalog assistance-were being withdrawn from the circulation function . After verifying a withdrawal of these ser- vices and identifying them as the "profes- sional" ones, Miller drew the conclusion that circulation is therefore suspect as a pro- fessional activity. 2 His are generally held conclusions as Robert Oram suggests: Until recently, librarians have been reluctant to deal with circulation problems on an orga- nized basis. The belief that circulation was, in part at least, custodial and clerical rather than managerial and professional underlies much of the reluctance to solve mutual circu- lation problems th rough a professional group.' Paralleling this change in the circulation function's organizational setting, the mech- anization of the circulation process has con- tinued to move from the laborious and slow use of manual procedures and book cards toward the immediate updating and record keeping of the online system. Circulation automation has passed from the early days of simply mechanizing files (represented by the batch system) to the present, where li- braries have the potential capacity to per- form the complete circulation control process with real-time systems. • Sophisti- cated online systems have begun to truly control the complete circulation function. The metamorphosis of circulation automation- from simple mechanization to full computerization-has had a tremen- dous impact on the technical side, the pro- cesses, of the circulation department. Like- wise it may well have had impact on the service attitudes, priorities, and leadership of the department. The level of automation may relate to the circulation manager's atti- tudes and priorities, and in the words of an American Library Association committee, "the impact of automation might change the image of the circulation librarian." 5 As it automates, gaining control over its own processes, the circulation department and its manager may actually become more re- sponsive to its users-more service oriented, more "professional." In February 1980, a questionnaire was sent to circulation managers of all the ninety-eight academic libraries that hold membership in the Association of Research Libraries. 6 It sought to (1) identify the de- gree and state of automation of the circula- tion function , classified by the three system categories of manual , batch , and online sys- tems, and (2) to capture opinions on the cir- culation manager's view of his management role and his attitudes on service issues and user demands. These attitudes were related to the three types of systems. Seventy-six questionnaires were returned, for a 78 per- cent response rate. CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT CHARACTERISTICS Circulation departments ranged in size from 4 to 78 ITE employees. The average department size was 18, the median 14.25. The number of students employed ranged from 0 to 175. Twenty-nine percent of man- agers said staffing was not adequate and 45 percent said they had to depend too heavily upon students. Fifty-seven percent of man- agers of manual systems responded that they had to depend too heavily upon stu- dents, versus 27 percent of batch and 50 percent of online managers. (Because of variations in what is counted, transaction volume figures are not particularly infor- mative.) CIRCULATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS The seventy-six responding libraries re- ported approximately thirty-two different system configurations. Thirty-nine percent of these systems were manual, 34 percent were batch, and 26 percent were online. Nineteen percent of the total were manual McBee systems and 15 percent were LIBS100 online systems. Manual systems had been in use an average of twenty-six years, batch systems an average of eight years (range: ten months to eighteen years), and online systems an average of three years (range: three months to eight years). CIRCULATION MANAGER CHARACTERISTICS Typically, the circulation manager in an ARL library is the head of a department. ARL circulation managers had held their positions from six months to twenty years. Five years was the average, but 68 percent listed five years or less. Gender was evenly distributed: thirty-eight males and thirty- eight females. The managers of manual sys- tems were 43 percent male/ 57 percent fe- male, those of batch systems were 54 percent male/46 percent female, and of on- line systems 55 percent male/45 percent fe- male. Seventy percent of all managers had an MLS, and 30 percent did not; 40 percent of managers of online systems did not have an MLS. A majority of circulation man- Communications 191 agers (57 percent) reported spending over 25 percent of their time on matters outside of strictly circulation concerns. In fact a substantial minority, 23 percent of all man- agers, spent over 50 percent on extracircu- lation matters. SATISFACTION WITH CIRCULATION SYSTEM As a group, ARL circulation managers are not satisfied with their systems, as table 1 shows. Online-system managers consis- tently rate their systems most highly. Asked if their systems were "close to ideal," only 17 percent of all respondents were affirmative. Only 3 percent of manual-system managers agreed that their system was "close to ideal" - as compared to 12 percent of batch managers and 45 per- cent of online managers. Hidden in these averages is the fact that three managers gave their systems perfect scores on all four questions and those systems were all online: GEAC, LIBSlOO, and an IBM-based online system. (Table 2 summarizes responses on the four system-performance statements.) HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND DOWNTIME Circulation managers with automated systems also reported on their experience with equipment, software, and downtime. Batch-system managers were more satisfied with hardware and software (7 4 percent for both) than were online managers (60 per- cent satisfied with hardware and 65 percent with software). However, open-ended questions revealed that dissatisfaction with online-system hardware and software cen- tered around limitations of the LIBS100 system (used by 55 percent of online-system managers). The LIBS100 system was panned for "inflexible software," "poor fines system," and "lack of reserve book fea- tures. " (These are all long-recognized limi- tations that were partially addressed in the relatively recent Release 24.) The down- time situation was more satisfactory, how- ever, for online managers than batch man- agers. Seventy-five percent reported downtime was not a problem as against more than 63 percent of batch-system man- agers. 192 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 Table 1. Responses by Type of System (N = 30 Manual , 26 Batch, 20 Online) Strongly No Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Opinion Disagree "Our Circulation System Is Completely Adequate" Manual 1(3%) 4(13 %) Batch 1(4%) 5(19%) Online 3(15%) 7(35%) "Our Circulation System Is Reliable" Manual 1 (3%) 15(50 o/o ) Batch 3(12%) 9(35%) Online 5(25 %) 11(55 %) 1(3 %) 1(4 %) 1(5 %) 1(3 %) 12(40% ) 13(50 %) 6(30%) 10(33 %) 11(42 %) 3(15 %) 14(40 %) 6(23%) 3(15%) 3(10 %) 3(12 %) 1(5 %) "Our Circulation System's Records Are Very Accurate" Manual 2(7%) 7(23%) 2(7 %) 16(53 %) 9(35%) 6(30%) 3(10 %) 3(12 % ) Batch 3(8%) 12(46%) Online 4(20 o/o) 10(50%) "Our Circulation System Is Close to Ideal" Manual 1(3 %) Batch 3(12 o/o) Online 3(15%) 6(30%) 3(15 %) 7(23%) 8(31 o/o) 4(20%) 22(73%) 13(50%) 4(20%) Table 2. Summary of Responses on Four System Questions (Detail Given in Table 1) Standard Minimum Maximum Mean Median Deviation Value Value Variance Manual 9. 9 3.27 4 16 11 Batch 10.o8· 8.5 3.81 4 18 15 Online 13.45. 14 4.57 5 20 21 •20 =strongly agree, 16 =agree, 12 =no opinion, 8 =disagree, 4 =strongly disagree. SERVICE ATTITUDES Respondents were asked to mark attitude statements on a five-point scale: "strongly agree," "agree," "no opinion," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Attitude state- ments fell into four categories: (1) specific service concerns, (2) the importance of the managerial role, (3) user problems, con- tacts and complaints, and (4) user demands and expectations. The averages of the last three groups were used to explore the ques- tion of association between level of automa- tion and manager service attitudes (see ta- ble 3). SPECIFIC SERVICE CONCERNS Ninety percent of circulation managers agreed that "speed of service is very impor- tant to users," and no online-system man- ager disagreed. Forty-three percent of manual-system managers agreed that "con- trol of circulating books tends to be inade- quate." This compares to 16 percent of batch managers and 15 percent of online- system managers. Asked whether "users tend to expect more service than the depart- ment can give," 56 percent of manual man- agers agreed, as did 46 percent of batch managers and 40 percent of online-system managers. ATTITUDES TOWARD MANAGEMENT ROLE The study found that circulation man- agers are uniformly strong in their affirma- tion of the importance of their role, with a slight tendency for online managers to be more affirmative. In fact, 100 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that the "management of the circulation func- tion is important." Ninety-three percent agreed that "circulation management should rank high among the library's priori- ties." Ninety-five percent disagreed with the negative statement that "circulation Communications 193 Table 3. Attitude Responses, Averages Management Role (9 Questions) Demands and Expectations (6 Questions) Contacts and Complaints (6 Questions) Totals 3.913 3.92 3.99 Manual Batch Online 4.38 4.34 4.48 5 =most positive response . 1 =least positive response. management offers little opportunity for the exercise of initiative." Ninety-four per- cent of all managers disagreed that "circu- lation management lacks complexity." ATTITUDES TOWARD USER PROBLEMS, CONTACTS, AND COMPLAINTS The study found that circulation man- agers are uniformly strong in their desire to respond to user complaints and problems, but with a slight tendency for online man- agers to be more favorable to the user. One hundred percent of online managers re- garded user contacts as pleasant, as did 93 percent of manual and batch managers. Ninety-five percent of online managers, 92 percent of batch managers, and 87 percent of manual managers affirm that patron contact provides the challenge in circula- tion work. Eighty percent of online man- agers and 73 percent of manual and batch managers rejected the statement that "com- plaints tend to be unfounded." Sixty-five percent of the respondents of online systems were more likely to favor the user by think- ing "complaints are most often substan- tive," as compared to 50 percent of manual managers and 48 percent of batch man- agers. Ninety percent of online managers disagreed that users "complain far too much," compared with 84 percent of batch managers and 79 percent of manual man- agers. ATTITUDES TOWARD USER DEMANDS AND EXPECTATIONS Circulation managers are generally fa- vorable in their attitudes toward user de- mands and expectations. Several statements in this area, however, ran contrary to the tendency of online managers to agree slightly more with attitudes favorable to the user than managers of batch and manual 3.48 3.52 3.46 3.88 3.9 4.03 systems. For example, while 93 percent of manual-system managers and 85 percent of batch managers agreed that "the circula- tion department should be oriented to- wards users' expectations," only 70 percent of online managers did. On the statement, "Users should be more tolerant of limita- tions in circulation services," manual man- agers disagreed by 34 percent, batch man- agers by 40 percent, and online managers by 20 percent. These responses against the trend of the online manager as more user oriented may be due to the fact that the study was not completely successful in differentiating be- tween responses based on general attitudes and those based directly on the specific sys- tem in use. In other words, the relative quality of each circulation system or even the "bugs" peculiar to a ~pecific system may affect one's attitude toward the user's need to tolerate the limitations of that system. Manual-system managers know the limita- tions on their service are keyed to inefficient systems, whereas online-system managers know their systems and services are already at a high level. This knowledge of the sys- tem in use colors service attitudes. CONCLUSION The study found a depressed state of circulation-system development and sup- port in ARL libraries. Seventy-four percent of circulation managers, on average, rated their systems negatively on basic system in- tegrity, as shown in table 2. The thirty manual-system managers gave their systems an average score of 9, to the effect that their systems were ideal, ade- quate, reliable, and accurate. The twenty- six batch managers gave their systems an average score of 10.08, the twenty online managers an average of 13.45. Recognizing the considerable constraints under which 194 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 today's large academic libraries struggle, there is, nonetheless, room for criticism of library priorities. This study must be viewed as only a first step (largely tentative and exploratory) in relating automation with service attitudes. It suggests that online systems may be asso- ciated with managers more positive in their view of the management role and more pos- itive in their attitudes toward users than batch- and manual-system managers. Fur- ther research would be useful at this point to compare levels of automation (manual, batch, and online) with circulation-staff service attitudes or those of patrons using the systems. REFERENCES l. Laurence Miller, "Changing Patterns of Cir- culation Services in University Libraries" (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1971), p.iii. 2. Ibid., p.149. 3. Robert Oram, "Circulation," in Allen Kent and Harold Lancour, eds., Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, V.S (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1971), p.l. 4. William H. Scholz, "Computer-Based Circu- lation Systems- A Current Review and Eval- uation," Library Technolo gy Reports 13:237 (May 1977). 5. Robert Oram , " Circulation," p.2. 6. James Robert Martin , "Automation and the Service Environment of the Circulation Man- ager" (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Uni- versity, 1980), p.22. Statistics on Headings in the MARC File Sally H. McCALLUM and James L. GODWIN: Network Development Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. In designing an automated system, it is important to understand the characteristics of the data that will reside in the system. Work is under way in the Network Devel- opment Office of the Library of Congress (LC) that focuses on the design require- ments of a nationwide authority file. In support of this work, statistics relating to headings that appear on the bibliographic records in the LC MARC II files were gath- ered. These statistics provide information on characteristics of headings and on the expected sizes and growth rates of various subsets of authority files. This information will assist in making decisions concerning the contents of authority files for different types of headings and the frequency of up- date required for the various file subsets. TheN ational Commission on Libraries and Information Science supported this work. Use of these statistics to assist in system design is largely system-dependent; how- ever, some general implications are given in the last section of this paper. In general , counts were made of the number of biblio- graphic records, headings that appear in those records, and distinct headings that ap- pear on the records. The statistics were bro- ken down by year, by type of heading, and by file. In this paper, distinct headings are those left in a file after removal of duplicates. Dis- tinctness will not be used to imply that a heading appears only once in a source bib- liographic file, although distinct headings may in fact have only a single occurrence. Thus, a file of records containing the dis- tinct headings from a set of bibliographic records is equivalent in size to a MARC au- thority file of the headings in those biblio- graphic records. METHODOLOGY These statistics were derived from four MARC II bibliographic record files main- tained internally at LC: books, serials, maps, and films. The files contain updated versions of all MARC records that have been distributed by LC on the books, se- rials, maps, and films tape:; frum 1969 through October 1979, and a few records that were then in the process of distribu- tion. The files do not contain CIP records. A total of l ,336,182 bibliographic records were processed, including 1,134,069 from the books file, 90,174 from the serials file, 60,758 from the maps file, and 51,176 from the films file. A file of special records, called access point (AP) records, was created that con- tains one record for the contents of each oc- currence of the following fields in the bib- liographic records: 
5293	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113204 194 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 today's large academic libraries struggle, there is, nonetheless, room for criticism of library priorities. This study must be viewed as only a first step (largely tentative and exploratory) in relating automation with service attitudes. It suggests that online systems may be asso- ciated with managers more positive in their view of the management role and more pos- itive in their attitudes toward users than batch- and manual-system managers. Fur- ther research would be useful at this point to compare levels of automation (manual, batch, and online) with circulation-staff service attitudes or those of patrons using the systems. REFERENCES l. Laurence Miller, "Changing Patterns of Cir- culation Services in University Libraries" (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1971), p.iii. 2. Ibid., p.149. 3. Robert Oram, "Circulation," in Allen Kent and Harold Lancour, eds., Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, V.S (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1971), p.l. 4. William H. Scholz, "Computer-Based Circu- lation Systems- A Current Review and Eval- uation," Library Technolo gy Reports 13:237 (May 1977). 5. Robert Oram , " Circulation," p.2. 6. James Robert Martin , "Automation and the Service Environment of the Circulation Man- ager" (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Uni- versity, 1980), p.22. Statistics on Headings in the MARC File Sally H. McCALLUM and James L. GODWIN: Network Development Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. In designing an automated system, it is important to understand the characteristics of the data that will reside in the system. Work is under way in the Network Devel- opment Office of the Library of Congress (LC) that focuses on the design require- ments of a nationwide authority file. In support of this work, statistics relating to headings that appear on the bibliographic records in the LC MARC II files were gath- ered. These statistics provide information on characteristics of headings and on the expected sizes and growth rates of various subsets of authority files. This information will assist in making decisions concerning the contents of authority files for different types of headings and the frequency of up- date required for the various file subsets. TheN ational Commission on Libraries and Information Science supported this work. Use of these statistics to assist in system design is largely system-dependent; how- ever, some general implications are given in the last section of this paper. In general , counts were made of the number of biblio- graphic records, headings that appear in those records, and distinct headings that ap- pear on the records. The statistics were bro- ken down by year, by type of heading, and by file. In this paper, distinct headings are those left in a file after removal of duplicates. Dis- tinctness will not be used to imply that a heading appears only once in a source bib- liographic file, although distinct headings may in fact have only a single occurrence. Thus, a file of records containing the dis- tinct headings from a set of bibliographic records is equivalent in size to a MARC au- thority file of the headings in those biblio- graphic records. METHODOLOGY These statistics were derived from four MARC II bibliographic record files main- tained internally at LC: books, serials, maps, and films. The files contain updated versions of all MARC records that have been distributed by LC on the books, se- rials, maps, and films tape:; frum 1969 through October 1979, and a few records that were then in the process of distribu- tion. The files do not contain CIP records. A total of l ,336,182 bibliographic records were processed, including 1,134,069 from the books file, 90,174 from the serials file, 60,758 from the maps file, and 51,176 from the films file. A file of special records, called access point (AP) records, was created that con- tains one record for the contents of each oc- currence of the following fields in the bib- liographic records: Type of Heading personal name corporate name conference name topical subject geographic subject uniform title heading Fields 100,700,400,800,600 110,710,410,810,610 111,711,411,811,611 130, 730, 650 651 830,630 Only the 6XX subject fields that contained LC subject headings (i.e., second indicator = 0) were selected asAP records. The main entry data string was substituted for the pronoun in the series (4XX) fields that con- tained pronouns. The AP records also con- tained information from the bibliographic records that assisted in making the counts, such as the date of entry of the record on the file, the identity of the type of bibliographic file, and the language of the bibliographic record. A third file was derived from the AP file that contained a normalized character string for each AP record heading. These normalized AP records were used to pro- duce the counts of distinct headings by clus- tering like data strings. Normalization in- cluded conversion of all characters to uppercase, and masking of diacritics, marks of punctuation, and other characters that do not determine the distinctness of a head- ing, but would interfere with machin~ de- termination of uniqueness. The subhelds included in the normalized string, hence used for all heading comparisons, are given below. Only use-dependent subfields, such as the relator subfield, and those that be- longed to title clusters in author/title head- ings were excluded. Examples of the AP file field contents and the normalized forms are: AP field contents: Chuang-tzu Chuang-Tzu [Blaeu,Joan] 1596-1673 Blaeu, Joan. 1596-1673 Blaeu,Joan, 1596-1673 Byron, George Gordon Noel Byron, Baron, 1788-1824 Byron, George Gordon Noel Byron, baron, 1788-1824 Byron, George Gordon Noel Byron, baron, 1788-1824 Byron, George Gordon Noel Byron, Baron, 1788.1824 Communications 195 normalized forms: CHUANG TZU BLAEU jOAN 1596 1673 BYRON GEORGE GORDON NOEL BYRON BARON 17881824 Distinct headings for this study were de- termined by comparing on the following subfields: Type of Heading personal name corporate name Sub fields a, b,c,d a, b, k, f, p, s, g conference name a, q, e topical subject a, b, x, y, z geographic subject a, b, x, y, z All occurrences of repeating subfields were included. The relator data of subfields were dropped from personal and corporate name headings as were the title subfields in author/title headings. A separate study will examine the occurrence of author/title headings. Approximately 8 percent of the name headings in the files carry title sub- fields: 6 percent are series and 2 percent are author/title subjects or added entries. Two types of distinct heading counts were generated for topical and geographic subject headings. One takes account only of main terms, the a and b subfields, excluding all subject subdivisions. The other com- pared the complete heading strings, includ- ing subject subdivisions. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FILES The four bibliographic files from which the statistics were derived were begun in different years and are of unequal size. Ta- ble 1 presents the number of bibliographic records added to each of the MARC files by the year that the record was first entered into the file. The records added in the first months of 1979 have been eliminated from tables 1-3, thus the total number of records under consideration is 1,210,809. In the combined file, the records for books domi- nate the contributions from other forms of materials, representing 85 percent of the combined file records. After the addition of the films and serials records in 1972 and 1973 the total number of records added each year leveled off to around 115,000 but jumped to an average of slightly more than 150,000 records per year following the ad- 196 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 Table 1. Number of Records Added to Each File by Year Year Entered Book Serial Map Film Total 1968 11,812 0 0 0 11,812 1969 43,874 0 1, 104 0 44,978 1970 86,004 0 3,467 0 89,978 1971 105,390 0 8,857 6,280 114 ,247 1972 73,437 0 4,665 6,280 84,382 1973 92,512 3,720 5,566 8,929 110,727 1974 99,004 10,682 6,246 8,457 124,389 1975 86,527 15,866 6,721 8,604 117,718 1976 120,106 19,098 6,876 5,432 151,512 1977 140,011 17,999 7,011 4 ,797 169,818 1978 169,044 12,643 5,584 4,464 191,735 Total 1,027,721 80,008 56,117 46,963 1,210,809 Table 2. Numbers of Headings and Distinct Name Headings Added to All Files by Year Number of Headin gs Number of Distinct Headin gs Year Personal Corporate Conference Personal Corporate Conference Entered Names Names Names Names Names. Names 1968 14,526 3,138 155 12,620 2,139 143 1969 53, 134 21,206 1,027 39,184 9,364 909 1970 104,365 42 ,798 2,175 63,037 14,286 1,769 1971 129,617 57,496 2,742 64,029 15,216 2,158 1972 91,040 45,768 1,942 41,246 9,891 1,402 1973 118,188 57,847 2,625 48,703 12,653 1,862 1974 127,588 73,303 2,972 51,623 17,129 1,983 1975 113,622 76,417 2,519 50,291 18,135 1,742 1;}76 154 ,7 18 88,207 3,454 73,182 23,120 2,306 1977 182,860 87,985 3,487 89,353 23,906 2,333 1978 218,535 97,042 4,192 99,780 24,280 2,831 Total 1,308, 193 651,207 27,290 633,048 170, 119 19,438 Table 3. Numbers of Subject Headings and Distinct Subject Headings Added to All Files by Year Number of Distinct Headings Number of Headings First Terms Only Full Headings Year Topical Geographic Topical Geographic Topical Geographic Entered Subjects Subjects Subjects Subjects Subjects Subjects 1968 10,615 1,857 4,390 489 7,775 1,512 1969 45,161 9,047 8,104 1,980 23,617 5,426 1970 89,304 21,054 8,170 4,263 34 ,526 10,179 1971 115,220 31,278 6,853 5,417 36,689 12,862 1972 92,247 20,760 4,236 2,597 26,201 7,074 1973 121 , 161 27,890 4,460 3,105 33,061 9,819 1974 137,843 31,814 4,524 3,553 39,262 11 ,4 13 1975 130,980 30,650 4,203 3,417 40,129 11 ,818 1976 168,840 39,886 5, 125 4,142 55,468 15,472 1977 185,331 44,973 5,718 4,194 59,529 16,676 1978 222,565 49,923 7,151 4,034 69,856 17,855 T otal 1,319,267 309,132 62,934 37,191 426, 113 120, 106 clition of major non-English roman alpha- bet language records in 1976. The increase is noticeable primarily in the books and se- rials files since the maps file had been add- ing those languages since 1969 and only a limited number of non-English-language audiovisual materials are cataloged. The unusually large number of records added to the books file in 1971 resulted from a special project to add retrospective titles to the file. The large increase in books records in 1978 was due to the CO MARC project in which retrospective LC records that had been con- verted to machine-readable form by other libraries were contributed to the LC MARC file. Approximately 12,000 COMARC rec- ords were added in 1977 and 28,000 in 1978. The fall in numbers of film records produced in 1976-1978 reflects a general fall in production of instructional films in the United States. Counts of items cataloged that are com- piled by LC processing services from cata- logers' statistics sheets show that LC cata- loged approximately 225,000 titles in 1978; thus, approximately 73 percent of LC cata- loging is currently going into machine- readable form. The principal exclusions are records for most nonroman material (only nonroman records for maps have been transliterated and added since 1969) and a few records for music, sound recordings, in- cunabula, and microforms. The portion be- ing put into machine-readable form should rise significantly as the romanized records for items in several nonroman alphabets are added in the next year. NAME HEADINGS Table 2 presents the number of occur- rences of name headings in the MARC bib- liographic files and the number of distinct name headings, both by type of heading and by year. The number of distinct head- ings that were new to the file in a year was determined by comparing the headings added in a given year against those added in all previous years. It is not surprising to find that 66 percent of name-heading occur- rences are personal names, 33 percent are corporate, and only 1.4 percent are confer- ence. The figures shift when considering the distinct names, where 77 percent are per- Communications 197 sonal and only 21 percent are corporate. Looking at ~he total figures in table 2, while 1 ,308,193 of the headings that ap- peared on the records were personal names, only 633,048 or 48 percent of these were distinct. Of the rest, 52 percent were dupli- cates of the distinct headings. Similarly, 26 percent of corporate names were distinct, with 74 percent being duplicates; and 71 percent of conference names were distinct, with only 29 percent being duplicates. In 1968, 87 percent and 68 percent of personal and corporate names, respec- tively, were distinct, i.e., 13 percent and 32 percent "had been used previously" when they appeared on a bibliographic record during the year. As the base file of names grows, the percentage of names appearing on new records but which "had been used previously" rises, to 60 percent and 77 per- cent in 1974. While the figures reported in table 2 indicate that the percentage of head- ings used that were repeats fell slightly again in 1977 (51 percent and 73 percent), this is probably due to the influx of new names with the addition of new languages in 1976-77. Additional statistics gathered on English-language items show the per- centage of repeating headings becoming steady after 1974. SUBJECT HEADINGS Statistics concerning distinct topical and geographical subject headings were col- lected for main terms, excluding subdivi- sions, and for full subject heading strings. Table 3 gives the numbers of headings and the numbers of distinct headings of each type found in the MARC file. Looking at the total figures, only 4.8 percent of topical first terms are distinct, the rest are dupli- cates. This indicates an average occurrence of 20.8 times for each first term. Slightly more, 12 percent, of the geographic first terms are distinct. When the full headings with topical, pe- riod, form, and geographic subdivisions are considered, the percentage of headings that are distinct rises to 32.3 percent for topical subjects and 38.8 percent for geographic subjects. Thus, 67.3 percent of topical and 61.2 percent of geographic are duplicates of existing headings. In the yearly figures, sub- 198 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 ject headings show the same tendency as name headings in that the percentages of headings that appear on new records but which "had been previously used" rises as the stock of headings increases and then levels off. Subjects were also affected by the addition of other roman alphabet lan- guages in 1976-77 but not to a very large degree. For all access points, name headings and full string subject headings, name headings account for 55 percent of the headings that occur in the bibliographic records, with only 45 percent attributable to topical and geographical headings. It should be noted that 12 percent of the name headings that appear on the bibliographic records are names used as subjects. FREQUENCIES OF OCCURRENCE Counts were also made of the frequency with which name headings occurred in the bibliographic files. Table 4 summarizes the frequency data: 66 percent of distinct per- sonal names, 62 percent of distinct corpo- rate names, and 84 percent of distinct con- ference names occur only once in the files. The percent of corporate names with single occurrences is surprisingly close to that for personal; however, the percent of names having multiple occurrences falls more slowly for corporate than for personal names. While 5.47 percent of corporate names occur ten or more times, only 1.92 percent of personal names occur ten or more times. The figures for personal names roughly correspond to those obtained by William Potter from a sample taken from the main catalog at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. That study showed 63.5 percent of personal names occurred onlyonce. 1 The number of occurrences of different types of headings are compared in figure 1. The bars show the numbers of personal, corporate, conference, topical, and geo- graphic headings that appear in the biblio- graphic files. The shaded areas represent the number of headings that are distinct, thus the upper part of each bar represents additional occurrences of the headings from the shaded area. For personal, corporate, and conference headings a further distinc- tion is made between distinct headings that occur only once, the crosshatched area, and those that have multiple occurrences. Thus the multiple occurrences of corporate names may be seen to come from a small Table 4. Frequency of Occurrence of Name Headings in All Files Distinct Distinct Distinct Number of Personal Names Corporate Names Conference Names Occurrences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1 456,328 65.65 116,250 62.02 18,02 1 83.90 2 119,68 1 17.22 30,185 16.10 2,049 9.54 3 46,247 6.65 11,563 6.17 587 2.73 4 23,951 3.45 6,814 3.64 289 1.35 5 13,820 1.99 4,109 2.19 163 .76 6 8,790 1.26 2,958 1.58 98 .46 7 5,827 .84 2,175 1.16 56 .26 8 4,056 .58 1,673 .89 48 .22 9 2,998 .43 1,395 .74 36 . 17 10 2,153 .31 10 ,037 .55 18 .08 11-13 4,116 .59 2,180 1.16 44 .20 14-20 3,748 .54 2,632 1.40 41 .19 21- 50 2,678 .39 2,901 1.55 23 .11 51-100 448 .06 936 .50 4 .02 101-200 149 .02 374 .20 2 .01 201-300 47 .01 109 .06 1 .00 301- 400 19 .00 46 .02 0 .00 401-500 11 .00 21 .01 0 .00 501- 1000 5 .00 53 .03 0 .00 1001 + 2 .00 18 .01 0 .00 Total 695,074 99.99 187,429 99.98 21,480 100.00 number of distinct corporate headings, as was indicated by the slow decrease of the multiple-heading occurrence rate (i.e., a small group of corporate names have a very large number of occurrences). FILE GROWTH As a bibliographic file grows and the stock of names and subjects that are con- tained in the associated authority file in- creases, the number of new-to-the-file 1400 1200 1000 "' <:> 800 z i5 <t w :>: .. 0 a: w 600 ID ::;: "' z 400 200 1,444,726 Personal Names Corporate Names Communications 199 headings that are required for the new bib- liographic records would be expected to fall. Figure 2 illustrates that tendency and shows that there is a leveling off of the num- ber of new-to-the-file headings per new bibliographic record after the biblio- graphic file reaches a certain size. For ex- ample, after approximately 700,000 biblio- graphic records are in the file, for every additional 100 bibliographic records ap- proximately 298 name and subject headings 30,417 Conference Names 1.468,804 Topical Subjects Geographic Subjects D DISTINCT HEADINGS - DISTINCT HEADINGS THAT OCCUR -ONLY ONCE Fig. 1. Number of Headin gs by Type. 200 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 will be assigned, and, of these, approxi- mately 53 will be new personal names, 14 new corporate names, 2 new conference names, 35 new topical subjects, and 10 new geographic subjects; the remaining 184 headings used will already be established in the authority file. Thus after a certain bib- liographic file size is reached, the growth of the authority file is approximately a linear function of the growth of the bibliographic file. IMPLICATIONS The reoccurrence frequency of headings in a bibliographic file is often cited as a fac- tor in designing bibliographic and authority-file configurations. Discussion 1.2 II I 0 0 .9 a: 0 u w a: .8 ~ ~ .7 z 5 :.\ " .6 ~ z 0 .5 a: w "' ~ . 4 z .3 centers on the necessity of carrying author- ity records for headings that occur only once in a bibliographic file . With reference to the name-heading data in table 4 and figure 1, carrying authority records only for headings that occur more than once could 'potentially reduce the size of the authority file from that indicated by the whole shaded area (including shaded and cross- hatched) to the plain shaded area, i.e., from 903,983 records to 310,123, a 66 percent decrease. Controlling multiple occurrences of a heading is, however, only one role of the authority record. More important perhaps is the control of cross-references connected with the heading. Preliminary work with a • PERSONA L NAMES ---- 9 TOP~CAL SU8JECTS ... CORPORATE NAMES 2~ ----------~----~---------- & GEOGRAPHI CA L SUBJ ECTS 'Y CON FERENCE N AMES » ~~~~r=~~~~~==~==~==~~~==~==~==~==~-- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11 00 1200 1300 NUMBER OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS Cthousands) Fig. 2 . N umber of N ew Headings p er R eco rd for All Files. random sample of personal names in the LC file indicates that less than 17 percent of personal names require cross-references. Thus the personal name headings that occur only once but would require authority rec- ords because of cross-references could be less than 17 percent. The frequency data combined with reference structure data could have a significant impact on design. Out of a total of 695,074 personal names in the authority files associated with the MARC bibliographic files examined here, 456, 328, or 66 percent, occur only once. Of these, fewer than 77,575 would be expected to have cross-references, thus the name- authority file for personal names could be reduced in size from 695,074 records to 316,321, a 55 percent decrease. If separate authority records are a system requirement, the occurrence figures might then be useful for defining configurations that employ machine-generated provisional records for single-occurrence headings that do not have reference structures or that simplify in other ways the treatment of these headings. These figures may also be useful in making deci- sions on the addition of retrospective au- thority records to the automated files. REFERENCE 1. William Gray Potter, "When Names Collide: Conflict in the Catalog and AACR2," Library Resources & Technical Services 24:7 (Winter 1980). RLIN and OCLC as Reference Tools Douglas JONES: University of Arizona, Tuc- son. The Central Reference Department (so- cial science, humanities, and fine arts) and the Science-Engineering Reference Depart- ment at the University of Arizona Library are currently evaluating the OCLC and RLIN systems as reference tools, to see if their use can significantly improve the ef- fectiveness and efficiency of providing ref- erence service. A significant number of the questions received by our librarians, and presumably by librarians elsewhere, in- Communications 201 volve incomplete or inaccurately cited ref- erences to monographs, conference pro- ceedings, government documents, techni- cal reports, and monographic serials. If by using a bibliographic utility a librarian can identify or verify an item not found in printed sources, then effectiveness has been improved. Once a complete and accurate description of the item is found, it is a rela- tively simple task to determine whether or not the library has the item, and if not, to request it through interlibrary loan. Additionally, if the efficiency of the li- brarian can be improved by reducing the amount of time required to verify or iden- tify a requested item, then the patron, the library, and, in our case, the taxpayer, have been better served. The promise of near- immediate response from a computer via an online interactive terminal system is clearly beguiling when compared to the relatively time-consuming searching required with printed sources, which frequently provide only a limited number of access points and often become available weeks, months, or even years after the items they list. We realize, of course, that the promise of instantaneous electronic information re- trieval is limited by a va):'iety of factors, and presently we view access to RLIN and OCLC as potentially powerful adjuncts to- not replacements for-printed refer- ence sources. Given that RLIN and OCLC have databases and software geared to known-item searches for catalog card pro- duction, our evaluation attempts to docu- ment their usefulness in reference service. A preliminary study conducted during the spring semester of 1980-81 indicated that approximately 50 percent of the ques- tionable citations requiring further biblio- graphic verification could be identified on OCLC or RLIN. The time required was typically five minutes or less. Successful verification using printed indexes to iden- tify the same items ranged from 20 percent in the Central Reference Department to 50 percent in Science-Engineering. Time re- quired per item averaged approximately fifteen minutes. Based on our findings, we plan a revised and more thorough test during the fall se- mester of 1981-82, which will include an assessment of the enhancements to the 
5294	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113301 - random sample of personal names in the LC file indicates that less than 17 percent of personal names require cross-references. Thus the personal name headings that occur only once but would require authority rec- ords because of cross-references could be less than 17 percent. The frequency data combined with reference structure data could have a significant impact on design. Out of a total of 695,074 personal names in the authority files associated with the MARC bibliographic files examined here, 456,328, or 66 percent, occur only once. Of these, fewer than 77,575 would be expected to have cross-references, thus the name- authority file for personal names could be reduced in size from 695,074 records to 316,321, a 55 percent decrease. If separate authority records are a system requirement, the occurrence figures might then be useful for defining configurations that employ machine-generated provisional records for single-occurrence headings that do not have reference structures or that simplify in other ways the treatment of these headings. These figures may also be useful in making deci- sions on the addition of retrospective au- thority records to the automated files. REFERENCE 1. William Gray Potter, "When Names Collide: Conflict in the Catalog and AACR2," Library Resources & Technical Services 24:7 iWinter 1980). . RLIN and OCLC as Reference Tools Douglas JONES: University of Arizona, Tuc- son. The Central Reference Department (so- cial science, humanities, and fine arts) and the Science-Engineering Reference Depart- ment at the University of Arizona Library are currently evaluating the OCLC and RLIN systems as reference tools, to see if their use can significantly improve the ef- fectiveness and efficiency of providing ref- erence service. A significant number of the questions received by our librarians, and presumably by librarians elsewhere, in- Communications 201 valve incomplete or inaccurately cited ref- erences to monographs, conference pro- ceedings, government documents, techni- cal reports, and monographic serials. If by using a bibliographic utility a librarian can identify or verify an item not found in printed sources, then effectiveness has been improved. Once a complete and accurate description of the item is found , it is a rela- tively simple task to determine whether or not the library has the item, and if not, to request it through interlibrary loan. Additionally, if the efficiency of the li- brarian can be improved by reducing the amount of time required to verify or iden- tify a requested item, then the patron, the library, and, in our case, the taxpayer, have been better served. The promise of near- immediate response from a computer via an online interactive terminal system is clearly beguiling when compared to the relatively time-consuming searching required with printed sources, which frequently provide only a limited number of access points and often become available weeks, months, or even years after the items they list. We realize, of course, that the promise of instantaneous electronic information re- trieval is limited by a variety of factors, and presently we view access to RLIN and OCLC as potentially powerful adjuncts to- not replacements for - printed refer- ence sources. Given that RLIN and OCLC have databases and software geared to known-item searches for catalog card pro- duction, our evaluation attempts to docu- ment their usefulness in reference service. A preliminary study conducted during the spring semester of 1980-81 indicated that approximately 50 percent of the ques- tionable citations requiring further biblio- graphic verification could be identified on OCLC or RLIN. The time required was typically five minutes or less. Successful verification using printed indexes to iden- tify the same items ranged from 20 percent in the Central Reference Department to 50 percent in Science-Engineering. Time re- quired per item averaged approximately fifteen minutes. Based on our findings, we plan a revised and more thorough test during the fall se- mester of 1981-82, which will include an assessment of the enhancements to the 202 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 RLIN system scheduled to be operational this summer. The proposed test will involve eight members of the reference staff-four from each department-who will be trained to search on OCLC and RLIN. Those selected will include both librarians and library assistants who regularly pro- vide reference assistance. The results ob- tained from such a representative group will better enable us to assess the impact on the whole reference staff should we later decide to fully implement the service. They will be the only ones involved in sampling questions and conducting comparative searches. The test will have two components, the first of which will be a twenty-week period to collect at least 400 sample questions. During their regularly scheduled reference hours, the eight specially trained librarians 'will collect samples of reference requests for materials that, based on the information initially given by the patron, cannot be identified in the card catalog. After check- ing the catalog, the librarian will then com- plete the top portion of a two-page self- carbon form with all of the information that is known about the requested item. Then, at regular intervals during the semes- ter, the pages of each form will be separated and distributed to other members of the test staff for batch-mode searching. The man- ual OCLC and RLIN searching for each query will be done by different staff mem- bers to eliminate crossover effects. Each re- quest will be searched on both OCLC and RLIN with the following information being recorded: 1. Date of the material requested (if known). 2. Type of material (e.g., conference proceeding). 3. Amount of time required to do the search. 4. Success or failure of the search. This information will then be cumulated in a statistical table, and the results of each search will be keypunched for computer- ized analysis using the BMDP (BioMedical Computer Programs) statistical package to determine whether or not effectiveness and efficiency have been improved signifi- cantly. In addition, on twenty-four randomly se- lected days during the semester the trained searchers will count the total number of questions received by them on that day that would have been appropriate to search on RLIN or OCLC. By using these data it will be possible to extrapolate the potential use- fulness of the systems for the entire semes- ter. The second component of the test will be a two-week real-life test during which all questions requiring further verification would be searched immediately on RLIN , OCLC, and in the appropriate printed sources to compare time required, success rate, and type of material requested. This sort of test would permit the searcher to continue to negotiate with the patron as the search progressed, which is the usual situa- tion. Also, this would provide the only op- portunity to have the patron judge the value of subject searches done on RLIN. If funding is received, preliminary results should be available in early 1982. Anyone conducting similar or otherwise relevant studies is asked to contact the author. Replicating the Washington Library Network Computer System Software Thomas P. BROWN: Manager of Computer Services, and Raymond DeB USE: Manager of Development and Library Services, Wash- ington Library Network, Olympia. The Washington Library Network (WLN) Computer System supports shared cataloging and catalog maintenance, retro- spective conversion, reference, COM cata- log production, acquisitions, and account- ing functions for libraries operating within a network. The system offers both full MARC and brief catalog records as well as linked authority control for a ll traced head- ings. It contains more than 250,000 lines of PL/1 and IBM BAL code in more than 1,100 program modules and runs on IBM or IBM-compatible hardware with IBM oper- ating systems (MVS,OS/VS1). All database management functions are provided by ADXBAS, a product of Software A.G. of North America. The online system runs un- 
5295	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113301 202 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 RLIN system scheduled to be operational this summer. The proposed test will involve eight members of the reference staff- four from each department- who will be trained to search on OCLC and RLIN. Those selected will include both librarians and library assistants who regularly pro- vide reference assistance. The results ob- tained from such a representative group will better enable us to assess the impact on the whole reference staff should we later decide to fully implement the service. They will be the only ones involved in sampling questions and conducting comparative searches. The test will have two components, the first of which will be a twenty-week period to collect at least 400 sample questions. During their regularly scheduled reference hours, the eight specially trained librarians 'will collect samples of reference requests for materials that, based on the information initially given by the patron, cannot be identified in the card catalog. After check- ing the catalog, the librarian will then com- plete the top portion of a two-page self- carbon form with all of the information that is known about the requested item. Then, at regular intervals during the semes- ter, the pages of each form will be separated and distributed to other members of the test staff for batch-mode searching. The man- ual OCLC and RLIN searching for each query will be done by different staff mem- bers to eliminate crossover effects. Each re- quest will be searched on both OCLC and RLIN with the following information being recorded: 1. Date of the material requested (if known). 2. Type of material (e.g. , conference proceeding) . 3. Amount of time required to do the search. 4. Success or failure of the search. This information will then be cumulated in a statistical table, and the results of each search will be keypunched for computer- ized analysis using the BMDP (BioMedical Computer Programs) statistical package to determine whether or not effectiveness and efficiency have been improved signifi- cantly. In addition , on twenty-four randomly se- lected days during the semester the trained searchers will count the total number of questions received by them on that day that would have been appropriate to search on RLIN or OCLC. By using these data it will be possible to extrapolate the potential use- fulness of the systems for the entire semes- ter. The second component of the test will be a two-week real-life test during which all questions requiring further verification would be searched immediately on RLIN, OCLC, and in the appropriate printed sources to compare time required, success rate, and type of material requested. This sort of test would permit the searcher to continue to negotiate with the patron as the search progressed, which is the usual situa- tion. Also, this would provide the only op- portunity to have the patron judge the value of subject searches done on RLIN. If funding is received, preliminary results should be available in early 1982. Anyone conducting similar or otherwise relevant studies is asked to contact the author. Replicating the Washington Library Network Computer System Software Thomas P. BROWN: Manager of Computer Services, and Raymond DeB USE: Manager of Development and Library Services, Wash- ington Library Network, Olympia. The Washington Library Network (WLN) Computer System supports shared cataloging and catalog maintenance, retro- spective conversion, reference, COM cata- log production, acquisitions, and account- ing functions for libraries operating within a network. The system offers both full MARC and brief catalog records as well as linked authority control for all traced head- ings. It contains more than 250,000 lines of PLI 1 and IBM BAL code in more than 1,100 program modules and runs on IBM or IBM-compatible hardware with IBM oper- ating systems (MVS ,OS/VSl). All database management functions are provided by ADA:BAS, a product of Software A.G. of North America. The online system runs un- der CICS/VS 1.5. A set of assembler codes called the TP Monitor Interface defines a standard service interface between the ap- plications programs and the TP monitor. This allows easy upgrade to different TP monitors and convenient points for collect- ing performance statistics. The majority of the Bibliographic Sub- system updating is done in batch mode to conserve online resources. A new version of the system with interactive updating is cur- rently being planned, for use in special en- vironments. The applications software was designed and implemented with a number of impor- tant conventions: 1. Top-down design. 2. Standard use of IBM environments. 3. Structured coding techniques. 4. Interfaces to a database management system (ADABAS) and teleprocessing monitor (currently CICS). 5. Stand;ud naming and formatting. 6. Use of a standard set of data structures and assembler subroutines to manipu- late data. 7. Identification of maintenance changes in source programs. In addition, programming for the online functions meets other conditions: 1. Load modules less than 20K bytes. 2. No PL/1 run-time subroutines. 3. Reentrant coding. 4. Standard services for the TP Monitor Interface. 5. Applications are kept as terminal in- dependent a~ possible, with the TP Monitor Interface performing input and output translations. REPLICATION A system with these characteristics, even though large, can easily be transported to a different site. While WLN was not designed with multiple replications in mind, a policy decision made by the network a few years ago made replication an attractive possibil- ity. Recognizing that it had a capability that would be highly competitive with other online shared bibliographic services, WLN expanded its service area beyond the state of Washington. It set limits to its ex- pansion, however, having determined that it would remain a small, responsive organi- Communications 203 zation providing what it hoped would be superior service to its participating li- braries. Having set such limits, however, created two impediments to its achieving superior service: WLN would have a smaller base of libraries from which its par- ticipants could obtain the benefits of shared cataloging, and there would not be the fis- cal resources necessary to support a large continuing development effort. Both would penalize libraries for joining WLN, the first with a lower hit rate against the database and the second with fewer added capabili- ties. Replication provided a possible answer to both of these problems, as well as a po- tential source of income. In its software li- cense agreements, WLN asks the licensee to agree to bibliographic data sharing. All cat- aloging done by a licensee or its participants would thus be available for loading on WLN's own database; likewise, all WLN participant cataloging will be made avail- able to the licensee. WLN, at least, would accept catalog records only from libraries that follow its bibliographic standards; that is, the standards of the Library of Congress. Currently this sharing is accomplished via magnetic tape, but in the future, online rec- ord interchange may be possible, given WLN's current work in this area. WLN also explicitly asks in its software license agreements that the replicating in- stitution carry out an organized program of development to meet the latter's particular needs. Such development is monitored by WLN in order that redundant work is not undertaken and to ensure that the various efforts relate coherently. There is a built-in constraint upon major modification andre- design: WLN is packaging enhancements and changes into periodic releases of the source code and requiring that the repli- cants install these releases within twelve months of the date issued. Because of the interest in shared develop- ment and because WLN itself is not in a position to provide first-level program maintenance, the system is distributed in source-code form. The initial installation, however, is of load modules (programs in a form efficiently read and executed by ma- chine), allowing immediate testing of the system's capabilities in its new environ- 204 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 ment. WLN is currently negotiating a con- tract with a new firm, Biblio-Techniques, that will offer a more nearly turnkey ver- sion of WLN, packaged with ADABAS and Software A.G.'s TP monitor, COM- PLETE, and, if necessary, with the re- quired hardware. NATIONAL LffiRARY OF AUSTRALIA The first replication of the system was made at the National Library of Australia (NLA) in Cranberra in early 1979. NLA had its own IBM 370/148 and an established data processing staff. ADABAS had been installed prior to the arrival of WLN's in- stallation consultant. Minor changes are necessary in CICS to support dedicated WLN terminals, and these were quickly made and the system was up within days. Further work allowed searching on the sys- tem from the library's 3270 terminals. After a couple of weeks of shakedown, a WLN staff member spent about two weeks train- ing NLA staff in the use of the system. It has been in full production for in-house produc- tion cataloging for more than a year now, and this spring is being extended to other libraries around the country on a pilot basis, testing the concept of the newly de- fined Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN). NLA has replaced the 370/l48 with a larger machine. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS The second installation occurred earlier this year at the University of Illinois, where the system was obtained to carry out a pilot project in which the Urbana campus and the River Bend Library System will use it as an online public-access catalog in conjunc- tion with the LCS circulation system. Again, load modules were installed and the system was up within a few days, running on the University's administrative com- puter at the Chicago Circle campus. Illinois staff have had some difficulties in recompil- ing all of the source code, but these prob- lems are being worked out. WLN will war- rant that the source code supplied corresponds to the load modules it installs. The system as presently distributed by WLN can in no way be considered turnkey. Local computer operations or JCL require- ments as well as differing levels of staff ex- pertise can create problems. Furthermore, WLN handles source management through WYLBUR, a text-editing system, and this is not included with the WLN software. The module descriptions, grogramming lan- guage, mode, link-edit information, etc., maintained through this facility are sup- plied, however. Either a test or, if con- tracted for, a full database is also supplied. WLN has had some difficulties in creating a valid test database for Illinois, but has now defined procedures to better control the process. WLN has distributed its second release to Australia as a full source update identical to what was installed at Illinois. In the future only the source changes in standard IBM IEBUPDTE form will be supplied to repli- cation sites. This will better enable these sites to integrate the new version into theirs. OTHER SITES The University of Missouri is likely to be the third replicant of the system, since it has just selected WLN as the basis for its online catalog system . Installation is planned be- fore the end of 1981. The National Library of New Zealand has also indicated that it intends to purchase the system. The South- eastern Library Network (SOLINET) has obtained the system in order to convert it to a Burroughs facility. While this is a soft- ware license, it is not a replication. There- sulting system, however, would be avail- able from WLN for installation on Burroughs equipment. WLN has not implemented data sharing with Australia, but is testing the loading of Illinois data into its bibliographic file. WLN libraries should see Illinois records on a regular basis by late summer of 1981. Sim- ilar arrangements will be made with Mis- souri and SOLINET. Shared development has gotten off to a start with the National Library of Australia having done the work necessary to add the IBM 3270 type of terminal to those that can support cataloging input and edit on WLN. Illinois will be undertaking the develop- ment of enhancements to make the system easier to use as a public online catalog, in addition to other possible areas of concern. WLN, of course, continues its in-house de- velopment, which has recently seen the im- plementation of a new batch retrospective- conversion subsystem, and added COM catalog options and online authority verifi- cation during input/edit. While not the only bibliographic system to be successfully replicated, the WLN Computer System is becoming the most sys- tematically replicated main-frame facility, with a broad range of future possibilities, including that of a truly turnkey system. WLN's experience indicates that, if a sys- tem is designed for ease of maintenance at perhaps some sacrifice of efficiency, it will be readily transportable and allow others to obtain the benefits of a highly sophisticated bibliographic capability without the ever- increasing cost of original development and, more importantly, without having to support the ongoing maintenance of a unique system. A General Planning Methodology for Automation Richard W. MEYER, Beth Ann REULAND, Francisco M. DIAZ, and Frances COL- BURN: Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. INTRODUCTION A workable planning methodology is the logical starting place for the successful im- plementation of automation in libraries. An automation plan may develop on the basis of an informal arrangement or from the ef- forts of one individual, but just as often, automation plans are developed by com- mittees. An automation planning commit- tee must determine and execute some kind of planning methodology and is more likely to be successful if it starts with clear guide- lines, good leadership, and a thoroughly proven approach. As a summary review of the literature will bear out, many libraries have devel- oped their own planning techniques in- house. Some of these, which are addressed to the issues of cataloging rule changes and public-access catalogs, have been very well thought out. 1 However, these techniques are generally not directed to planning for Communications 205 library-wide automation, and are usually designed to meet the specific needs of an individual library. Although the pattern for these studies is often similar, they do not seem to be based upon any general automa- tion design methodology. Neither, in addi- tion, does there seem to be a general meth- odology available through any external library agency. The Office of Library Man- agement Studies of the Association of Re- search Libraries has developed a number of programs designed to assist libraries with their planning efforts, some of which ap- pear to be useful in automation devel- opment. 2 But for many libraries, these pro- grams may be too broad, too time-consuming or too expensive. As an al- ternative, some libraries will need to look elsewhere for a general automation plan- ning methodology. This problem was ad- dressed by the administration of the Clem- son library, and was resolved in a unique way. BACKGROUND The Robert Muldrow Cooper Library of Clemson University has the responsibility of acquiring, preserving, and making avail- able for use the many materials needed by faculty and students in their research and instructional efforts. At a typical land- grant institution like Clemson, the amount of scholarly publishing and the pressure to develop research proposals has risen sharply in recent years. The increased needs of users working with an expanding and diversified collection have resulted in a doubling of cir- culation activity, and have required the growth of library staff by 70 percent over the last decade. Furthermore, acquisition, processing, and access problems are com- pounded by the high inflation rate of mate- rials, particularly serial publications, and manpower costs. Even though user demands heavily bur- dened the traditional manual systems, the extent of library automation at Clemson had been limited to a batch circulation sys- tem, a simple serials-listing capability, and the use of bibliographic utilities. Although it had been generally accepted for some time that the acquisitions and fund-control functions at Clemson were in need of auto- mation, no concrete approach to develop- 
5296	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113323 velopment, which has recently seen the im- plementation of a new batch retrospective- conversion subsystem, and added COM catalog options and online authority verifi- cation during input/edit. While not the only bibliographic system to be successfully replicated, the WLN Computer System is becoming the most sys- tematically replicated main-frame facility, with a broad range of future possibilities, including that of a truly turnkey system. WLN's experience indicates that, if a sys- tem is designed for ease of maintenance at perhaps some sacrifice of efficiency, it will be readily transportable and allow others to obtain the benefits of a highly sophisticated bibliographic capability without the ever- increasing cost of original development and, more importantly, without having to support the ongoing maintenance of a unique system. A General Planning Methodology for Automation Richard W. MEYER, Beth Ann REULAND, Francisco M. DIAZ, and Frances COL- BURN: Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. INTRODUCTION A workable planning methodology is the logical starting place for the successful im- plementation of automation in libraries. An automation plan may develop on the basis of an informal arrangement or from the ef- forts of one individual, but just as often, automation plans are developed by com- mittees. An automation planning commit- tee must determine and execute some kind of planning methodology and is more likely to be successful if it starts with clear guide- lines, good leadership, and a thoroughly proven approach. As a summary review of the literature will bear out, many libraries have devel- oped their own planning techniques in- house. Some of these, which are addressed to the issues of cataloging rule changes and public-access catalogs, have been very well thought out .1 However, these techniques are generally not directed to planning for Communications 205 library-wide automation, and are usually designed to meet the specific needs of an individual library. Although the pattern for these studies is often similar, they do not seem to be based upon any general automa- tion design methodology. Neither, in addi- tion, does there seem to be a general meth- odology available through any external library agency. The Office of Library Man- agement Studies of the Association of Re- search Libraries has developed a number of programs designed to assist libraries with their planning efforts, some of which ap- pear to be useful in automation devel- opment. 2 But for many libraries, these pro- grams may be too broad, too time-consuming or too expensive. As an al- ternative, some libraries will need to look elsewhere for a general automation plan- ning methodology. This problem was ad- dressed by the administration of the Clem- son library, and was resolved in a unique way. BACKGROUND The Robert Muldrow Cooper Library of Clemson University has the responsibility of acquiring, preserving, and making avail- able for use the many materials needed by faculty and students in their research and instructional efforts. At a typical land- grant institution like Clemson, the amount of scholarly publishing and the pressure to develop research proposals has risen sharply in recent years . The increased needs of users working with an expanding and diversified collection have resulted in a doubling of cir- culation activity, and have required the growth of library staff by 70 percent over the last decade . Furthermore, acquisition, processing, and access problems are com- pounded by the high inflation rate of mate- rials, particularly serial publications, and manpower costs. Even though user demands heavily bur- dened the traditional manual systems, the extent of library automation at Clemson had been limited to a batch circulation sys- tem, a simple serials-listing capability, and the use of bibliographic utilities. Although it had been generally accepted for some time that the acquisitions and fund-control functions at Clemson were in need of auto- mation, no concrete approach to develop- 206 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 ing a system had been established. In addi- tion, there was some concern that the development of an automated acquisitions system shouldn't be initiated without a clear understanding of how such an effort would affect the rest of the functions in the library. With this in mind, and as an initial part of planning, the library administration decided to implement a programmed study to determine specific needs and problems of the whole library at Clemson and to deter- mine the attendant costs and benefits of their resolution. Since developing the meth- odology for this kind of study effort in- house has been shown by experience else- where to be both expensive and time-consuming, a planning methodology was sought which could be brought in from outside the library and applied in a timely fashion. The International Business Ma- chines Corporation (IBM), through their local marketing representative, volun- teered to supply that methodology by means of an Education Industry Applica- tion Transfer Team (ATT} study. In order to implement the study, a team was orga- nized consisting of representatives from the library, from the university's Division of Administrative Programming Services (DAPS), and from the IBM Corporation. The purpose, approach, and results of that study constitute the rest of this paper. PURPOSE The Application Transfer Team method- ology was implemented to fulfill a fourfold purpose. • First, it was necessary to act on the rec- ognized need for a library-wide automation plan with something tangible that library and university administrators could use in the decision-making process. • Second, basic objectives and imple- mentation estimates were required to pro- vide groundwork to the development of sys- tems specifications and evaluation. • Third, the planning process needed to provide a forum for meaningful participa- tion by a number of library staff and users. • Fourth, the planning needed to be ac- complished rather quickly. The ATT met all these requirements. Al- though the ATT study technique is general- ized for work on any problem in the educa- tion arena, it seems particularly well suited to the library environment because it is ori- ented toward developing applications that solve production problems. The Application Transfer Team method- ology was developed by the IBM Corpora- tion for customer use. The A TT methodol- ogy evolved from IBM's Business System Planning Function, which has been opera- tional since the early 1970s. Although the methodology has been used several times in the academic environment, this is the first time, to our knowledge, that it has been used in a library operation. The strength of the ATT is that it helps members of a team with diverse backgrounds to understand the environment under study. Its final goal was "to improve operational productivity, pro- vide better service to students, and provide information which can enhance manage- ment planning and decision making."3 Put to work, the methodology is straightfor- ward and effective. From beginning to end, the A TT process took Clemson slightly more than three months elapsed time. Total work time (including all report writing) for library staff was approximately one thou- sand man hours. As the initial step with the A TT method- ology, it was necessary to engage a sponsor and to select a team . For this study, the sponsor chosen was the dean of graduate studies, who reported directly to the vice- president for academic affairs. In turn, the director of mmpnting and the director of the Division of Administrative Program- ming Services (DAPS) reported to the dean of graduate studies. Although it was not critical that the sponsor be intimately in- volved in the project, his level of authority within the university administration would help to secure acceptance of the study's rec- ommendation. The sponsor also provided cogent advice along the way, based upon his understanding of institutional resources, and he served as a communication link with other university administrative offices. The study team was chosen by the library administration with the intention of getting diverse involvement and expertise. Library staff included the associate director, the head of circulation, the serials cataloger, and a reference librarian. Although only the associate director brought significant - experience in library automation develop- ment, the head of circulation contributed substantial practical experience with auto- mation systems. The cataloger offered spe- cifics of bibliographic problems, cataloging rule changes, and serials control issues, and the reference librarian contributed a com- prehensive knowledge of information- retrieval concerns. Outside staff included the director of DAPS, who furnished details on the Clem- son computing environment, and an IBM marketing representative, who provided appropriate help with hardware capabili- ties, the ATT metnodology, and legwork. In addition, Clemson was also able to en- gage the help of a representative of IBM's Education Industry Division to guide the A TT efforts on the basis of his experience in the use of the methodology. From time to time, other IBM and DAPS staff were in- volved in assisting with interviews and re- port writing. The associate director served as team chair in order to act as spokesper- son, to coordinate team effort, and to edit the final report. METHODOLOGY The Application Transfer Team method- ology is applied in six phases. IBM recom- mends that these phases be conducted se- quentially, and that they last from five to sixteen weeks, depending on the size of the problem. Throughout the process, verbal reviews were conducted by the team with the sponsor and with the library staff. The first phase involved an organiza- tional session. Following the introduction of team members, the IBM Education In- dustry Division representative presented an overview of the methodology and explained the mechanics of the A TT study process. The team then established the scope of the study by choosing an application area on which to focus and by determining the gen- eral objectives of the final system to be im- plemented. Since part of the purpose of the project was to develop a plan for library- wide automation, it was quickly recognized by the team that the application area should be an integrated library information sys- tem. However, the IBM representative sug- gested that this scope was too broad for the study and that one functional area such as Communications 207 acquisitions be chosen, with other functions reserved for subsequent ATT studies. Given time constraints, a compromise arrange- ment was made in which serials control was determined as the scope. Since serials con- trol is a single functional area, but encom- passes nearly all bibliographic issues, it served as a microcosm of overall library op- erations. Therefore, it was generally ac- cepted that a plan that effectively accom- modated serials would constitute an integrated system plan. The organizational phase continued by determining who to in- terview during the data-collections phase and by setting up an interview schedule. This phase was concluded by developing an outline of the final report and by assigning writing responsibilities to individual team members. The data-gathering effort constituted phase two. This involved structured inter- views of representative staff of each unit of the library who were involved in routine interactions with any phase of serials con- trol at Clemson. Interviews were conducted with staff from acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, reference units, and branch li- braries as well as the university business of- fice, students, and faculty. Following an outline in the ATT, each person interviewed was asked for specific details of his work with serial publications regarding (1) interfaces (or points of inter- action), (2) concerns or needs, (3) suggested improvements, (4) expected values or bene- fits of improvements, (5) work volume, and (6) cycles. Data gathered in each of these interview sessions were immediately docu- mented in a letter to the interviewees. These letters were reviewed by those interviewed for corrections and adde::tl delail. Data from completed and documented interviews were consolidated during the third phase of the study into a matrix of each of the six questions plotted against op- erational areas of the library, graphically designating areas of the greatest concern to the largest part of the library. This compos- ite was analyzed to separate problems that could be reasonably handled by an inte- grated automation system from those that needed the attention of administrative pol- icy and direction. Functions for automation consideration were then examined in a 208 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 "blue sky" session of the committee to envi- sion what system would accommodate the specifications for serials control and access that each library unit and serials user re- quired. From this session a synthesis emerged of the architecture for an inte- grated system. 4 This architecture included a description of the basic relationships of functional modules of the system, a list of the various files needed to contain system information, and a list of data elements re- quired for bibliographic holdings, acquisi- tion, and patron records in the system data- base. Phase four called for the translation of the architecture and general system re- quirements into modules on basic access, acquisition or processing functions, and into the individual programs needed to exe- cute each module. The team divided into two parts. The IBM and DAPS personnel, with the associate director, listed the mod- ules and programs and formulated descrip- tions of each. Part of the description effort involved drafting approximate flowcharts of each program. Using algorithms devel- oped by IBM, these descriptions were used to assign estimates of person hours required to create the necessary modules. In order to determine the overall cost of system devel- opment the person-hour figures were con- verted to dollars using an average hourly cost for Clemson DAPS personnel. Committee members not involved in program/module design formed a group to evaluate anticipated benefits defined in the interviews, to collect data from library staff to support these expectations, and to assign a value to them. Benefits from reduced file maintenance, processing, and tracking time were valued as person hours saved by the new system . Additional improvements were projected for the system's capability for better fund control, more complete and immediate on-order, claiming, and in- process information, and statistical collec- tion development/use data. These benefits were assigned the value of estimated dupli- cate and inappropriate material acquired under the present system. A value was not assigned to user benefits. Faculty and stu- dent satisfaction is intangible, and variable from case to case. Enhanced user service was recognized as a substantial benefit of the proposed system, but was not quanti- fied. The cost factors determined in phase four were consolidated with derived benefit values to form a cost/benefit analysis, which constituted phase five. In the sixth and final phase an implemen- tation plan was formulated. This plan, along with recommended target dates, was presented orally to library staff and univer- sity administration. In addition, the entire process, recommendations, and plan of action were documented in a written re- port. 5 RESULTS Within the A TT report were a descrip- tion of the current library environment, ob- jectives and description of the proposed sys- tem, implementation considerations, a cost/benefits analysis, and recommenda- tions for a plan of action. Although care was taken to "walk through" the function of each module of the described system, the report was not intended to provide detailed computer program specifications ready to be coded by a programmer. It described a useful and powerful integrated serials sys- tem in sufficient detail to be a working tool in the hands of a knowledgeable systems an- alyst to match (or revise) already available systems and programs to the library's speci- fications. The report itself also served as an effective communication link with the uni- versity administration, setting out library concerns and giving rational solutions to the pervasive problem of serials control and, in the long term, to an integrated library in- formation system. The timing of the A TT study was fortu- nate for the Clemson library. The univer- sity was on the eve of an accreditation self- study. As often happens with the examination of any organization, a host of related, but unacknowledged , problems surfaced in the course of the ATT study. During the interviews, staff members felt free to bring up matters of unclear policies, misunderstood hierarchical arrangements, and staffing inadequacies throughout the li- brary. The number and importance of non- automation concerns was significant enough that an administrative report was written to articulate these problems to the university administration. 6 It is interesting to note also that, while in every instance the team received enthusiastic cooperation from all those interviewed , there was fear among some staff members that any auto- mation project would necessarily cut staff positions. Once this worry was identified, the study team was able to allay those fears by explaining the study's purpose. One of the greatest contributions of the ATT study has been the direction it has given the library for future goals and priori- ties. By focusing on the problems of serials control, the team evaluated a microcosm of library problems. Investigating these prob- lems in the environment of more limited budgets, possible future closing or freezing of the card catalog, and increased user de- mands for services has helped the library develop a course of action, a resolve of mis- sion, and a direction for future growth. The staff of DAPS and the library are conducting a review of existing software and systems potentially appropriate for a comprehensive serials control system. The ATT study was the tool successfully used to elicit university support for library automa- tion. The university has given its approval, and supplied funding, to proceed with the determination of available systems and with the development of a request for quo- tation. Communications 209 REFERENCES l. For example: University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries, Task Force on Access Sys- tems, Report (Rochester, N.Y.: Univ. of Rochester, 1980), University of California, Berkeley, General Library, Committee on Bibliographic Control, Future of the General Library Catalogs of the University of Califor- nia at Berkeley (Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1977); Pennsylvania State University Li- braries, Systems Development Department, Remote Catalog Access System: General Sys- tem Specifications (University Park: Pennsyl- vania State Univ., 1977). 2. Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, Annual Report, 1979 (Was hington, D.C.: The Association, 1979). 3. International Business Machines Corpora- tion, Application Transfer Teams: Applica- tion Description (White Plains, N.Y.: The Corporation, 1977), p.1 ; International Busi- ness Machines Corporation, Application Transfer Teams: Realizing Your Computing Syste1ns' Potential (White Plains, N.Y.: The Corporation, 1977). 4. Inte rnational Busine'iS Machines Corpora- tion , Business Systems Planning: Information Systems Planning Guide (White Plains, N.Y.: The Corporation, 1975), p.49. 5. Richard W. Meyer and others, Total Inte- grated Library Information System: A Report on the General Design Phase (Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Re- sources, 1980), ED 191446. 6. Richard W. Meyer, Cooper Library: Status and Agenda. A Report on FY 1979-80 (Clem- son, S.C.: Clemson Univ., 1980). 
5297	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113359 210 Reports and Working Papers Inclusion of Nonroman Character Sets The following document was prepared by staff of the Library of Congress as a work- ing paper for discussions on incorporating the techniques described into the MARC communications format. The document defines the principles for inclusion of nonroman alphabet character sets in the MARC communications format and the procedural changes needed to allow implementation of the principles. This technique was agreed upon at the MARBI Committee meeting on February 2, 1981. Any questions on the description of the inclusion of nonroman character sets in the MARC communications format should be addressed to: Library of Congress, Process- ing Services, Attention: Mrs. Margaret Pat- terson, Washington , DC 20540. 1. INTRODUCTION The cataloging rules followed by Ameri- can libraries favor recording the title page data in the original script when possible. This helps those who consult catalogs to read the most essential information about the book. (Reading his or her name in ro- manized form is just as difficult for someone who knows Arabic as reading your name when it's written in Arabic. ) The new cata- loging rules also specify that names and ti- tles in notes be given in their original script, AACR2 l. 7 A.3. Technological advances have made it possible to provide many, if not all , nonroman alphabets in machine- readable cataloging records. OCLC and RLIN are in the process of enhancing their systems so they can handle some nonroman writing systems. The Library of Congress has entered into a cooperative agreement with RLIN for the development and use of an augmented RLIN system for East Asian (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) bib- liographic data. Although the Library itself will not be creating and distributing MARC records with nonroman characters in the near term , the goal of this proposal is to define how these data can be included now so others can do so soon. The technique known as an escape se- quence announces that the codes which fol- low will represent letters in a specific differ- ent alphabet instead of the roman letters the codes would otherwise stand for. 2. PRINCIPLES The following principles will govern in- clusion of other alphabets in MARC rec- ords. Note that these deal only with the MARC communications format record, not the details of its processing-keying, sort- ing, display, etc.-by any bibliographic agency or utility. These principles are a slightly revised version of ones reviewed and approved in principle by the MARBI Character Set Committee in 1976. The ear- lier version was also distributed that year as working paper N77 of ISO TC46/SC4/ WGI. (1) Standard character sets should be used when available. (2) Standard escape sequences should be used when available. (3) Escape sequences should be used only when needed. (4) Escape sequences are locking within a subfield but revert at any delimiter or field or record terminator code. Example: (For demonstration purposes only, EC represents escape to Cyrillic and EA escape to ASCII) 245 10$aECRussian title proper :$bECRussian Subtitle. F not 245 10$aECRussian title proper :EA$bECRussian subtitle. EAF and not 245 10$aECRussian title proper :$bRus- sian subtitle. F (5) Records which contain an escape se- quence will also contain a special field which specifies what unusual character sets are present. 3. IMPLEMENTATION The following will be done to realize these principles. • The ALA character set will be redefined-see table 1. • A new character sets present field will be defined. • Details of application such as distribu- tion, filing indicator values, etc., will be defined. 3.1 Discussion- ALA Character Set A character set is a list of characters with the code used to represent each one. Using this definition , the ALA character set as given in appendixes III.B and III.C of MARC Formats for Bibliographic Data ac- tually consists of eight character sets. (1) ASCII and ALA diacritics and spe- cial characters with their eight-bit code. (2) Superscript zero to nine, plus, minus, open and close parentheses with their eight-bit code. Table 1. Proposed Revised ALA Character Set - ~ p ~ p p p p I p p I p P P I I p I p p P I P I P I I P ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ I P ~ I I ~ I p I P I I I I P P I I P I I I I P I I I I 4 3 2 I BITS p I 2 3 4 ~ 6 7 R 9 10 II 12 13 14 , 'I p I p I 2 NUL OLE SP SOH DCI ! fSTX DC2 . ETX DC3 " EOT DC4 s ENQ NAK " ACK SYN & BEL !::TO OS CAN I HT EM I LP SUB VT F:SC + FF FS CR OS , - so ns , S l us' I ~ p l p 9 I I I I p p p I p I 3 ~ ~ . p @ p I A Q 2 B R 3 c s 4 I> T ~ E u 6 p v 7 G w 8 H X !I I y J z ; K I < 1. \ - M I > N - ' 1 0 I ASCII 6 • b c d c r • h ; j k I m n 0 Reports and Working Papers 211 (3) Subscript zero to nine, plus, minus, open and close parentheses with their eight-bit code. (4) Greek lowercase alpha, beta, and gamma with their eight-bit code. (5-8) The same characters with their six- bit codes. The six-bit character sets are used to dis- tribute MARC records on seven-track tapes. There are very few subscribers. It is un- likely that a method can be devised for dis- tribution of nonroman character sets rec- ords on such tapes. The present seven-track subscribers should be asked if they know of any way to do so. If they do not, the alterna- tives are to cease distribution of seven-track tapes entirely or limit them to those records containing only roman alphabet characters-those without a character sets present field. In the latter case, they should pay proportionately less for their subscrip- tion. The present four eight-bit character sets and their escape sequences do not conform to present standards. The present standards did not exist when the character sets were being defined. To avoid creating and dis- tributing records containing both standard and nonstandard character sets and stan- p p I I I I p p I I p p p I p I 7 8 9 . p q r ' l u ,. w X y , I' : I' -. DEL l I I /I p ~ I I I I I I p p I I p I p I II p ~~. I I 10 II 12 13 · u 0 L I l ' e • < 2 0 d ' J - .. p ~ 4 4 - . ;E • 5 s - u <E .. 6 -, " 7 ' . . 8 .. < ~ ( 9 - . 411 b + . ~ :!: - r -- 0 " ( ~ lf u I ) ~ . a y . Proposed Change D ALA Extension of ASCII I HB 7 I 6T ~) s 212 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 dard and nonstandard escape sequences, the ALA character set should be redefined. This change will be much less traumatic than it sounds. No new characters will be added; only the codes used to represent sub- script, superscript, and Greek characters will be changed. These characters were found in the title field of 8.59 out of 1.1 million records. If, as seems plausible, most or all MARC subscribers translate tapes into their own character set codes as a first step and for communication translate from their own codes into the ALA character set as the last step before distribution, only these two programs would need to be changed. The proposed redefined ALA character set is shown in table 1. On it, columns two through seven are the American standard code for information interchange (ASCII) which is a recognized standard with a regis- tered escape sequence. Columns ten through fifteen are the ALA extension of ASCII with special characters and the three Greek letters in columns ten and eleven, su- perscripts in column twelve, subscripts in thirteen, and diacritics in columns fourteen and fifteen. (It should be noted that six AS- CII codes will not occur in MARC records: codes 5/14 circumflex, 5/15 underline, 6/0 grave, and 7/ 14 tilde are redundant with the codes for these diacritics in columns fourteen and fifteen; codes 7 I 11 left brace and 7/13 right brace never occur because these characters do not occur in biblio- graphic data. No change in this practice is proposed. It is the fact that these last two codes are used in some nonroman alphabet standard character sets that makes nonro- man six-bit codes impossible.) The ALA ex- tension of ASCII is not an official standard now; it does not have an escape sequence yet. In addition to the ALA extension of ASCII, there is a draft international stan- dard extended Latin alphabet character set for bibliographic use-ISO DIS 5426 (table 2). While both sets are identical in purpose, they differ in the characters they contain and the codes used to represent them. The ABACUS group has agreed that ISO 5426 be used for international distribution of MARC records among the bibliographic agencies they represent once it is an ap- proved international standard, cf. LC In- formation Bulletin, November 16, 1979, p. 475. The Library will, however, continue to use the ALA extension for U.S. distribu- tion. Some of the characters only on the ISO set could be added to the ALA extension without affecting existing records. An ANSI Z39 subcommittee has been established to consider this possibility. While some changes may be desirable to the ALA char- acter repertoire, it is important that this is- sue not delay the separate matter of provid- ing for inclusion of nonroman alphabets in MARC. 3.2 Discussion-Escape Sequence For purposes of this discussion, escape se- quences are defined as a combination of three characters. (See table 3.) The first is an escape character, hex 1111. The second character specifies which codes are having different characters assigned to them, those in columns 2- 7 or those in columns 10-15. The third character defines what characters are being assigned to these codes, e.g., Cy- rillic, Greek, etc. This is a greatly simplified explanation of the escape sequence stan- dards, ISO 2022 and ANSI X3.41. (Both are in the process of revision.) These standards provide for two types of escape sequences: public ones which reference registered character sets, and private ones for unregis- tered character sets. While the meaning of the latter is governed by an agreement be- tween the sender and the receiver, they are in conformity with the standard. Until the ALA extension of ASCII has a registered es- cape sequence, such a "private" escape se- quence could be defined for it in the charac- ter set appendix and used. The second character of an escape se- quence which changes the meaning of the codes in columns 2-7 contains either an open parenthesis, hex 2/8, or a less than sign, hex 2/12. The second character of an escape sequence which changes the mean- ing of the codes in columns 10-15 contains either a close parenthesis, hex 2/9, or an equal sign, hex 2/13. The third character of escape sequences for certain registered character sets has been defined as follows: Table 2. Extended Latin Alphabet Character Set II . : 0 0 0 I ~ 0 lb71b61bs b4 b3 b2 bt 1\ow Set ASCII Bits Russian (1967 Cost Standard) (Table 3) ISO Greek rSO extended Cyrillic (Table3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 l 1 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 l 0 1 5 0 1 1 0 6 0 1 1 1 7 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 1 9 1 0 l 0 10 1 0 1 l 11 1 l 0 0 12 l 1 0 1 13 1 1 1 0 14 1 1 1 1 15 Code registration applied for, code pending 5/8, uppercase X 517, uppercase W 0 0 1 The sixteen codes in column three can be used to designate sixteen different "private" character sets. In MARC records, ASCII and Russian would be assigned to columns 2-7, while Greek and the extended Cyrillic (and the ALA extension of ASCII) would be assigned to columns 10-15. 1 Reports and Working Papers 213 10 0 1 1 11 l 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 7 ) . ... I l iE ae " -[) ct " . .J £ A 0 1.1 s ~ 0 ¥ - ~ 1 t .t u u ij 9 . .. I II .. _t. .r . . .. ¢ = ¢ .. .. 0 <E I <E « >> . B "' b * . p p © I II r ® II J 1 ® L " '-../ Escape sequences would be given where needed in data fields. If necessary, it is per- missible to embed escape sequences within a word. For example, a Latin diacritic might be needed with an extended Cyrillic letter to represent a letter in one of the non- Slavic languages of Central Asia which uses the Cyrillic alphabet. In addition to escape sequences for non- roman alphabets described above in which one code stands for one letter, the escape standards also define escape sequence pro- cedures for changing to multiple byte char- acter sets. Because the ideographic writing 214 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 Table 3. Escape Sequence Character Set p p p p p p p 1 p p 1 p ~ ~ 1 1 U I P P p I P 1 p I 1 P P 1 I 1 I P P U 1 u u 1 I ~ 1 P I ~ I I I I P U I I Q I I I I P I 1 I I ·I 3 2 I JilTS g 1 2 J 4 r. 6 7 8 9 Ill 11 12 IJ (.1 1$ fl ~ ~ u ~ p 1 p 1 ~ p Q p 1 1 p I 2 3 SP p ! 1 " 2 # J ll 4 \\ $ & 6 7 I 8 I 9 : • : < - - > I ? l ~ I I I g g I p I ~ 4 !o G 10 n 10 a « A 15 p !j 1.1 c ll A T .n e >' E <!> "' <l> r • r " • X u .. lo( -,, 3 ~ K w " J1 . n ... U1 M K ~ ll 0 . - 0 ~ I I l I I u g p u I 1 p ~ I 1 u 1 ~ 1 ~ I ~ 7 8 9 10 11 12 n r .!l ~ p r c c T ~ y s lK j B 'i b j bl "' 3 ,_ ill II 3 " Ul y 'l ,, ,, I I p 1 13 -t 9 v .. [ J /I I I I 1 H ~ 1!o 1 / r '!; ,; e f y c ;;{ j:: s 1 .. J Jb H, 1\ ,( y ll " I Hll 7 I GT r, s COST 13052-67 Russian ISO DIS 5~27 Extended Cyrillic systems of East Asia use thousands of differ- ent characters, it will be necessary to use two or three bytes/codes to identify a single specific character uniquely. The Japanese Industrial Standard character set, JIS 6226, uses two bytes per character, and it has been submitted to ISO to obtain a registered es- cape sequence. The first volume of the Chi- nese Character Code for Information Inter- change, CCCII, has been issued; the second is expected in December. It uses three bytes per character. In all probability the LC/ RLIN East Asian cooperative project will adopt either these character sets and their escape sequences or machine reversible ad- aptations of them. The need to expand East Asian character sets constantly to provide for infrequently used characters poses prob- lems whose solutions cannot be predicted at this time. 3. 3 Discussion- Character Sets Present Field As specified in the sixth principle, there is need for a special field which specifies what character sets are present whenever a set other than ASCII and the ALA extension of ASCII are present in a record. The pro- posed field will use tag 066 and be defined as follows: 066 Character Sets Present This field specifies what character sets are present in the other than ASCII and the ALA extension of ASCII. The field is not repeatable. Both indicators are unused and will contain blanks. $a This subfield will contain all but the first character of the escape sequence to the default character set in columns 2-7 whenever the default character set is not ASCII. This is not likely to occur in records created in the United States. Since there can only be one default character set, the subfield is not repeatable. $b This subfield will contain all but the first character of the escape sequence to the default character set in columns 10- 15 whenever the default character set is not the ALA extension of ASCII. This is not likely to occur in records created in the United States. Since there can be only one default extension character set, this subfield is not repeatable. $c This subfield will contain all but the first character (or all but the first if a longer escape sequence is used) of every escape sequence found in the record. If the same escape sequence occurs more than once, it will be given only once in this subfield. The subfield is repeatable. This subfield does not identify the default charac- ter sets. Example : l'>l'>~c)W A record containing the ISO extended Cyrillic character set. l'>l'>$c)W$c)X A record 3.4 Discussion-Other Details containing both the ISO Greek and extended Cyrillic character sets. When a field has an indicator to specify the number of leading characters to be ig- nored in filing and the text of the field be- gins with an escape sequence, the length of the escape sequence will not be included in the character count. When fields contain escape sequences to languages written from right to left, the field will still be given in its logical order. For example, the first letter of a Hebrew title would be the eighth character in a field (following the indicators, a delimiter, a subfield code, and a three-character escape sequence). The first letter would not appear just before the end of field character and proceed backwards to the beginning of the field. A convention exists in descriptive cata- loging fields that subfield content designa- tion generally serves as a substitute for a space. An escape sequence can occur within a word, after a subfield code, or between two words not at a subfield boundary. For simplicity, the convention that an escape sequence does not replace a space should be adopted. One other convention is also advo- cated: when a space, subfield code, or punctuation mark (except open quote, pa- Reports and Working Papers 215 renthesis or bracket) is adjacent to an escape sequence, the escape sequence will come last. Wayne Davison of RLIN raised the fol- lowing issue. After the Library of Congress has prepared and distributed an entirely ro- manized cataloging record for a Russian book, a library with access to automated Cyrillic input and display capability will create a record for the same book with the title in the vernacular. (Since AACR2 says to give the title in the original script "wher- ever practicable," the library could be said to be obligated to do so.) In such an event the local record could have all the authori- tative Library of Congress access points. To keep this record current when the Library of Congress record is revised and redistrib- uted, it would be necessary to carry the LC control number in the local record . Most automated systems are hypersensitive to the presence of two records with the same con- trol number. The two records can be easily distinguished: in the Library of Congress record, the modified record byte in field 008 will be set to "o" and it will not have any 066, character sets present field. A Comparison of OCLC, RLG/RLIN, and WLN University of Oregon Library The following comparison of three major bibliographic utilities was prepared by the University of Oregon Library's Cataloging Objectives Committee, Subcommittee on Bibliographic Utilities. Members of the sub- committee were Elaine Kemp, acting assis- tant university librarian for technical ser- vices; Rod Slade, coordinator of the library's computer search service; and Thomas Stave, head documents librarian. The subcommittee attempted to produce a comparison that was concise and jargon- free for use with the university community in evaluating the bibliographic utilities un- der consideration. The University Faculty Library Committee was enlisted to review this document in draft jorm and held three meetings with the subcommittee for that purpose. The document was also shared with library faculty and staff in order to elicit suggestions for revision. 
5298	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113553 230 I ournal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 Septem her 1981 for member libraries and will demonstrate their system in mid-1981. OCLC data has been successfully transferred to many local circulation systems. RLGIRLIN RLIN does not anticipate offering local circulation services for member libraries. RLIN data has been successfully transferred to several local circulation systems. WLN WLN does not anticipate offering local circulation systems on their computer for member libraries. WLN data has been suc- cessfully transferred to local circulation sys- tems and an agreement has been reached with DATAPHASE, a computerized circu- lation system vendor, to discount purchase of their system by WLN member libraries. Public Online Catalogs Again, none of the bibliographic utilities under consideration currently support pub- lic online catalogs of an individual library's collection. A public online catalog requires further programming in order to make it easy for the public to locate materials of interest without extensive training; the bib- liographic utility's searching procedures are too esoteric to be used by the general public. As in circulation, issues of data transferabil- ity and full retrospective conversion of the UO Library's catalog are paramount. OCLC OCLC does not currently encourage public access to their database and does not support use of local online catalogs on their computer due to the tremendous demand for computer resources exerted by 2400 member libraries. OCLC and RLG /RLIN are participating in a study of user require- ments for a public online catalog. OCLC data has been successfully transferred to several local online catalogs, including Eugene Public Library's circulation and online catalog system, ULISYS. RLG!RLIN RLIN anticipates being able to offer pub- lic access to their database. They are partic- ipating in a study with OCLC of user re- quirements for such a system, but no date has been announced for the development of this capability in RLIN. RLIN data has been successfully transferred to a local pub- lic online catalog at Northwestern Univer- sity. WLN WLN does not believe that a local online patron accessed catalog should be provided through the WLN computer, even though they anticipate having such a capability within one year. Instead, they encourage libraries to develop local systems for public access to the online computerized catalog and to obtain data from the WLN catalog- ing system. The University of Illinois is adapting the WLN computer search and database management software to provide a local online catalog and computer- assisted instruction in its use for the public. Checklist for Cassette Recorders Connected to CRTs Prepared by Lawrence A. WOODS: Purdue University Libraries, West Lafayette, Indi- ana, for the Technical Standards for Library Automation Committee, Information Science and Automation Section, Library and Infor- mation Technology Association. INTRODUCTION A data cassette recorder connected to a printer port is an effective, low-cost method of collecting data in machine-readable form from display terminals such as the OCLC 100/105. It is important that a data recorder be used rather than an audio recorder al- though the cassette itself can be a good- quality audio tape. It is also important to note that the data recorded on the tape are not the same as the data originally transmit- ted to the display terminal, but are simply a line-by-line image of what appears on the screen. A typical installation will have a minimum of two devices: one attached to the display terminal to collect data, and one attached to a printer or an input device to another computer for playback of the data. There are more than 150 various data re- - cording devices on the market. This check- list is prescriptive in nature, outlining and describing those features that are necessary or desirable for a typical application. In ad- dition to features, environmental consider- ations are briefly mentioned along with in- formation for the purchase, lease, or rental of data equipment. FEATURES In general, featu.res must be compatible between all devices used for recording and playback in a given application. Some fea- tures that are desirable for certain applica- tions are unnecessary or inappropriate for others. 1. Recording Media The Phillips cassette is most widely used and may be interchanged be- tween the recorders of different man- ufacturers that utilize it. The car- tridge (either 3M or a vendor proprietary cartridge) is gaining pop- ularity because of its greater storage and transfer rates, but as yet is not widely used. 2. Code Most print ports on display terminals use ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Exchange) data code. The recorder selected should use the same. 3. Interfaces The cassette recorder has an "in" plug to accept data. This must be compati- ble with the print port on the terminal-usually RS232C. The "out" plug on the recorder sends the recorded data to a printer or to a com- puter. This interface should also be RS232C. 4. Recording Characteristics a. The number of tracks can vary from one to four. This is one of the factors that determine the amount of data that can be recorded on a single cassette. Four tracks are rec- ommended. b. Density also affects the amount of data that can be recorded. Usual densities are 800 or 1,600 bits per inch (bpi). c. Recording mode. Thereareseveral Reports and Working Papers 231 modes available. Phase Encoded (PE) is the best mode for data ap- plications. Non-Return to Zero (NRZ) is a popular mode, but has poor error recovery. IBM has a version called NRZI, which im- proves on NRZ but still is less reli- able than Phase Encoded. Other commonly found modes are Com- plementary NRZ and Ratio Re- cording. d. Recording format. There is a vari- ety of recording formats. To be as- sured compatibility with the ter- minal and playback device the format should be either ANSI (American National Standards In- stitute) or ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers Associa- tion) compatible. 5. Transmission a. Duplex. The recorder should have both full and half duplex avail- able. b. Data transfer rate (baud rate). Baud rate is usually switch- selectable from 110 to 9600. The recorder must be set at the same speed as the printer port on the ter- minal. The OCLC 100 and 105 terminals have a printer port baud rate selection switch that may be setat100,150,300,600,1200,and a meaningless 1800 baud. Select a recorder that has the fastest com- patible setting: 1200 baud is best. Data must be played back at a rate compatible with the receiving de- vice. 6. Tape Transport Characteristics a. Read/write speed is usually a func- tion of the baud rate. b. Non recording speeds. This feature is important for convenience. Fast forward and rewind should be available. One hundred twenty inches per second will rewind a cassette in about thirty seconds. c. Drive mechanism. Four options are available: capstan, pinch roller, servomechanism, or reel-to- reel. Pinch roller is the most pre- cise but reduces the life of the tape. 7. Packaging 232 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 This feature can affect the price of the final configuration. If any item is listed as "separate," increase the total price accordingly. Components that can be either internal or separate are: controller, interface, or power sup- ply. 8. Remote Operation Some devices use ASCII control codes to trigger controls automatically. This is a useful feature, but the device must have a transparent mode switch, otherwise codes embedded in the data being recorded or sent may trigger un- desired operations such as rewind. 9. Operating Characteristics a. Rewind, fast forward, initialize, send and receive are all necessary operations and should be switch- controlled. b. Edit, auto program search, string search, skip, etc., are useful for word-processing operations but are of little use in simple data col- lection and transmission. c. Read backward is desirable for sort operations. d. Character mode, line mode, and string mode are useful for printing operations but of little use in data transmission. e. Online/offline should be switch- selectable. f. Simultaneous read/write is useful for editing operations. g. Direct block accessing is useful if there is a need to search for re- corded data but is not used in se- quential processing. h. Auto reverse is a useful feature for recording or transmitting more data than can be recorded on one side of a cassette. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS I. Humidity Range Humidity range should be 20 percent to 80 percent without condensation. Lower humidity will cause excessive static electricity. 2. Temperature Temperature range should be be- tween ten degrees and forty degrees centigrade. 3. Power Requirements Most recorders require a standard 115-volt alternating current at 47 to 63Hz. and draw about 60 watts. The circuit should be free from interfer- ence such as that caused by florescent lights. A transformer may be required in the outlet to guarantee even power. 4. Space Requirements The recorder usually can be stored on a desk top. It is important that the indicator lights be visible to the termi- nal operator to monitor its operation. PURCHASE I. Maintenance and Availability Ask how many drives the manufac- turer has installed to date. This may vary from a few hundred to one hun- dred thousand or more. Establish a maintenance contract with the com- pany or a local service bureau. It may be necessary to acquire a spare re- corder to use as backup. 2. Price Determine ahead of time what fea- tures you are actually going to use. Bells and whistles all cost money. A simple reliable recorder can be pur- chased for around $700. Multiple drive units and other features can run as high as $3,600. 
5299	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113423 $c This subfield will contain all but the first character (or all but the first if a longer escape sequence is used) of every escape sequence found in the record. If the same escape sequence occurs more than once, it will be given only once in this subfield. The subfield is repeatable. This subfield does not identify the default charac- ter sets. Example: l'>l'l~c)W A record containing the ISO extended Cyrillic character set. l'>l'>$c)W$c)X A record 3.4 Discussion-Other Details containing both the ISO Greek and extended Cyrillic character sets. When a field has an indicator to specify the number of leading characters to be ig- nored in filing and the text of the field be- gins with an escape sequence, the length of the escape sequence will not be included in the character count. When fields contain escape sequences to languages written from right to left, the field will still be given in its logical order. For example, the first letter of a Hebrew title would be the eighth character in a field (following the indicators, a delimiter, a subfield code, and a three-character escape sequence). The first letter would not appear just before the end of field character and proceed backwards to the beginning of the field. A convention exists in descriptive cata- loging fields that subfield content designa- tion generally serves as a substitute for a space. An escape sequence can occur within a word, after a subfield code, or between two words not at a subfield boundary. For simplicity, the convention that an escape sequence does not replace a space should be adopted. One other convention is also advo- cated: when a space, subfield code, or punctuation mark (except open quote, pa- Reports and Working Papers 215 renthesis or bracket) is adjacent to an escape sequence, the escape sequence will come last. Wayne Davison of RLIN raised the fol- lowing issue. After the Library of Congress has prepared and distributed an entirely ro- manized cataloging record for a Russian book, a library with access to automated Cyrillic input and display capability will create a record for the same book with the title in the vernacular. (Since AACR2 says to give the title in the original script "wher- ever practicable," the library could be said to be obligated to do so.) In such an event the local record could have all the authori- tative Library of Congress access points. To keep this record current when the Library of Congress record is revised and redistrib- uted, it would be necessary to carry the LC control number in the local record. Most automated systems are hypersensitive to the presence of two records with the same con- trol number. The two records can be easily distinguished: in the Library of Congress record, the modified record byte in field 008 will be set to "o" and it will not have any 066, character sets present field. A Comparison of OCLC, RLG/RLIN, and WLN University of Oregon Library The following comparison of three major bibliographic utilities was prepared by the University of Oregon Library's Cataloging Objectives Committee, Subcommittee on Bibliographic Utilities. Members of the sub- committee were Elaine Kemp, acting assis- tant university librarian for technical ser- vices; Rod Slade, coordinator of the library's computer search service; and Thomas Stave, head documents librarian. The subcommittee attempted to produce a comparison that was concise and jargon- free for use with the university community in evaluating the bibliographic utilities un- der consideration. The University Faculty Library Committee was enlisted to review this document in draft form and held three meetings with the subcommittee for that purpose. The document was also shared with library faculty and staff in order to elicit suggestions for revision. 216 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 A copy of the draft was sent to each utility with a request for suggestions for correction and/or clarification of the report. Each of the utilities responded promptly, and their recommendations were reviewed by the subcommittee and have been incorporated into the report as it appears here. In reading this report two considerations should be kept in mind: (1) the information is current as of December 1980, and (2) the efforts at brevity and jargon-free compari- son may have resulted in oversimplification in some areas. This report is one aspect of the six- months-long decision-making process that led the University of Oregon Library to se- lect OCLC, Inc. (now the Online Com- puter Library Center). INTRODUCTION An online bibliographic utility provides computer services to member libraries who, in turn, contribute computer-readable rec- ords to a common database. The database is a collection of catalog records input by the members and other sources such as the Li- brary of Congress, the Government Print- ing Office, and the National Library of Medicine. Use of the database is online, meaning that each member library accesses the computer directly and carries out its work in an interactive, conversational manner through a computer terminal lo- cated in the library. Communications with the central computer are carried over a leased long-distance telephone line. The bibliographic utility produces two primary products-catalog cards and magnetic tapes of a library's catalog records-and of- fers many other services for processing and bibliographic control in libraries. In addition to providing the products and services of a bibliographic utility through the Research Libraries Information Net- work (RLIN), the Research Libraries Group (RLG) has three other goals: (1) to provide a structure through which common research library problems can be addressed, (2) to provide scholars and others with in- creasingly sophisticated access to biblio- graphic and other forms of information , and (3) to promote, develop, and operate cooperative programs in collection devel- opment, preservation of library materials, and shared access to research materials. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of considerations in selecting an online bibliographic utility and a compari- son of the three utilities being reviewed by the University of Oregon Library. Each consideration is accompanied by a brief definition or explanation, and a summary of each utility's capability in providing the necessary services or products. An attempt has been made to distinguish between cur- rently available services and those that are planned for the future, but technological and organizational changes in the utilities have complicated this task and, in some cases, made it difficult for the subcommit- tee members to distinguish between opera- tional and projected capabilities. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS HISTORY OCLC OCLC, Inc., was founded in 1967 by the Ohio College Association as the Ohio Col- lege Library Center, to be the first online shared cataloging network. It has since ex- panded beyond the confines of the State of Ohio and is currently used by nearly 2,400 member libraries in the United States and abroad. In 1977 it adopted its present name. RLGIRLIN The Research Libraries Group, Inc. , was established in 1974 by four major research libraries. In 1978 it acquired from Stanford University the BALLOTS bibliographic data system, which became the foundation for RLIN (Research Libraries Information Network), RLG's wholly-owned biblio- graphic utility. Besides being the basis for RLG's cooperative processing activities, RLIN supports its other three programs: Shared Resources, Cooperative Collection Development, and Preservation. RLG pres- ently has 23 owner-members. WLN In 1975 the Washington Library Net- work began testing its online system using as its base a computerized bibliographic data- base that several Washington libraries had been building since 1972. WLN is a project of the Washington State Library and pres- ently has over 60 members, primarily in the Northwest. Membership Configuration OCLC OCLC had 2,392 member libraries, in early 1981, including about 1,300 college and university libraries, 330 public li- braries, 250 federal libraries, 145 special li- braries, 77law libraries, 71 members of the Association of Research Libraries, 168 med- ical libraries, 37 state libraries, and at least 48 art and architecture libraries. RLG!RLIN In December 1980, there were 23 owner- members (21 university libraries, The New York Public Library, and the American An- tiquarian Society), two associate members, two affiliate members, and several museum and three law library special members. Li- braries which formerly contracted for BAL- LOTS cataloging services from Stanford University are still being served by RLIN. These include 52 libraries using RLIN for online cataloging and 136 libraries using RLIN on a search-only basis. WLN WLN had 65 members, in early 1981 , including 34 college and university li- braries, 21 public libraries, two special li- braries, three state libraries, five law li- braries, and the Pacific Northwest Bibliographic Center. Governance Methods of governance are of concern to libraries considering membership inasmuch as they determine to a great extent the re- sponsiveness of the utilities to the needs of their members and the ability of members to participate in setting the direction and priorities for the utility. OCLC A 15-mem ber Board of Trustees holds the powers and performs the duties necessary for governance (including filling manage- ment vacancies and approving policy and budgets). A Users' Council, elected by the members, participates in the election of trustees and represents the interests of the membership in an advisory capacity. It also Reports and Working Papers 217 must ratify amendments to the OCLC Code of Regulations and Articles of Incorpora- tion. Of the 69 delegates to the Council, 44 are from academic libraries. Various advi- sory groups exist representing the interests of special groups within the membership, including a Research Libraries Advisory Group. Twenty regional networks contract with OCLC to provide services to their members. OCLC libraries in Oregon par- ticipate through the OCLC Western Ser- vice Center, Claremont, CA, and are served by OCLC's Portland office. RLG!RLIN RLG /RLIN operates through a Board of Governors consisting of one representative from each full member institution with the President as chief operating officer. Stand- ing committees for Collection Manage- ment, Public Services, Preservation, and Library Technical Systems & Bibliographic Control; and Program committees for East Asia, Art, Law, Theology, and Music are composed of appointees from member insti- tutions and report to the President. WLN An 11-member Computer Services Council is elected directly by the online par- ticipant libraries. Legal responsibility for WLN resides with the Washington State Li- brary Commission. Financial Stability An indicator of a utility's financial stabil- ity is its proven ability to generate sufficient revenues to cover expenses with the least recourse to outside funding sources. Financial stability in a utility is a concern to a library considering membership not only from the standpoint of a utility's mere survival, but because of its implications for future system developments, possible dra- matic fee increases should outside funding evaporate, and maintenance of high qual- ity services and products. OCLC OCLC, Inc., is a not-for-profit corpora- tion, with tax-exempt status having been granted under section 501 ( c)(3) of the Inter- nal Revenue Code . It is self-supporting, re- ceiving no government or private subsidies, 218 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 and issuing no stock. Its revenues alone sup- port existing operations, expansion, and re- search and development activities. Reve- nues result from fees charged member libraries for products and services. OCLGs estimated assets for fiscal year 1980 were over $55 million and its revenues approxi- mately $24 million. Its revenue base is its 2,400 member institutions. RLGIRLIN The Research Libraries Group, Inc., is a tax-exempt corporation owned by its 23 owner-member institutions. Revenues result from fees charged members for use of the RLIN database. RLG currently must supplement this income with foundation grants and loans from Stanford University, because of relatively high development costs and relatively low revenues. As of this year, nearly $5.25 million has been received in grants and a $2.2 million loan was ob- tained, to be repaid by August 1986. RLG has projected that in 1982-83 ongo- ing operating costs will be met by fee- generated income. RLG's Board of Gover- nors recently approved a new income/ expense structure to take effect September 1, 1981: "operating expenses matched by rates for services; system development matched by grants and loans; program and administration matched by a program part- nership fee." This new program partner- ship fee will be a flat annual rate for full members in the range of $20,000 to $25,000. A decline in the number of units cata- loged by member libraries (due in part to decreased acquisitions budgets), which is the basis for fees charged, forced the Board lo inslilute this new fee. Il.LG is encourag- ing member libraries to seek these addi- tional funds from institutional sources out- side the libraries' own budgets. The new financial structure appears to reflect a recognition of the need for outside resources to provide for research and devel- opment for at least the immediate future, and at the same time an effort to reconcile income and expense in the areas of operat- ing expenses and program administration. Its revenue base is its membership of 23 in- stitutions. In the past RLG has estimated that financial stability would be reached when membership reached 35, but it is un- clear how the new rate structure will affect that projection. WLN The Washington Library Network re- ceives revenues in the form of fees for ser- vices and products. As a division of the Washington State Library, it also receives some funding from the State of Washing- ton. WLN has been the recipient of some outside grants, but does not appear to rely heavily upon grant monies to meet ongoing expenses or system development costs. WLN would like to lessen its dependency upon the State of Washington, and has taken the first step by broadening the base of its advisory committee to include out-of- state members. Its revenue base is its mem- bership of approximately 60 libraries. The committee preparing this report does not have information as to the proportion of revenues generated by fees. However, a re- cent (July 1, 1980) 10% increase in service rates was put into effect for these stated pur- poses, among others: "to recover the cost of operation of the computer service" and to "allow a modest margin to insure stability." Track Record in Meeting Past System Developme11t Deadlines Past success or failure in meeting an- nounced deadlines for system developments may be indicative of future performance in this regard. All three utilities are heavily engaged in research and development and, while we are primarily interested in the fea- tures that are presently available, it is also important to try to gauge what each system will look like several years from uuw. The amount of information available to the committee varied according to the utility, so these columns are not directly compara- ble, but merely suggestive. OCLC OCLC tries not to attach dates to its pro- jections because of early failures to meet an- nounced deadlines. However, its interli- brary loan system was implemented one year early and its searching improvements are claimed to be ahead of schedule. The planned acquisitions subsystem had been scheduled for completion in Summer 1980, and is currently being tested by a small number of member libraries. The conversion of OCLC's database to accommodate the new cataloging rules and include new forms of names was completed on schedule in December 1980. The serials union listing capability was also completed on time. (Seep. [224]) RLGIRLIN A study dated August 1978 performed for the University of California listed planned BALLOTS system developments with pro- jected completion dates. This list follows, with actual completion dates or revised pro- jections added: • Network File System (now called "reconfig- ured database" by RLIN) Projected January 1979 Revised projection April 1981 Serials cataloging Projected January 1979 Actual completion late 1979 Authority control system, phase 1 Projected January 1979 Revised projection Spring 1981 Authority Linking and Control, phase 2 Projected Fall1979 Revised projection Spring 1981 Generalized acquisitions Projected Fall1979 Revised projection (in two phases) June 1981, October 1981 Serials Control Projected 1980 Revised projection post-1982 Library Management Information System Projected 1979 No projected date, no resources allocated Book/COM Catalog Interface Projected 1980 Revised projection 1981 WLN WLN's present online system was one year late, and its acquisitions module was also late. The processing of retrospective conversion tapes which had been three months behind was current by early 1981, *Since 1978 the RLG Board of Governors has determined the order of priorities for research and development. Reports and Working Papers 219 with the exception of two special projects. Large-scale system adjustments to ac- commodate new cataloging rules were completed on schedule, as was implementa- tion of roll-microfilm catalogs. Database Size and Components The size and makeup of the utility's data- base is of concern to libraries considering membership because those factors have the greatest bearing on the library's likelihood of obtaining a large portion of its cataloging information from the system. OCLC Size. Over 7.1 million bibliographic records (February 1981) Books: 4.9 million (October 1979) Serials: 341,000 (October 1979) Other: 340,000 (October 1979) Name authority records: 500,000 (est. by 1981) Formats Available. Books Serials Films (AV) Maps Manuscripts Music recordings Music scores Sources of Data. Member-contributed records Library of Congress-produced Machine- readable cataloging records (MARC) (1968 to date) Government Printing Office-produced rec- ords (cataloged directly into OCLC by GPO) CONSER records (Conversion of Serials- a project of 15 major libraries to produce machine-readable serials cataloging rec- ords). Data are entered directly into OCLC, then authenticated by the Li- brary of Congress and the National Li- brary of Canada. National Library of Medicine-produced records Additional sources include the following databases: Canadian MARC serials Minnesota Union List of Serials Pittsburgh Regional Library Center Serials 220 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 RLG/RLIN Size. Over 3 million bibliographic records 0 une 1980) Books: 2.5 million (June 1980) Serials: 460,000 (June 1980) Authority records: 1.6 million (early 1981) Formats Available. Books Serials Films (AV) Maps Music recordings Music scores Sources of Data. Member-contributed records MARC (excluding 1968- 1972) GPO records (to be added Spring 1981) CONSER records Cataloging records from Columbia and Yale Universities and University of Minne- sota Biomedical Libraries, previously put into machine-readable form, have been added to RLIN. Records from the New York Public Library, Northwestern and Pennsylvania State Universities will be added in the near future. Additional sources include the Avery In- dex to Architectural Periodicals. WLN Size. 2 million bibliographic records (January 1981) Authority records: 2.3 million (January 1981) Holdings records: 2.3 million (December 1980) Formats Available. Books Serials Films (AV) Music recordings• Music scores• Sources of Data. Member-contributed records MARC (1968 to date) GPO records CONSER records (except those not yet au- thenticated by the Library of Congress) Machine-readable records from the Uni- versity of Illinois will be added to WLN's • Awaiting implementation by the Library of Congress. database on a weekly basis by mid-1981. Records from certain libraries in the South- eastern Library Network (SOLINET) will be added in the future, ,as part of an ar- rangement whereby WLN made its com- puter software package available for use by Illinois and SOLINET. RESOURCE SHARING Interlibrary Loan (ILL) ILL is the process by which library mate- rials are lent and borrowed by libraries in the U.S. and foreign countries. A biblio- graphic utility provides two tools to aid in this process: an online union catalog used to determine which library owns the needed material, and a message switching system used to communicate among libraries and to carry out the transaction. ILL at the Uni- versity of Oregon Library is currently ac- complished using a large number of printed union catalogs and is communicated by mail or Western Union teletype. A biblio- graphic utility will not completely replace ILL transactions carried out in this man- ner. The number of requests for materials from the library collection will probably in- crease due to the "visibility" gained in the online union catalog. OCLC The OCLC database provides the largest online union catalog through a holdings record listed with each catalog entry. The ILL message system transfers records from the database to the lending library in a re- quest form, automatically sends the request to up to five libraries, generates records on the status of each request, and provides sta- tistics on ILL transactions. OCLC ILL transactions are generally faster than tradi- tional methods of interlibrary loan because of the ability to move data directly from the online union catalog to the request form without re-typing and the ability to have requests automatically forwarded if a li- brary is unable to fill the request immedi- ately. OCLC's ILL subsystem has been in operation for a year and participating li- braries have reported general satisfaction with its performance. RLG/ RLIN The RLIN database provides an online union catalog through a holdings record listed with each catalog entry. Materials not located in the RLIN database may be referred to the Bibliographic Center at Yale University for further manual searching through printed union catalogs. The RLG Message System may be used to create and send ILL requests to other RLG libraries, though this system is not specifically de- signed as a comprehensive ILL support sys- tem. The Shared Resources Program com- mittee has recently formed a task force charged with the responsibility to create a functional specification for an automated interlibrary loan system, and to determine the priority for its implementation. RLG resource sharing policy requires members to give priority to ILL requests from other RLG members, to suspend fees to members, to provide on-site access to users from mem- bers' libraries' institutions, and to provide free photocopies of non-circulating mate- rials. WLN The WLN database provides an online union catalog through a holdings record listed with each catalog entry. This online union catalog includes the local library call number and, for serials, the specific hold- ings of the library. The WLN Resource Di- rectory is a microfiche listing of the biblio- graphic and holdings information in the database. WLN offers no message switch- ing system for ILL, though this is their highest priority for future development. In cooperation with Pacific Northwest Biblio- graphic Center, WLN is planning experi- ments with a message switching system for interim use until the comprehensive ILL system is developed. Cooperative Acquisitions Cooperation in purchasing library mate- rials is done in order to minimize the dupli- cation of expensive purchases and to ensure that important works are easily available to users of the library, whether they are actu- ally owned or not. OCLC Member libraries may search the data- base to determine the holdings of particular items by other member libraries, in order to Reports and Working Papers 221 avert undesirable duplicative purchases. RLGIRLIN Members actively coordinate purchases of certain categories of materials in desig- nated fields in order to avoid extensive du- plication and to ensure that at least one copy of every item of research value be ac- quired by a member institution. In support of this effort is an automated "cooperative purchase file," containing limited bibliographic information and ac- quisition decisions of RLG members for all new serials on order and for all expensive items ($500 or more). Member institutions agree to develop conspectuses reflecting their level of hold- ings and development in certain fields (sub- jects, language, and formats). These con- spectuses are time-consuming to develop. A survey of holdings in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages has been finished by 12 members. Older members have com- pleted Language and Literature, Fine Arts, Philosophy, and Religion. History is ex- pected by March, 1981, to be followed by the hard sciences. Based upon these con- spectuses, RLG members will build a system-wide collection development pol- icy. New members are expected to begin work on their conspectuses as soon as possi- ble, but not necessarily immediately after joining RLG. WLN Members may search the database to de- termine the holdings of particular items by other member libraries, in order to avert undesirable duplicative purchases. Li- braries may also search the in-process file to determine if items are on order by one of the 23 libraries using WLN's Acquisitions Sub- system. Support for Collection Development Activities A bibliographic utility is potentially use- ful for collection development in that it pro- vides a large file of bibliographic records that may be searched to assist in a) deter- mining the existence of published materials in specified categories (on a particular sub- ject, by a particular author, in a particular series, for example), and b) obt~ining cor- 222 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 rect bibliographic information about spe- cific items to assist in ordering them. Im- portant features in a utility in this regard are database size and variety of access points (subject, author, series titles, etc.). OCLC Useful access points by which the data- base may be searched include: • Personal author • Corporate author • Title • Series title • Variant names (e.g. Clemens or Twain) • Conference names The database must be searched using a "search key" (a code based upon a sequence of initial letters in the words to be searched), not real words. RLG/RLIN Useful access points by which the data- base may be searched include: • Personal author • Corporate author • Conference names • Title • Series title • Subject heading or call number range (excluding items cataloged by the Library of Congress) • Publisher, using a truncated ISBN (In- ternational Standard Book Number) [re- stricted to items cataloged by the Library of Congress] A search of RLIN is likely to produce multiple records for particular items be- cause an item held by more than one mem- ber will be displayed for as many libraries as have cataloged it through the system. It is projected that by April, 1981, RUN's "re- configured database" will have solved that problem by attaching holdings information to one unified record. It will also have merged the two bibliographic subfiles (Li- brary of Congress and member cataloging) so that access by subject heading, call num- ber range, and ISBN will be available for the entire database. WLN Useful access points by which the data- base may be searched include: • Personal author • Corporate author or corporate author keyword (keyword searching permits the user to search for items using either the full heading: American Society for Information Science; or words from the heading: "soci- ety" and "information. " This capability is useful when the complete phrase is not known.) • Title • Corporate or conference author/title series (keyword) • Series title or truncated series title • Subject heading and/or subdivision or truncated subject heading • Corporate and conference name sub- ject headings (keyword) Preservation of Library Materials All bibliographic utilities, because of their function as a union catalog of their members' machine-readable cataloging in- formation, have some usefulness for li- braries making decisions about preserva- tion priorities. A library may, for example, choose to give preservation treatment to item A rather than item B because item B is owned by several other libraries in the vi- cinity, whereas item A appears to be unique. It must be remembered, however , that many older items will not appear at all, because they were cataloged long before the utilities came into existence. OCLC Members may search holdings informa- tion in the database to determine the rela- tive rarity of an item that is a candidate for preservation treatment. RLGIRLIN Members may search holdings informa- tion in the database to determine the rela- tive rarity of an item that is a candidate for preservation treatment. A computerized list of members' micro- preservation activities is provided. Experimental programs are conducted to test new preservation technologies and ap- plications of existing processes . Preservation microfilming is being done for members by staff at Yale and Princeton. Funds are provided to members for pres- ervation activities. r These activities are part of RLG's Preser- vation Program, one of its four major pro- grams. WLN Members may search holdings informa- tion in the database to determine the rela- tive rarity of an item that is a candidate for preservation treatment. TECHNICAL PROCESSING Acquisitions The steps by which the library purchases books and other materials include: l. Pre-order searching to determine that a requested item is not already owned by the library or on order. 2. Selecting a dealer likely to be able to supply desired item. 3. Placing the order. 4. Receiving the item. 5. Clearing the order records. 6. Processing the invoice for payment. 7. Maintaining precise accounting of all book funds. 8. Inquiring about the status of items which are not received when ex- pected. 9. Cancelling orders and adjusting ac- counting records when items are not available. At the UO most acquisitions forms and files are created and maintained manually. In an automated acquisitions system the placing of the initial order generates an ac- quisition record for each item, which is up- dated as the item moves through the cycle outlined above. This eliminates the need for maintaining separate files according to the status of an order. OCLC Operational. OCLC has an online name- address directory which presently can be searched while using other OCLC subsys- tems. This file contains information about publishing, educational, library, and pro- fessional organizations and associations. This information will be automatically transferrable to forms being produced on- line. Planned. OCLC's Acquisitions Subsys- tem, which is presently being tested by se- Reports and Working Papers 223 lected member libraries, is projected to be generally available in Spring 1981. When operational the Acquisitions Sub- system will permit users to: Place orders for all types of bibliographic materials (forms generated will be sent directly to supplier with copy to library) Renew subscriptions Request publications or price quotations Create deposit account orders Send prepaid orders Cancel orders Create and adjust fund records Receive periodic fund reports RLGIRLIN Operational. RLIN does not have an op- erational Acquisitions Subsystem. Stanford University is continuing to use a system de- veloped as part of BALLOTS. Planned. The RLG Board of Governors has approved functional specifications for an Acquisitions Subsystem to be introduced in two phases. By June 1981, RLIN plans to have a centralized in-process file which will contain records of all new orders, gifts, sub- scriptions, etc. of members, and will be able to support non-accounting aspects of the ac- quisitions process. The capability to store and maintain an online book fund account- ing system will be achieved in October 1981. RLIN expects to be able to support all files, processing, and products necessary to establish, coordinate, and monitor mate- rials acquisitions from the point of selection decision, request, order, or receipt through completion of technical processing activity. WLN Operational. WLN's Acquisitions Sub- system, which has been operational since May 1978, is comprised of four files: 1. In-process file which supports the ma- jority of acquisitions activities. 2. Standing orders file which has records for subscriptions and other items which are renewed or reordered on a continuing or periodic basis. 3. Name and address file which contains names and addresses of book dealers and other vendors, main libraries, branch libraries, etc. 4. Account status file which provides ca- 224 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 pability to maintain up-to-date ac- counting. Information keyed into the terminal during the day is entered against the accounts nightly and is re- flected in the account totals available online the following day. Records of completed transactions are transferred to a magnetic tape history file and can be used for generating statistical and other reports. With each step of the order cycle, appro- priate forms and reports are generated. Special system reports reflecting the status of the four files may be generated on re- quest. Instructions entered at the time of the initial order provide for automatic genera- tion of notification forms for individuals re- questing the specific item being ordered or inquiry notices for materials not received after a specified period. Planned. Further refinements of the pro- cedures and capabilities of the system. Cataloging The creation of a cataloging record in- volves: I. Describing an item 2. Assigning headings for names of per- sons or organizations and titles by which the user might be expected to seek the item in the catalog 3. Assigning a unique call number which will place the item with others of a similar nature, and 4. Assigning subject headings which re- flect the content of the item. Because most libraries collect many of the same materials, the concept of sharing the responsibility for cataloging was devel- oped which makes materials available more quickly at reduced cost. With the establish- ment of national and international catalog- ing rules and standards, and the growth of large online computerized databases, it is becoming increasingly feasible to have each item cataloged only once with that catalog- ing information available for all libraries to use. The Library of Congress catalogs ap- proximately 250,000 titles per year into machine-readable form . This cataloging is available through each of the bibliographic utilities and may be used for the creation of local catalogs. When the Library of Con- gress has not yet cataloged a specific item, a utility member library may prepare the cat- aloging according to specified standards and enter its cataloging into the database for use by other member libraries and for its own catalog. Another aspect of the cataloging activity is the creation of a local database which can be used as the basis of not only the local library catalog, but also of a local circula- tion, acquisitions, and serials system, as well as for regional union catalogs. In order to provide total access to a library's collec- tion in this machine-readable database, in- formation concerning every item in the li- brary must be entered into the system. This process is called retrospective conversion. During the retrospective conversion process the library can choose to eliminate existing inconsistencies in the treatment of library materials including reclassifying books so that most materials are retained in one main classification system. The University of Oregon Library has as a long-term goal completing total retro- spective conversion of its collection so that all materials can be searched and located in an online catalog. OCLC Operational. OCLC's online Cataloging Subsystem has been operational since 1971. Based on the experience of similar libraries, the University of Oregon Library might ex- pect to find entries in OCLC's database for over 90 percent of the items searched . • These cataloging records can be modified online or accepted as is. The local library's symbol is added to indicate that it has used the cataloging record and then presorted, alphabetized catalog cards are ordered. The cards are printed overnight and shipped on a daily basis. Many OCLC li- braries print their call number labels by means of a printer attached to their termi- nal. Once a cataloging transaction has been completed, it is not possible to retrieve your local modifications online in the OCLC sys- tem. The record of your transaction is stored and sent to your library on magnetic tape on a periodic basis. These magnetic archive tapes can be used by a vendor or •see footnote on page 225. local computing center to generate a local microform or online catalog, run a circula- tion system, etc. It is presently possible to catalog most types of materials in the OCLC system in- cluding books, serials, microforms, motion pictures, music, sound recordings, maps, and manuscripts. Increased emphasis has been placed on quality control and adherence to specified standards in the creation of cataloging rec- ords, but there is no official editing of cata- loging records by OCLC staff. In 1979-80 nearly 45 percent of the activ- ity on OCLC's Cataloging Subsystem was related to retrospective conversion. OCLC's large database, extended hours of service, and special pricing schedules for retrospective conversion and reclassifica- tion make it attractive for these activities. OCLC charges 60 c~nts per retrospective conversion record during hours of peak sys- tem activity (prime time) and five cents per retrospective conversion record during less busy hours (non-prime time). Planned. OCLC continues to explore means of improving quality control. After moving their central facility to new quar- ters in early 1981, OCLC will reconsider the possibility of storing and displaying the number and location of local copies of a title. RLGIRLIN Operational. At this time the University of Oregon might expect to find cataloging available for 70 to 90 percent of its ongoing work in RLIN. t A search of RLIN's data- base retrieves multiple records because each library's records are stored separately. The Reports and Working Papers 225 library selects the desired record, modifies or accepts it, enters the library's symbol, and orders cards which are printed nightly and sent in presorted, alphabetized batches. No call number labels are pro- duced, and it is not presently possible to print labels from the terminal. Local library modifications are accessi- ble online. Magnetic tapes or cataloging transactions may be purchased and used to create local online or microform catalogs. Most materials may be cataloged with RLIN including books, serials, microforms, motion pictures, music, sound recordings, and maps. Member libraries agree to catalog in con- formity with RLIN standards, but there is no formal editing of records by RLIN staff on an ongoing basis. Sample quality check- ing is the responsibility of a newly-created position of Quality Assurance Specialist. With only 23 owner-members, RLG must carefully consider the impact on the system of allowing individual members to undertake retrospective conversion proj- ects. Each project must be approved by the Board of Governors, and members are en- couraged to seek outside financial support rather than asking RLIN for reduced rates. RLIN has just received a 1.25 million dollar grant including $600,000 to support retro- spective conversion projects. RLIN does not charge for retrospective records which are completely recataloged and upgraded with the book in hand. The prices for other levels of retrospective conversion cataloging range from fifty-five cents to $1.85 per rec- ord. Planned. In April 1981, RLIN plans to reformat its database so that there will be t A wide range of success rates for searching each system are cited in the literature, each dependent on the sample procedures used. The University of Oregon Library had 100 items searched against each database. This sample excluded books with printed Library of Congress card numbers, and included books, serials, microforms, music scores, recordings, documents, and non-book materials. Of this sample OCLC found 96, RLIN found 65, and WLN found 38. The range of figures cited in this report allows for variation between studies cited in the literature, word-of-mouth reports from librarians using these systems, and the University of Oregon Library's own sample. An analysis of this sample is being prepared. Recent comparisons of searching success are found in the following: Linking the Bibliographic Utilities: Benefits and Costs, submitted to the Council on Library Resources ... by Donald A. Smalley [and others). Columbus, Ohio, Battelle, 1980; Matthews, Joseph R. , "The Four Online Bibliographic Utilities: A Comparison," Library Technology Reports 15:6 (November-December 1979), p. 665-838; Tracy, Juan I. and Remmerde, Barbara, "Availability of Machine-Readable Cataloging: Hit Rates for BALLOTS, BNA, OCLC, and WLN for the Eastern Washington University Library," Library Re- search 1:3 (Falll979), p. 227-81. 226 ] ournal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 only one copy of each cataloging record. Member libraries' symbols and local cata- loging information will be displayed with the appropriate records. WLN Operational. Based on the experience of others, the University of Oregon Library might currently expect to find cataloging records available for 50 to 70 percent of its ongoing work in the WLN database. • Li- braries search WLN's database, accept or modify the cataloging records, and order cards and labels which are printed nightly and shipped weekly. (Card sets are not pre- sorted for filing.) Local cataloging information is accessi- ble online through the library's WLN ter- minal. Magnetic tapes of a library's cata- loging transactions may be purchased to run a local online or microform catalog. WLN also provides microform catalogs on either microfilm or microfiche. Books, serials, and audio-visual mate- rials, but not music, sound recordings, and maps may be cataloged on WLN's system. Libraries cataloging in WLN must con- form to well-defined WLN standards. New cataloging records go through an edit cycle and are reviewed by central WLN staff be- fore being added to the WLN database. Presently this review takes about two weeks. During this period, the cataloging record may not be retrieved online. The WLN batch Retrospective Conver- sion Subsystem has been operational since August 1980. Using this system a library en- ters brief cataloging records which are col- lected by the system and searched later as a unit through the WLN database. Records for which a match is found are billed at six cents. Records not matched are billed at one cent and may be searched again at a later date. Over 30 WLN libraries are using this capability, which can be made available to non-members under special circumstances. Planned. WLN is considering dispersing among selected member libraries responsi- ~ility for editing member-created catalog- mg records. WLN :will make music catalog- ing available within the near future. •See footnote on page 225. Serials Check-in Serials are publications issued in succes- sive pa~ts be~ring n~merical or chronologi- cal designations whiCh are intended to be co~tinued indefinitely. They include peri- odiCals; newspapers; annual reports and yearbooks; i?urnals, memoirs, proceedings an~ transactiOns of societies; and numbered senes. The average research library will have between 15,000 and 20,000 such titles. Precise data must be maintained to enter ~ach issue as received, to discover missing ~ssues, to requ_est replacements for missing Issues, to momtor accounting information, to ~enew or cancel subscriptions, and to mamtain binding information. Serials files contain such information as title, relationship to earlier publications, name and address of publisher volumes the library owns, call number a'nd location date, volume, and number of each issue' date each issue was received, subscriptio~ dates, price, etc. At_ t?e University of Oregon Library all of this mformation is maintained in manual files. Once the serials check-in operation is co_mpute~ized, it is possible to generate a w1de ~anety of serials finding lists, analyses of senals subscriptions by subject, location, department, etc., and to provide current serials information online. OCLC Operational. OCLC introduced its Se- rials Control Subsystem in 1976 and im- provements to the system in 1979. Partici- pants create online local data records with information necessary to monitor and con- t~ol each iss~e o~ each serial received by the hbr~ry. I_nshtutwns can check-in currently received Issues online. ~- recent ancillary to this system is the ability to create and maintain online a co- operativ~ r~or~ of serials owned by any group of mshtutwns (a union list of serials). Pl~nned. OCLC plans to continue up- gradmg the capabilities of its Serials Con- trol Subsystem as needed. RLG!RLIN Operational. None. Planned. Automated serials check-in is one of several items listed for consideration after current development activities are re- leased, probably in late 1982. No resources are presently committed to this project. WLN Operational. While WLN has no current serials check-in capabilities, it does support maintenance of serials subscriptions in the Acquisitions Subsystem, including auto- matic renewal and reorder reminders. WLN also produces union lists of serials. Planned. WLN is investigating existing commercially-created check-in systems to see whether they can purchase an existing system to incorporate into WLN's services. Management lnfonnation Precise up-to-date information concern- ing library operations can be very useful in planning improvements in library services and in attaining efficient utilization of available personnel, resources, and mate- rials. Without the computer, the laborious record-keeping necessary to obtain useful management information almost negates the benefits of having the information. OCLC Operational. OCLC produces catalog- ing, interlibrary Joan, and serials check-in system use and system performance statis- tics on a regular basis. Libraries can make local arrangements to create additional analyses of the information stored on sub- scription archival tapes of their local cata- loging activity. OCLC offers semimonthly, monthly, or quarterly accession lists of new materials cataloged by each library. These lists may be in call number or subject se- quence. OCLC has produced some special studies for institutions based on their cata- loging records. Planned. When the Acquisitions Subsys- tem is operational, libraries may choose to receive a cumulative, monthly Fund Activ- ity Report and a periodic, cumulative Fund Commitment Register. These reports will provide institutions with current financial control data. OCLC plans to continue to develop its ability to provide management informa- tion. Reports and Working Papers 227 RLGIRLIN Operational. System use statistics are provided in the form of the monthly in- voice, which may be used to monitor cata- loging and public service activity, and may be broken down into appropriate accounts by pre-planning. Lists in call number order of materials cataloged by a library into RLIN could be produced from local printers attached to the terminal. Planned. The generation of management information is a future development proj- ect; no special management reports are pre- pared presently. Among the management reports included in the specifications for the Acquisitions Subsystem, projected for im- plementation by October 1981, are status reports on in-process files, materials await- ing receipt, materials received, and book fund balances. WLN Operational. WLN produces aggregate system activity reports monthly, but does not analyze the cataloging activity or sub- ject holdings. WLN's Acquisitions Subsys- tem can be used to produce acquisitions- related management reports concerning account transactions, account history, standing orders, renewals and reorders, re- ceipts, detailed encumbrances, etc. A mi- croform accession list by title is available. A general-purpose text-editing facility may be used by management to maintain data not derived from WLN operations and to pro- duce formatted reports of this data. Planned. WLN is developing the capabil- ity to store and maintain detailed collection information for each library online, includ- ing copy numbers and location symbols for each copy of a title owned by a library. No specific management information plans have been outlined at this point. PUBLIC SERVICES Reference Use of the Utility's Terminal A bibliographic utility has potential for use in library reference services in three ma- jor areas: 1. Verification of bibliographic infor- mation. The utility's database may be searched for cataloging information 228 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 not in the UO Library catalog. A veri- fication search is made to locate a complete catalog description of a spe- cific, known item and is carried out most easily using one of the unique numbers assigned to a publication (Library of Congress Card Number, International Standard Book Num- ber, etc.). If one of these is not known, a combination of author and title words, or a "search key"• based on author and title is used to retrieve the information. Verification places a greater reliance on the quality of bib- liographic information in the utility's database than on search techniques used to locate the information. 2. Compilation of subject bibliogra- phies. The utility's database is searched through words in the titles and subject headings in a biblio- graphic record in order to produce a list of materials on a given subject. This subject query can be modified us- ing the logical relationships AND, OR, and NOT to indicate, respec- tively, limitations, synonyms, or ex- clusions in the search. The ability to obtain a printed list of references is convenient, if not required. 3. Compilation of author bibliogra- phies. The database is searched to find all material created by a particular individual or corporate body. The size of the utility's database is a major consideration, as is the source of the cataloging found in an author search. Again, a printed list is necessary. OCLC The OCLC database can be searched in a variety of ways to support reference ser- • A search key is a code based on a certain number of characters drawn from a particular element in the bibliographic reference. For instance, to find a record for William Manchester's American Caesar, an author/title search key using the first four letters of the author's name and the first four letters in the title would be MANC,AMER. Var- ious combinations of letters are used to search author names, titles, or author/title combina- tions. A search key may not necessarily be unique to a given item , and may retrieve other items beside the one desired. vices, though there is no subject search ca- pability in the system. The following access points may be used in a search: 1. LC Card Number 2. International Standard Book Num- ber (ISBN) 3. International Standard Serial Num- ber (ISSN) 4. CODEN (an abbreviation devel- oped by Chemical Abstracts Service for designating periodical titles) 5. Government Documents Number 6. OCLC Identification Number 7. Personal author (search key, not full words) 8. Corporate author (search key) 9. Performer (search key) 10. Title (search key) 11. Author/Title (search key) 12. Series title (search key) 13. Variant names (search key) 14. Conference names (search key) Searches may be restricted by year or by type of material, such as books, manu- scripts, maps, etc. The logical operators AND, OR, and NOT are not used in OCLC. The OCLC search system is pri- marily based on search keys and is best uti- lized to locate a known item. Local printing is available on any OCLC terminal so equipped. There is one standard print for- mat offered. RLGIRLIN The following access points may be used in a search of the RLIN database, though not all are currently active in each subfile of the database: 1. LC Card Number 2. ISBN 3. ISSN 4. CODEN 5. Government Documents Number 6. RLIN Identification Number 7. Call number (complete or trun- cated) 8. Recording Label Number 9. Personal author 10. Corporate authors or conference names (keyword or phrase) 11. Title words 12. Subject headings (keyword or phrase) 13. Music Publisher - Truncation (searching of partial entries) is available to aid in searching incomplete entries and the logical operators AND, OR, and NOT may be used to broaden or restrict a search. Local printers may be attached to the RLIN terminals. A variety of print for- mats is offered. Plans include unified search access points for all subfiles of the database as of April, 1981. WLN The "following access points may be used to search the WLN database: 1. LC Card Number 2. ISBN 3. ISSN 4. WLN Identification Number 5. Personal author 6. Corporate authors or conference names 7. Title words 8. Series title (complete or truncated) 9. Corporate or conference author/title series (keyword) 10. Subject headings (complete or trun- cated) For a variety of reasons, the WLN search system is the most powerful of the three util- ities. Truncation is available and the logical operators AND, OR, and NOT may be ap- plied to broaden or restrict a search. Rec- ords may be printed locally in a variety of formats on any WLN terminal so equipped. WLN will also provide printing at the cen- tral computer for reference bibliographies. WLN search software may be purchased for local database management applications (see the section on Online Public Catalogs.) Links to Other Computerized Services There are presently over 150 reference databases available through commercial computerized reference service vendors. During the last ten to fifteen years, stan- dard bibliographic indexing and abstract- ing publications such as Chemical Ab- stracts, Historical Abstracts and Dissertation Abstracts International have used computerized methods to organize and print references to periodical articles, re- ports, dissertations, conference papers, etc. The vendor creates a computer searchable version of the reference database and makes Reports and Working Papers 229 it available to libraries for a fee based on their use of the computerized search system. Membership in a bibliographic utility can provide two benefits in the use of other computerized reference services: 1. Discounts on fees through member- ship in large group contract adminis- tered by the utility. 2. Access to the reference vendor's com- puter through the utility's terminal and communication network. OCLC OCLC's Affiliated Online Services pro- gram provides access at discounted rates to the information services of Bibliographic Retrieval Service (BRS), Lockheed Infor- mation Systems (LIS), and the New York Times Information Bank. OCLC's com- munications network does not yet permit users to link to the hosts using an OCLC terminal, though this capability is antici- pated in the near future. RLG!RLIN RLIN does not offer a formal program in this area, though the RLG 40 terminal is compatible with other information re- trieval systems. WLN WLN does not offer a program in this area, but anticipates offering access to BRS, LIS, and New York Times Information Bank. Circulation None of the bibliographic utilities under consideration currently support circulation functions on their computers. However, each system can provide a machine- readable archive tape of our cataloging in- formation to be used in developing a com- puterized circulation system. In order to keep track of circulation transactions, it is necessary to have complete retrospective conversion of the UO Library catalog. An- other important consideration is the trans- ferability of data between the utility's com- puter and the circulation computer. OCLC OCLC anticipates offering support for local circulation systems on their computer 230 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 for member libraries and will demonstrate their system in mid-1981. OCLC data has been successfully transferred to many local circulation systems. RLG/RLIN RLIN does not anticipate offering local circulation services for member libraries. RLIN data has been successfully transferred to several local circulation systems. WLN WLN does not anticipate offering local circulation systems on their computer for member libraries. WLN data has been suc- cessfully transferred to local circulation sys- tems and an agreement has been reached with DATAPHASE, a computerized circu- lation system vendor, to discount purchase of their system by WLN member libraries. Public Online Catalogs Again, none of the bibliographic utilities under consideration currently support pub- lic online catalogs of an individual library's collection. A public online catalog requires further programming in order to make it easy for the public to locate materials of interest without extensive training; the bib- liographic utility's searching procedures are too esoteric to be used by the general public. As in circulation, issues of data transferabil- ity and full retrospective conversion of the UO Library's catalog are paramount. OCLC OCLC does not currently encourage public access to their database and does not support use of local online catalogs on their computer due to the tremendous demand for computer resources exerted by 2400 member libraries. OCLC and RLG/ RLIN are participating in a study of user requir~ ments for a public online catalog. OCLC data has been successfully transferred to several local online catalogs, including Eugene Public Library's circulation and online catalog system, ULISYS. RLGIRLIN RLIN anticipates being able to offer pub- lic access to their database. They are partic- ipating in a study with OCLC of user re- quirements for such a system, but no date has been announced for the development of this capability in RLIN. RLIN data has been successfully transferred to a local pub- lic online catalog at Northwestern Univer- sity. WLN WLN does not believe that a local online patron accessed catalog should be provided through the WLN computer, even though they anticipate having such a capability within one year. Instead, they encourage libraries to develop local systems for public access to the online computerized catalog and to obtain data from the WLN catalog- ing system . The University of Illinois is adapting the WLN computer search and database management software to provide a local online catalog and computer- assisted instruction in its use for the public. Checklist for Cassette Recorders Connected to CRTs Prepared by Lawrence A. WOODS: Purdue University Libraries, West Lafayette, Indi- ana, for the Technical Standards for Library Automation Committee, Information Science and Automation Section, Library and Infor- mation Technology Association . INTRODUCTION A data cassette recorder connected to a printer port is an effective, low-cost method of collecting data in machine-readable form from display terminals such as the OCLC 100/105. It is important that a data recorder be used rather than an audio recorder al- though the cassette itself can be a good- quality audio tape. It is also important to note that the data recorded on the tape are not the same as the data originally transmit- ted to the display terminal, but are simply a line-by-line image of what appears on the screen. A typical installation will have a minimum of two devices: one attached to the display terminal to collect data, and one attached to a printer or an input device to another computer for playback of the data. There are more than 150 various data re- 
5300	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113604 233 LIT A A ward, 1980: Maurice J. Freedman S. Michael MALINCONICO This is the third presentation of the LIT A Award for Outstanding Achievement. The first two honored individuals whose achievements can be said to have created the discipline we know as library automation. The first award went to Fred Kilgour whose vision, daring, and entrepreneurial and managerial skills changed the way libraries operate almost overnight, and may in the increasingly stringent economic times ahead have helped ensure the economic viability of libraries. The second award went to Henriette Avram, whose untiring efforts on behalf of the MARC formats and their promulgation is only just short of legendary. This year's winner distinguished himself in a somewhat different manner. His contributions did not lead to the development of new automated systems or ser- vices. Rather, his outstanding achievement lies in the creative and pioneering use he made of technology in support of a clear vision of effective library service. His contribution comes from the depth of sensitivity and understanding he brought to the application of technology to library service. Much to our go<;>d fortune, he has chosen to share with us through his many writings the insights he has found in his study of the fit between technology and the delivery of effective library service. This year's winner shares the distinction, with the two previous winners, of being a former president of the division. In fact, he presided over the change from the venerable acronym ISAD to the new name of the division: Library and Infor- mation Technology Association (LITA). It gives me particular pleasure to present this year's award, as it goes not simply to an esteemed colleague but to a valued friend. I first met Maurice (Mitch) Freedman at the first ALA conference I attended-the Midwinter Meeting of 1972. The first session I attended at that conference was a meeting of the Commit- tee on Library Automation (COLA). I had gone to that meeting to report on NYPL's automated cataloging system, which had that month become fully opera- tional with the publication of the book catalogs of the research libraries and of the mid-Manhattan library. Following the COLA program, Mitch approached me, introduced himself, and inquired about the possibility of using the NYPL system to produce Hennepin County's catalog. The consequences of that afternoon were most salutary both for the Hennepin County Library (HCL) and for me personally. HCL acquired at no cost an automated bibliographic control system, and I gained a friendship that has endured for nearly a decade. Thus, rather than dwelling on Mitch's professional accomplishments-which are already well known to you-1 would prefer to say a few words about the man himself. Perhaps the best way to characterize him is to describe to you his office at 234 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 Maurice Freedman (left) receiving 1980 LITA Award presented by S. Michael Malinconico (right). Columbia University. Prominently displayed on the walls are two enormous posters, one of Bertrand Russell and another of Lenny Bruce. A perhaps odd pair until one realizes that these men had one important attribute in common: neither of them accepted, without incontrovertible proof, truths supported by conven- tional wisdom alone. Mitch, like the philosopher and satirist whose images grace the walls of his office, is an iconoclast who insists on more than the endorsement of reigning authority before he will embrace an idea; and he will work tirelessly to change the prevailing wisdom if he finds that it serves to frustrate rather than aid the delivery of the kind and quality of library service to which he feels the patrons of libraries are entitled. Likewise, though he was among the pioneers who helped introduce sophisticated technologies such as automation and micrographics into the opera- tion of libraries, he has always maintained a healthy skepticism, which has pre- vented him from being seduced by the dry voices of the hollow men who proclaim marvels that are in reality only gilded figures of straw. Just as Lenny Bruce refused to accept contemporary conventions regarding language and behavior, Mitch Freeman has refused to accept the sanctity of LC subject terminology. He, Sanford Berman, and Joan Marshall have served for more than a decade as LC's conscience, prodding our phlegmatic, de facto na- tional library to action. Just as Bertrand Russell returned to the axioms of Giuseppe Peano in an attempt to secure the foundation of mathematics in formal logic and to Lita Award 235 free that discipline of fuzzy thinking, Mitch has returned to the principles articu- lated by Antonio Panizzi and Seymour Lubetzky, as the tests by which to judge the claims of the self-assured mountebanks who regale us with newly coined biblio- graphic wisdom. In this regard I anxiously await the completion of his doctoral dissertation, in which he explores the philosophical underpinnings of theories of bibliographic control (a work that would have proved most useful during the protracted emo- tional debate that surrounded AACR2). I expect that it must be particularly gratifying for Mitch to accept his award in this particular city. Although his physical roots are in the Northeast, I rather think his intellectual and spiritual roots are here, or more precisely, in the city across the bay-Berkeley. It was just about twenty years ago that Mitch, after graduating from Rutgers University, Newark, enrolled as a graduate student in philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. While at Berkeley, his sense of social justice and utter disdain for unsupported dogma-could one expect less of a student of philosophy?- led him to become active in the free speech movement. Thus, we find very early in his career a concern for social issues, a concern that reemerged in his active involvement with the Social Responsibilities Round Table shortly after joining the library profession. Before leaving Berkeley, Mitch earned his degree in library science. Thus, he earned his degree from one of the most prestigious library schools on the west coast, and now plies his trade as associate professor at one of the most prestigious library schools on the east coast, the Columbia University School of Library Service. If he is only moderately successful in conveying to his students his dedication to the delivery of quality library service, his steadfast conviction that technical services is in reality the first step in the provision of effective public service, and a respect for the supremacy of principle over expedience, his graduating classes will constitute a more lasting and meaningful award than this simple gesture conferred upon him by his professional colleagues. 
5301	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113626 236 News and Announcements Programmers Discussion Group Meets: PL/1, the MARC Format, and Holdings Twenty-two computer programmers, analysts, and managers met on June 29 in San Francisco for the formative meeting of the LIT A/ISAS Programmers Discussion Group. In an informal and informative hour, the group established ground rules, started a mailing list, planned the topic for Midwinter 1982, and found out more about practice<> in fifteen library-related installa- tions. Programming Language Usage What programming languages are used, and used primarily, at the installations? Nine languages turned up, excluding data- base management systems (and lumping all "assembly" languages together)-but one language accounted for more than one-half of the responses: Language Users Primary PL/1 14 13 Assembler/ Assembly languages 8 5 COBOL 4 2 Pascal 3 1 BASIC 1 1 c 1 1 MilS (A MUMPS dialect) 1 Fortran 0 SNOBOL 0 Note: some installations use more than one ''primary" language.) A second round of hands showed only four users with no use of PL!I. MARC Format Usage These questions are asked on an agency- by-agency basis. One agency made no use of the MARC communications format. None of those receiving MARC-format tapes were unable to recreate the format. Eight of the fifteen agencies made signifi- cant internal-processing use of the MARC- communications-format structure, includ- ing the leader, directory, and character storage patterns; this question was made more explicit to try to narrow the answers. Thus, the MARC communications format is used as a processing format in a significant number of institutions. Only three agencies use ASCII inter- nally, most use of MARC takes place within EBCDIC. (All but three agencies were us- ing IBM 360/370 equivalent computers- the parallel is clear.) Computer Usage As noted, all but three agencies use IBM equivalents in the mainframe range; three of those use plug-compatible equipment such as Magnuson and Amdahl. The other major computers are CDC, DEC/VAX, and Data General Eclipse systems. Smaller computers in use include DC, DEC 11170, Datapoint, and IBM Series/! units. Home Terminals and Computers Four of those present currently have home terminals. Three have home com- puters. Future Plaru for the Discussion Group The Midwinter 1982 topic will be "Hold- ings," with some emphasis on dealing with holdings formats in various technical pro- cessing systems (such as OCLC, UTLAS, WLN, RLIN). An announcement and mail- ing list will go to all those on the mailing list, as will an October/November mailing with questions sent to the chair. Those interested should send their names and addresses to Walt Crawford, RLG, Jor- dan Quad, Stanford, CA 94305. It is antici- pated that papers on the topic may be ready by Midwinter; questions and comments are welcomed. NOTE: There will be no set speakers or panelists; this will be a true dis- CI.i.I'Sion group. The topic for the Philadel- phia meeting will be set at Midwinter 1982.-Walt Crawford, Chair, The Re- search Libraries Group, Inc. CHANNEL 2000 A test of viewdata system called CHAN- NEL 2000 was conducted by OCLC in Co- lumbus, Ohio, during the last quarter of 1980. An outgrowth of the OCLC Research Department's home delivery of library ser- vices program, CHANNEL 2000 was devel- oped and tested to investigate technical, business, market, and social issues involved in electronic delivery of information using videotex technology. Data Collection Throughout the test, data were collected in three ways. Transaction logs were main- tained, recording keystrokes of each user during the test, thus allowing future anal- yses and reconstruction of the test sessions. Questionnaires requesting demographic in- formation, life-style, opinion leadership, and attitudes toward CHANNEL 2000 were collected from each user in each household before, during, and after the test. Six focus-group interviews were held and audiotaped to obtain specific user- responses to the information services. Attitudes toward Library Services Forty-six percent of the respondents agreed that CHANNEL 2000 saved time in getting books from the library. Responding to other questions, 29 percent felt that they would rather go to a traditional library than order books through CHANNEL 2000, and 38 percent of the users felt that CHANNEL 2000 had no effect on their li- brary allendance. Forty-one percent of the CHANNEL 2000 test group felt that their knowledge of library services increased as a result of the CHANNEL 2000 test. In addition, 16 per- cent of the respondents stated that they spent more time reading books than they did before the test. Eighty-two percent of the respondents felt that public libraries should spend tax dollars on services such as CHANNEL 2000. Although this might suggest that li- brary viewdata services should be tax- based, subsequent focus-group interviews indicated that remote use of these services should be paid for by the individual, whereas on-site use should be "free." Sixty- three percent of the test population stated News and Announcements 237 that they would probably subscribe and pay for a viewdata library service, if the services were made available to them off-site. Purchase Intent Respondents were asked to rank-order the seven CHANNEL 2000 services accord- ing to the likelihood that they would pay money to have that service in their home. A mean score was calculated for each CHAN- NEL 2000 service, and the following table shows rank order of preference. Rank Order CHANNEL 2000 Service 1 Video Encyclopedia Locate any of 32,000 articles in the new Academic American Encyclo- pedia via one of three easy look-up indexes 2 Video Catalog Browse through the videocard cat- alog of the Public Libraries of Co- lumbus and Franklin County, and select books to be mailed directly to your home 3 Home Banking Pay your bills; check the status of your checking and savings ac- counts; look up the balance of your VISA credit card; look up your mortgage and installment loans; get current information on BANK ONE interest rates 4 Public Information Become aware of public and legis- lative information in Ohio 5 Columbus Calendar Check the monthly calendar of events for local educational and entertainment happenings 6 Math That Connts! Teach your children basic mathe- matics, including counting and simple word problems 7 Early Reader Help your children learn to read by reinforcing word relationships The final report, mailed to all OCLC member libraries, was published as CHAN- NEL 2000: Description and findings of a viewdata test conducted by OCLC in Co- lumbus, Ohio, October-December 1980. Dublin, Ohio: Research Department, On- line Computer Library Center, Inc., 1981. 21p. NOTIS Software Available At the 1981 ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco, the Northwestern Univer- 238 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 sity Library announced the availability of version 3.2 of the NOTIS computer system. Intended for medium and large research li- braries or groups of libraries, NOTIS pro- vides comprehensive online integrated- processing capabilities for cataloging, acquisitions, and serials control. Patron ac- cess by author and title has been in opera- tion for more than a year , and version 3.2 adds subject-access capability as well as other new features. An improved circula- tion module and other enhancements are under development for future release. Although NOTIS, which runs on stan- dard IBM or IBM-compatible hardware, has been in use by the National Library of Venezuela for several years, Northwestern only recently decided to actively market the software, and provided a demonstration at the ALA Conference. A contract has been signed with the University of Florida, and several other installations are expected within a few months. Further information on NOTIS may be obtained from the Northwestern University Library, 1935 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60201. Bibliographic Access & Control System The Washington University School of Medicine Library announces its computer- based online catalog/library control system known as the Bibliographic Access & Con- trol System (BACS). The system is now in operation and utilizes MARC cataloging records obtained from OCLC since 1975, serials records from PHILSOM serials con- trol network, and machine-readable patron records. Features of interest in the system are: 1. Patron access by author, title, subject, call number, or combination of key- words. The public-access feature has been in operation since May 1981. Online instructions support system use, minimizing staff intervention. User survey indicates a high degree of satisfaction with the system. 2. Low cost public access terminal with a specially designed overlay board. 3. Barcode-based circulation system fea- turing the usual functions, including recalls for high demand items, over- due notices, suspension of circulation privileges, etc. 4. Cataloging records loaded from OCLC MARC records by tape and from a microcomputer interface at the OCLC printer port. Authority control available on three levels: (a) controlled authority, i.e. , MeSH or LC, (b) library-specific assigned au- thority, and (c) word list available to user. 5. Full cataloging functions online, in- cluding editing, deleting, and enter- ing records. 6. Serials control from PHILSOM sys- tem. PHILSOM is an online distrib- uted computer network that currently controls serials for sixteen medical school libraries. PHILSOM features rapid online check-in, claims, fiscal control, union lists, and management reports. 7. Five possible displays of the basic bib- liographic record, varying from a brief record for the public access ter- minal to complete information for cataloging and reference staff. 8. Two levels of documentation avail- able online. The software is available to interested li- braries, bibliographic utilities, or commer- cial firms. Contact: Washington University School of Medicine Library, 4580 Scott, St. Louis, MO 63110; (314) 454-3711. 
5302	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113638 Book Reviews The Future of the Printed Word: The Impact and Implications of the New Communica- tions Technology. Edited by Philip Hills. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1980. 172p. $25. LC: 80-1716. ISBN: 0-313-22693-8 (lib. bdg.). The character of this volume is as much that of a topical journal or annual review as that of a monograph. A dozen authors have contributed thirteen chapters, all but one prepared especially for this publication. Ten of the chapters are by British authors, two by Americans, and one by European Community personnel located in Luxem- bourg. An amusing Punch satire about BOOK (Built-in Orderly Organized Knowledge) is reprinted as an unnumbered fourteenth chapter. In an excellent opening essay, John M. Straw horn notes: "In this book, the expres- sion printed word is construed very broadly, to include words in any kind of display: paper, microforms, CRT's, plasma panels and so on." His essay is a terse but pointed review of the organization of infor- mation transfer, some current trends, fac- tors affecting acceptance of new technolo- gies, and some broad projections for the future. Provocative essays by Maurice B. Line and P. J. Hills, editor of the volume, explore the printed word from the points of view of a bookperson and an educator. In one of the most elegant metaphors to appear in infor- mation science literature, Line suggests: "The printed butterfly will emerge from its electronic chrysalis, but it will also return again to it in due time. The vast majority of documents will thus be stored in electronic (chrysalis) form, but the majority of those used at any given time will be in their printed (butterfly) form." Two incisive and thorough chapters on official information by Patricia Wright sys- tematically explore the use of old and new technologies for forms, leaflets, and signs. 239 Wright makes acute and useful observa- tions on how technology can hinder or help gathering and dispersion of governmental information. The Graphic Information Research Unit of the Royal College of Art has done excel- lent work in recent years in exploring how various display options affect comprehen- sion. Linda Reynolds provides a good essay, "Designing for the New Communications Technology," based on that research. The review of prospects for electronic journal publishing by Donald W. King is a good overview, especially for beginners. A chapter on Euronet DIANE describes prob- lems in creating an online database capabil- ity in the European political environment. Chapters on printing technologies, micro- forms, and videodiscs cover all major alter- natives but suffer from brevity. Two brief but competent speculative essays, which add little, complete the volume. The work lacks a general index, but the organization of chapters makes this a minor flaw. Use of presumably common British acronyms without explanation, especially in credits and citations, is an irritant for non-U.K. readers. The work would make an excellent sup- plementary text for a course on the history of the book. Practitioners in publishing or library and information science will find much of interest.-Brian Aveney. Turnkey Automated Circulation Systems: Aids to Libraries in the Market Place. Edited by Judith Bernstein . Chicago. American Library Assn., 1980. 332p. $10.50. When my library entered the market- place for an automated circulation system, I searched the literature for aids. Had I found this book at that time I would have been disappointed. What I would expect from a 332-page book with a subtitle, "Aids to Libraries in the Market Place," would be numerous examples of what had been done 240 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 before. I would expect samples of the anal- yses that other libraries had done to justify entering the marketplace, samples of the RFPs that had been sent to vendors, and samples of the contracts that had been signed. I would like to see a case study (or two) of the complete process of procure- ment. Admittedly, this expectation is some- what of an ideal, but these are "aids" that we searched for and that other libraries now ask from us. What does this book provide? An edito- rial introduction gives a sense of the diffi- culties of the marketplace and the frustra- tions encountered in it. A two-page bibliography gives a reasonable selection of readings to provide a background for deci- sion making. A discussion titled "Hiring a Consultant-Why and How," is a very use- ful enumeration of details to be considered in the decision to hire a consultant and in the agreement with a consultant. A model request for proposal is a good synthesis of the details to be included in almost every library's RFP and thus provides a starting point for the library new to the market- place. All of this is what I consider to be the substance of this book, and it ends at page 40. The remaining 292 pages are devoted to the "profiles" of individual libraries which have installed automated circulation sys- tems. The profiles are intended to assist in the identification of libraries to be con- tacted for further information, but provide little useful information by themselves. My primary objection to this book is the misleading nature of the citation. One ex- pects more than three hundred pages of "aids" and finds a directory with a forty- page preface. But for the librarian new to the marketplace it may be worth the price.-Alan E. Hagyard, Yale University Library, New Haven, Connecticut. Archives and the Computer, by Michael Cook. London: Butterworths, 1980. 152p. $29.95. LC: 80-41286. ISBN: 0-408- 10734-0. Michael Cook recognizes the special pre- dicament of the archivist whose job consists of trying to satisfy three contradictory needs: (1) the need to arrange and describe archives by their provenance, (2) the need to store them most efficiently by shape and size, and (3) the need to access them to an- swer inquiries that are mostly subject- oriented. The solution to these conflicting requirements may come from the com- puter. As Cook says, "The speed and variety of computerized lists and indexes derived from a single data base could solve this problem by producing finding aids in all possible sorts of order." In a very handsomely produced, sturdily bound book, Archives and the Computer, Michael Cook, archivist of the University of Liverpool, reports on various computer sys- tems serving the needs of the archivists. His book starts with a general discussion on the nature of automated systems and their rela- tion to manual ones. This is followed by the description of a select group of archives systems-some still in use, others put to their well-deserved rest after a few years' use. He covers records management systems (i.e., the area of handling current records) and archives management systems (i.e., the handling of noncurrent documents). In the final chapter Cook moves the discussion away from computer processing of tradi- tional, familiar forms of archival material, focusing instead on processing archives that are themselves machine-readable data files. How does the archivist accomplish all of the necessary tasks if the archives are not read- able by the human eye? How does he ap- praise, arrange, describe, and access them? I like Mr. Cook's cautious and sober atti- tude. Talking about system design, he re- marks, "At this stage decisions will be made which will be irrevocable in practical terms, and may cause much trouble later. " About implementation and testing, "com- puter systems should help people to work more effectively in a more interesting envi- ronment; if they fail in this, or appear to fail, there is something wrong, and it would perhaps be better not to introduce the change." The records management systems he de- scribes are used by British county and city record offices. An interesting feature in one of them, a system called ARMS, is a print- out that tabulates for each class of docu- ments the number of requests in a year, per year stored. This printout could be very helpful in modifying established retention periods on the basis of experience. The following archives systems are de- scribed: PROSPEC (adopted by the Public Record Office of London) , NARS A-1 (used by the National Archives of the USA), SPINDEX (first used by the National Ar- chives and the National Historical Publica- tions and Records Commission), SELGEM (used by the Archives of the Smithsonian Institution), STAIRS (an IBM system, used, among others, by the House of Lords Rec- ord Office in London), PARADIGM (de- veloped and used at the University of Illi- nois), MISTRAL (used by the National Archives of Ivory Coast), and ARCAIC (used and abandoned by the East Sussex Record Office). Of all these systems, I found the description of SELGEM the most edu- cational. Besides listing the fields making up a computer record, Cook shows an ex- ample of an actual record as it appears in the master list, and as it appears in the printed guide to the archives. He also in- cludes an actual segment of the name/ subject index. Although there is a brief mention about the choice between networking versus iso- lated, separate systems, the book does not speculate about the possibility of a network of many institutions building a common database. Nor does the author discuss the much debated and very timely question of whether archivists could possibly agree on a uniform computer record for the descrip- tion of manuscripts and archives, similar to the way in which librarians have agreed on using the MARC formats for the description of their materials. A glossary of technical terms, a "select directory" of archival systems, and a "select bibliography" are useful additions to the main text. This book is more recommended to the archivist looking for a computer system than for the systems analyst who wants to learn how archives are processed.- Suzanna Lengyel, Yale University Library, New Haven, Connecticut. The Library and Information Manager's Guide to Online Seroices. Edited by Ryan E. Hoover. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1980. 270p. $29.50 hardcover, $24.50 softcover. LC: 80- 21602. ISBN: 0-914236-60-1 (hardcover); Book Reviews 241 0-914236-52-0 (softcover). Hoover and Jeven colleagues provide an overview of the main issues and techniques involved in starting and managing an on- line retrieval service. The emphasis is on a library setting-the implicitly broader focus conveyed by the title is not matched by any specific coverage of, for example, the online search activity of the for-profit information brokers, where funding, staff- ing, publicizing, and the search process it- self are handled differently than in li- braries. The three large, general search services (Lockheed, SDC, and BRS) are used throughout for the descriptions and search examples, and their bibliographic data- bases inevitably receive the most attention. There is a noticeable slant toward the two agencies with which several of the contribu- tors are or were affiliated-the University of Utah (which doesn't detract from the book's objectivity) and SDC (which does). The chapters are of uneven quality and scope. Most of the obvious areas are covered-the available search systems and databases; equipment needs; search tech- niques; managing an online service in a li- brary; training searchers; promoting ser- vice; and measurement and evaluation. Taken as a whole, the.book is a good state- of-the-art report, even though it is already becoming outdated in terms of industry facts. The numerous charts and tables serve to flesh out the text, but do we really need six photographs of terminals (two of them showing the same searcher at the same ter- minal , the only difference being that in one there is an onlooker) to illustrate that "some searchers prefer to have the user present"? Brief chapters on the growing network of online user groups, and on the future of on- line services (largely derived from Lancas- ter) end the text, and the book has a service- able bibliography, glossary, and index. Six years ago I reviewed one of the first KIPI publications- it was in typescript, comb-bound, a little more than one hun- dred pages, and it cost $24.50. This is a much better production and, considering inflation since 1975, it represents vastly bet- ter value for money. It should serve as a useful handbook for those of us in the field, as well as those just starting, for another 242 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 year or two.-Peter Watson, California State University, Chico. Basics of Online Searching, by Charles T. Meadow and Pauline Atherton Cochrane. New York: Wiley, 1981. 245p. $15.95. LC: 80-23050. ISBN: 0-417-05283-3. The use of online information retrieval services is becoming widespread through- out the information community, whether in traditional libraries or in business, indus- try, or government offices. The need for trained searchers is evident by looking at the job advertisements and at the quantity of training programs being offered around the country. The programs presented by the Machine-Assisted Reference Section (MARS) of the Reference and Adult Ser- vices Division of ALA are always packed. The librarians attending ALA Annual Con- ferences seem to be hungry for any informa- tion available about online information re- trieval services. This text fills an obvious need for the professional who attended li- brary school before course offerings in on- line information retrieval were available. Although online information retrieval is now being taught in most library and infor- mation science curriculums, there have been only a few attempts at providing a textbook for beginning students, and none of those has been very successful since the Lancaster and Fayen Information Re- trieval Online in 1973. Basics of Online Searching is a text in- tended "to teach the principles of interac- tive bibliographic searching . . . to those with little or no prior experience. The ma- jor intended audiences are students, work- ing information specialists and librarians, and end users, the people for whom all this searching is done. " Because the authors have done an excellent job of targeting their audience and sticking to that target, this text will be useful at the introductory level. The authors cover the elements of interac- tive searching including the reference inter- view, Boolean logic, search strategy de- velopment, telecommunications and equipment, basic database structure, selec- tive dissemination of information, and how to get help from search-service vendors. The text is relatively free of jargon and does a good job of defining in context new terms as they appear. The authors begin with basic definitions and a brief overview of the process of interactive searching. The reference interview and search strategy de- velopment is covered adequately, first with an introduction and then in a later chapter providing more detailed information. Tele- communications and computer equipment are covered in enough detail for the novice. The next five chapters cover search lan- guage, databases, various types of text searching, and how to get on and off the computer. This section of the book uses ex- amples that show the different approaches to the same process on three different systems-BRS, ORBIT, and DIALOG. The authors do not lose sight of their intent to demonstrate the principles of online searching. There is a brief chapter on selec- tive dissemination of information (SDI) and cross-file searching. The chapter explains how SDI is used and gives examples of con- structing and saving a search for SDI on each of the three systems. The last chapter of the book, "Search Strategy," is especially good. There seemed to be something be- yond the basic elementary information of the preceeding chapters. The authors clearly demonstrate concept development and search strategy formulation. The authors do an excellent job of inte- grating the discussion of the three major search service vendors, Lockheed's DIA- LOG, System Development's ORBIT, and Bibliographic Retrieval Services, Inc. Ex- amples are used from each of the services with a discussion of the differences. The book does clarify the similarity of the ser- vices by showing how each function can be accomplished on each system. Searchers us- ing only one system now might use this text to see how easily their knowledge could be transferred to another system. Problems with the text do not abound, but there are some that should be brought to the attention of the reader. There is a slight problem with the format of the examples. The reviewer found herself searching for the completion of a paragraph of text on a few occasions. The examples are very good and clear; they are simply not separated from the text adequately for easy reading. There were a couple of instances of unneces- sary redundancy . T here were two separate discussions, one on truncation and one on searching word fragments, which could have been improved by integration into one section. There was a repetition of "steps in the presearch interview and the online search" in chapter 3 and then again in chap- ter 12. This is almost a page of steps, which are very good, but a simple reference back to the earlier list would have sufficed. But the biggest problem with the text in the eyes of this reviewer is that of omission. There was no discussion of citation searching, evaluation of search results, and no men- tion of the various training options avail- able for the novice searcher. This reviewer would like to have seen more information on where to go next as guidance to the nov- ice. The one hundred pages of appendixes seem unnecessary and will soon be out of date. Library school teachers planning to use this as a text would do well to request free, up-to-date materials rather than rely- ing upon the documents in the appendix, which are more than a year old at the time of this writing. Most every book on this topic has made the same mistake of reprint- ing search-service and database-producer literature. Overall, however, the authors have suc- ceeded very capably in their intended en- deavor "to teach principles, rather than the detailed mechanics of any particular search system." There is a place in the literature for this very basic text, which is well writ- ten, uses clear examples, and teaches in an understated way. For those people who are afraid of automation, afraid to touch a computer terminal, and are insecure about their ability to do online searching, this book will relieve most of those fears and insecurities. The authors acknowledge their desire to give simple instructions and offer a chapter called "Assistance" for people who need more help. Novices might assume they could read this book, purchase a terminal, get a password and system manual, and be- gin searching. As a matter of fact one could do this, but the results would likely be a discredit to the search-service vendor be- cause of a lack of system-specific training on the part of the searcher. Most people, like this reviewer, can conceptualize a new process, but would feel more comfortable with some type of formal hands-on Book Reviews 243 training-even for half a day. There are too many little things that can be an impedi- ment to success. The reviewer would heartily recommend this book to inexperienced searchers and li- brary school students but would warn the experienced searchers that there is nothing newforthem.-CarolynM. Gray, Western Illinois University, Macomb. Quick • Search Cross-System Database Search Guides. San Jose, Calif.: California Library Authority for Systems and Services, 1980. 21 charts. $75 (CLASS members), $95 (nonmembers). ISBN: 0-938098-00-4. The CLASS On-Line Reference Service (COLRS) is a cooperative program for pub- lic, academic, and special libraries offering training and consultation on almost any as- pect of online reference searching through the major commercial vendors of data- bases. This service is a part of CLASS, the California Library Authority for Systems and Services, and acts as a contact point for searchers and the database industry through vendor-training sessions, database training, and the coordination of large group contracts with DIALOG Informa- tion Services and Bibliographic Retrieval Services (BRS). This close relationship to the online industry gives CLASS a unique position from which to supply information on databases from a multiple search-system perspective. The publication of the Quick•Search Cross-System Database Search Guides is a natural outgrowth of the COLRS program in training and consult- ing. The twenty-one charts in Quick•Search show the formats used to search for infor- mation in a specific database across the two or three vendors offering the database com- mercially. The databases were selected as the most commonly searched through the major commercial search services: Biblio- graphic Retrieval Services, DIALOG Infor- mation Services, and System Development Corporation Search Service (SOC). Eight databases in the sciences, eight in the social sciences, and five multidisciplinary files are included in the complete set. Two subsets of the science and multidisciplinary files, and the social science and multidisciplinary files are available for $60 for CLASS members 244 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 and $80 for nonmembers. The eight science databases are BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, COMPENDEX, ENERGYLINE, EN- VIROLINE, Food Service & Technology Abstracts, INSPEC, and Oceanic Ab- stracts. The social science files are ABII INFORM, ERIC, Exceptional Child Edu- cation Resources, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Management Contents, Psychological Abstracts, Social SCI- SEARCH, and U.S. Political Science Docu- ments. The multidisciplinary databases are Conference Papers Index, Comprehensive Dissertation Index, NTIS, PAIS Interna- tional, and SSIE Current Research. The stated purpose of the Quick • Search Guides is to aid the experienced searcher who must use databases from more than one search service by showing the formats for each vendor of a database side by side for comparison. Because most searchers tend to use a database on only one system, the Guides are really more appropriate to an organization where several searchers may be using the same database through differ- ent systems and a "universal" quick- reference chart is needed. Because each Guide covers only one database, the level of detail shown is much greater than in the simple-command comparison charts previ- ously published. The Guides are arranged to show partic- ular features of the databases as they are used on the different search systems. The file label used to access the database and those fields that are searched when a term is entered with no restriction (the basic index) are shown at the top of each chart. The fields used in subject searching follow and show the field codes used to restrict subject searches, along with the format used online to enter search terms. The typical fields il- lustrated are title, subject descriptor, iden- tifier, abstract, and category or section code. These fields vary according to data- base, but include the majority of subject ac- cess points used in the file. The balance of the chart is used to illustrate the field codes and formats used to retrieve information from other access points in the database such as author, journal source, language, publication date, document type, report numbers, or update code. These alternate access points vary widely by database, but each chart provides information on limiting searches by date, language, or update code at a minimum. The Guides supply a useful amount of information for the experienced searcher needing a prompt on a form of en- try for the fields available in a database, but a good understanding of the search system is required to use them properly. Given the close contact CLASS has with the database producers and online vendors, it is somewhat surprising to find inaccura- cies and some misinterpretation in some of the Guides. In the preface, for instance, the editor states, "In many BRS files, UJ and UN are paragraph labels used in addition to DE, MJ, and MN. They are used to indicate major (UJ) or minor (UN) single word de- scriptors, similar to the DF in DIALOG and IW in ORBIT." It is true that DF is used in DIALOG to indicate a single-word descriptor, but in ORBIT the code is IT. In BRS, UJ and UN mean the term so restricted is an "unbound" part of a multiword descriptor-not a single-word descriptor (see BRS/ERIC database guide, p.l4). The use of IW in ORBIT retrieves "unbound" words from the IT field. The most trouble in the charts appears to be in the ORBIT sections. The basic index is misrepresented in several files and the IW field is only irreg- ularly listed, even when it is present in the SDC version of the database. Suggestions on the use of SENSEARCH and STRINGSEARCH are not consistently il- lustrated for fields that cannot be directly restricted in some databases on ORBIT, such as abstract or supplementary index terms. Many times the suggested search en- try would not restrict retrieval to the field indicated on the chart. These inaccuracies would probably not doom an experienced searcher to failure in using a database, but they are annoying and do little to inspire absolute confidence in the information pre- sented. CLASS is to be complimented on the graphic representations in Quick*Search and the heavy stock used for the Guides (the paper will probably outlive the information printed on it). Addenda are planned for those databases changed or reloaded since the preparation of Quick*Search in Octo- ber 1980, and a second edition is already under consideration. The Quick*Search Guides are not meant as a replacement for vendor or database documentation and, in fact, are simply repackaged versions of the basic file descriptions available from the online vendors. Considering the price of this publication, organizations would do well to consider investing instead in de- tailed user guides and updates for their searchers in order to provide the most accu- rate and current information on databases on a specific system.-Rod Slade, Univer- sity of Oregon Library, Eugene. Viewdata and Videotext, 1980-81: A Worldwide Report. Transcript of Viewdata '80, First World Conference on Viewdata, Videotex, and Teletext, London, March 26-28, 1980. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowl- edge Industry Publications, 1980. 623p. $75 softcover. LC: 80-18234. ISBN: 0- 914236-77-6. Videotex81. ProceedingsofVideotex'81 In- ternational Conference and Exhibition, May 20-22, 1981, Toronto, Canada. Northwood Hills, Middlesex, U.K.: Online Conferences Ltd., 1981. 470p. $85 soft- cover. Viewdata '80 and Videotex '81 were two state-of-the-art conferences for the emerg- ing videotex field. Videotex is the generic name for mass-market, consumer-oriented information retrieval systems of low cost and relative ease of use. Videotex, as a tech- nology, is divided into teletext systems and viewdata systems. Teletext systems sequen- tially broadcast information using a portion of the television signal. Subscribers, using a special decoder, can select individual pages from the several hundred offered. View- data systems, on the other hand, are quite like online information systems except for their use of a television as a display device, their simplicity, and their broader range of transactions and information. These conference proceedings will be of interest to a limited audience. They are not for the complete beginner. Nor will they provide hours of entertaining reading. Nei- ther meets academic publication criteria; many of the papers are fluff, outlines, or sales pitches. Both proceedings have their share, unfortunately large, of uninforma- tive articles. But if you are seriously interested in vid- Book Reviews 245 eotex's technology, uses, and social implica- tions, then by all means at least skim the 1981 conference papers. The proceeding~ do describe the state of the art. Moreover, the two proceedings, taken together, show some of the changes in the videotex field in the last year ... and not only in the spelling of "videotex." As state of the art, the Viewdata '80 con- ference proceedings are already super- seded. Most of the material has been ade- quately covered by now in other publications at a much lower cost. There are two exceptions to this, both worth not- ing. The proceedings has several excellent articles on the Japanese Captain system, the best published on that system. Of addi- tional interest is a report on Control Data Corporation's (CDC) market test of their PLATO educational system. Their report suggests a large consumer market for high- quality educational services even at a rela- tively high price. The Videotex '81 conference proceedings are, of course, more current. There are four major topics of interest in the proceedings. Firstly, there are several good presentations on videotex services, such as electronic pub- lishing, retailing, and banking. There is an excellent discussion on what videotex means to newspapers, both in opportunities and threats. Secondly, and particularly recom- mended, is a paper by Tydeman and Zwimpfer of the Institute for the Future. The paper outlines some of the social changes and problems that may result from large-scale videotex implementation. Thirdly, there are updates on the existing videotex technologies and efforts from the French, Japanese, Canadian, and British groups. The British are perhaps the most interesting since they have a year of opera- tional experience with their viewdata sys- tem, Prestel. They state that most usage was from the business community, and their re- ports suggest that services are shifting to at- tract that market. If this is the case, it is a significant change from the original con- sumer orientation. There is also a good ar- ticle on a Prestel information provider's first year. Of additional interest is that Prestel- compatible databases and systems are being constructed in Britain. Thus, people will be 246 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/3 September 1981 able to access different systems using the same protocol. Finally, there are numerous fascinating papers on American efforts. The Ameri- cans, in contrast to the British, seem very unsettled; there is still a multiplicity of de- signs. (AT&T's decision on a modified Teli- don standard, not reported in the proceed- ings but a major event of the conference, may ameliorate that .) The papers indicate overall that the "classic" definitions of viewdata and teletext will crumble or will be supplemented in the face of 100-channel, two-way cable systems. Several papers doc- ument how these new cable capabilities will provide channels for large amounts of information to be delivered by teletext, viewdata, or hybrid systems. A paper by Simon notes that cable will not only provide large audiences for information services but will also eliminate some of the traditionally defined viewdata functions. For example, people will not buy commodity prices from a viewdata service if that same information is available on a cable channel at a lower price. Unfortunately, there are some topics missing from the 1981 conference proceed- ings. Consumer-oriented educational ser- vices are mentioned little. System- performance or human-factor con- siderations are rarely analyzed. There is much discussion of what services should be offered, but there is little discussion of how those services should be offered. No presen- tation is made on how to design very large databases for ease of use. Particularly distressing is the relative omission of the word "quality" from the American papers in both proceedings. One cannot expect every home to be wired to access the entire Library of Congress. None- theless, one can hope that videotex will not become merely a medium for used-car advertising.-Mark S. Ackerman, Depart- ment of Computer and Information Sci- ence, Ohio State University and OCLC, Inc. , Columbus. 
5303	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113754 EDITOR'S NOTES Goodbye JOLA It is with mixed emotions that we note that this is the last issue of the Journal of Library Automation. The first issue appeared in March 1968, just shortly after this editor had graduated from library school. Under the editorships of Fre- derick G. Kilgour and Susan K. Martin, ]OLA established itself as a major source of information about developments in library automation. This is also the last issue of the first volume produced by a new editorial board. The current editors are especially indebted to Eileen Mahoney of ALA's Central Publication Unit, whose experience, patience, and wise counsel con- tributed materially to making this last volume one we are all proud of. Hello ITAL Please welcome volume l , number l of Information Technology and Libraries when its bright new face appears on your doorstep in March. It will look very familiar to you. The new name reflects many of the shifts in emphasis that have gradually been introduced in recent years as changing technologies have encouraged a broadening of lOLA's original scope. We plan to introduce some minor changes to increase IT AL's utility, but see these as evolutionary. \.Ye continue to solicit comments and suggestions on how the journal can better serve your needs. Sychronicity In our September issue, we initiated a new section , " Reports and Working Papers," in which we reproduce documents we believe deserve a wider reader- ship than their original distribution. W e were amused to note a similar innova- tion in the August Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. We would welcome comments on the usefulness (or wastefulness) of the new section. Standard.s Standards continue to be a major concern in our field. W e hope those of you involved with acquisitions systems will find the communications by Sandy Paul and Jim Long in this issue useful. We encourage you to participate in standards development efforts when possible. Please t ry to use developed stan- dards whenever they are applicable to your work. The ISBN , SAN (Standard Address Number), SLN (Standard Library Number) , and other standard numbers will become increasingly important as our systems become more interdependent in this shrinking world. 251 
5304	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113805 252 Libraries and Information Services in a Post-Technological Society* Maurice B. LINE: British Library Lending Division, Boston Spa, En- gland. Technological imperatives will produce major changes in society in the future, as they have in the past. Post-technological society will affect the way we work, where we live, and how we spend our leisure. Changes in educational and research directions and in publishing and information delivery will affect the role and shape of the library of the future. This paper covers ground trodden by several papers in the last two or three years. Its only justification is that it approaches the matter from a rather different angle than most, and that it may help to stimulate debate and, possibly, concerted action. It asks questions to which only tentative answers are given, and opens up issues that are left as loose ends. Readers can work out their own answers and tie up the loose ends in their own way. It is the questions and issues that are important-so important, and so urgent, that they cannot be ignored without great peril. THE POST-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY By "post-technological society" I do not mean a society in which technol- ogy has fulfilled all that could be asked of it (and probably more than many want of it) and has no further use. I mean a society in which technology, specifically electronic technology, is fully integrated and accepted, but as the servant of society. It is not hard to find examples of society serving technology, or at least of technologists, and those who make money out of technology making other people serve it (or them)- just as in the Industrial Revolution people served machines, had their personal and social lives organized around machines, and were forced into a different way of living by machines. We are still feeling the effects of the massive changes brought *The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not represent those of the British Library. A version of this paper was delivered at the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco on June 29 , 1981. Manuscript received August 1981; accepted September 1981. Libraries/LINE 253 about by the Industrial Revolution, but some countries, at least, have long reached a stage where they are no longer dominated by industry, and others are suffering from an actual decline in industry which may prove irreversible in the long term. To me a post-technological society means one that has gone beyond technology and progressed to the concept of society for society's sake. Since such societies will be attained much more quickly in developed rather than in developing countries, this paper is concerned with the former. The latter raise different and extensive issues which de- serve separate discussion. This paper will be at least as concerned with the social framework as with the role of libraries and information in a future society, since libraries and information cannot exist in a vacuum and must be geared to the society we have. They can respond to changes, often after some delay, as has happened too often in the past, or they can anticipate them, or they can perhaps influence them. My own picture of a possible, and by no means improbable, future will be an optimistic one, in that I shall assume that no major wars or major social revolutions occur-only a gradual, but eventually massive, change. ECONOMIC SHIFTS The decline of heavy industry has been happening for a long time, even if allowance is made for the fact that some of its decline in developed countries has been caused by exporting it to developing countries. Big things are still made, but they are no longer made manually, since much of the heavy work has been taken over from men by machines-machines, moreover, that do not even have to be minded by men. Some industries are more amenable to this kind of change than others, but few if any industries are unaffected. These changes are being greatly accelerated by electronic technology. Since there will be less work and economic growth will be slower, nil, or negative, the disposable income of the average citizen will increase slowly, remain steady, or decline. This will reduce buying power and affect pro- duction. There has been a huge switch from production industries to service industries, which have absorbed many of the personnel freed from produc- tion industries. The service industries themselves are now being subjected to automation and this time there will be nowhere for people to go for jobs. The Western world may or may not achieve continued (or resumed) eco- nomic growth. If it does, it will be achieved largely by automated means. Some jobs will be created, but far from sufficient enough to replace all those destroyed. Without economic growth-and no economy can go on growing for ever-no jobs will be created. The question is not, therefore, whether but how fast jobs will be lost. Whatever measures may be taken to alleviate it, the loss of jobs will happen and the sooner we adjust to the fact the better. Jobs are being lost, now, in most of the developed world. It is 254 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 later than we think, and planning and action are needed urgently. A WORLD WITH LESS WORK There are various ways in which the loss of jobs might be dealt with. One possibility is not to deal with it at all. The results of a do-nothing policy would be that a very large proportion of the population would be unem- ployed, and after a time unemployable because they become unused to working, and the gap between the rich and poor would extend to an unbridgeable width. The social and political dangers of such a situation are obvious: it could be controlled only by a system that would be danger- ously near to a police state. The alternative is anarchy. A positive alternative is to deliberately create work , in order to have full or near-full employment. Since there will not be enough necessary work, most of the work created will be strictly unnecessary. Some socialist states do this. Competition and enterprise are stifled, and awareness that their work serves no useful purpose can hardly satisfy those doing it. This is true even when systems are almost entirely manual; the problems of creating work when there is even less that needs to be done will be enormous. Technology could of course be ignored and systems left unchanged, in which case hard and unpleasant work will continue to be done by people- work that could be done automatically. This could also be a cause of dissatisfaction. Another alternative is to spread work around more thinly, so that, in effect, everyone works part-time. This solution requires full cooperation from the work force, and workers with full-time jobs have, to date, given no indication that they will behave altruistically. We shall probably see a mixture of all these solutions: more people totally unemployed , more people working shorter hours than now, and some deliberate creation of work. Whatever happens, a lot more people will have a lot more time on their hands-except psychiatrists. The work that will exist will be mostly skilled, and much of it will be highly skilled. Unskilled labor will be little in demand: this is the corollary of the otherwise wholly welcome decline in unpleasant work. It is inciden- tally a sad reflection on modern society that little attempt has been made to apply modern technology to some of the nastiest, dirtiest, most labor- intensive jobs such as garbage collection-presumably because the workers in question have less say than middle-class housewives, much of whose time is now spent in waiting for labor-saving devices to be repaired. SOCIETAL DECENTRALIZATION Information technology will make our present huge conurbations un- necessary, and they will no longer exert a magnetic attraction because they will have no more work to offer than smaller communities, including probably small rural communities. Much work will be capable of being done without traveling to it. We may see a revival of small towns, on a Libraries/LINE 255 truly human scale, where people know one another and feel some sense of responsibility to and for one another. Indeed, conurbations, many of which are historically amalgamations of small townships created largely by the Industrial Revolution, may break up again into small townships. Social life in such communities can flourish. Huge industrial plants will not be necessary either. That is not to say that there will not be huge industrial concerns, but they will be able to consist of a network of small units, which can be semiautonomous and widely scat- tered. Within units, smaller groups can have their own identities. Since people find it very hard to relate to large numbers of other people from day to day-fifty is about the maximum meaningful grouping-this trend, which is already occurring in forward-looking industries, is entirely bene- ficial. It will make communication within firms, which is often lamenta- bly poor at present, even more important. A move from big cities to townships and other smaller communities, and the independence of distance provided by information technology, should lead to much greater local and regional self-sufficiency. More social self- sufficiency would certainly be expected, but political self-sufficiency, in the form of greater independence of national or state government, could also develop. There tend to be fashions in centralization and decentraliza- tion, and the recent trend towards decentralization may not last in the face of international tensions. The balance will always be a difficult and shift- ing one, but technology should enable national identity and purpose to coexist with a high degree of regional and local autonomy. The need for balance between the state and smaller groups will also become greater as most Western societies come to be more and more multicultural, not to say multilingual. The cultural needs of minorities will have to be reconciled with the fact that they are part of a larger community. ALTERNATIVE LIFE-STYLES There are signs that some of the social changes suggested are already taking place. Beneath all the superficiality and sheer silliness of many "alternative" movements in psychology, politics, social life, etc., it is not hard to detect a deep and widespread desire for a less competitive, less aggressive, less exploitative, and less polluted society-one less dominated by industry and the profit motive. This desire, ill defined though it may be, is surely felt by many who play no part in these minority movements. We should incidentally remind ourselves that not all dropouts are failures: many could have succeeded in our society if they had wished and tried. There are signs of changes in education, too. Academic pressure on school pupils in Japan may have increased in recent years, but it has decreased in many countries, including Britain, partly because schoolchildren them- selves have a different view of the future-less optimistic than in the past, but certainly less aggressive and self-seeking. 256 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 Optimistic faith in technology generally is a thing of the past, except for those directly involved in technological developments. A feeling almost of despair on the part of many people, due partly but certainly not solely to technology and its misuse, is leading them to take up extreme positions. This is a dangerous trend: society rarely progresses by extremes or fluctua- tions between them. If mindless opposition to technology can be redirected to careful thought as to how technology could be used to benefit society, and if those who appear to have total faith in technology could bring themselves to think more of its social function, not only would the pro- and antitechnology split be healed but both sides could work toward a common end. NEW EDUCATIONAL NEEDS The economic and social changes outlined above will obviously create a need for very high skills on the part of a few. Skills of a lesser order will need to be much more widely disseminated, and some knowledge of electronic technology should be universal. The educational system will need to gear itself to this, not only during childhood and adolescence but during adult- hood as well, since much of the population will need reeducating, maybe several times if not continuously. Other educational needs are less obvious. One of the reasons why the idea of a society where there is less work horrifies us so much is that we have been brought up to worship work. Work worship is deeply ingrained in us-not surprisingly, as the prosperity of the Northern Hemisphere (and more especially, the northern part of that) has been built on the Anglo- Saxon Protestant work ethic-originally work to keep oneself warm, work to save one's soul, work to create wealth- and ultimately work as an end in itself. The right to work is in itself an odd phrase-why not the right to be idle? Because the right to be idle sounds immoral; laziness is one of the worst sins. I suspect sloth is probably rated, deep down, as the worst of the seven deadly sins-most of the others are fun, like gluttony and lust, or generally accepted as human weaknesses, like pride and envy. Histori- cally, work worship is recent, and geographically it is not widespread. There will be no point at all in inculcating the work ethic in a society where there is not very much work. Instead, there is much to be said for inculcat- ing a play ethic, or at least a leisure ethic. There will be a lot more leisure, and if soul-destroying work is not to be replaced by soul-destroying leisure, people will have to learn to enjoy it and use it positively. In the early stages this will require major efforts, because it will be unnatural both to the work worshippers and to the next generation of work shunners. Since continuous expectations of an ever-increasing standard of living cannot be sustained, people will also need to be educated for contentment. They will have to learn to live more in the present, and there will need to be a certain degree of acceptance that things are as they are, economically at least. The hope that somehow, sometime, improved income, housing con- Libraries/LINE 257 ditions, or whatever will make people happy will have to be abandoned. This does not of course mean an Oriental fatalism or a cessation of efforts to improve people's well-being; it does mean that these efforts should be personal and social rather than economic. A recognition of this can again be seen in the burgeoning of self-development and social growth move- ments, though many of these are too inward-looking, not to say egocentric, to be of much social value, even if and when they actually work. PLANNED LEISURE Leisure will need to be carefully planned if it is to take the place of work in satisfying some basic human and social drives. It will have to absorb energies, mental, physical, and social. It is interesting to note how man- kind, as his society progresses well beyond the stage where it depends on hunting, shooting, and fishing, increasingly occupies his spare time in hunting, shooting, and fishing-and since these are often expensive pur- suits it is those who are highest up on the economic scale who go in for them most. Both individual and social leisure activities will have to be planned and provided for. Individual leisure activities will of course include not merely mind-occupying (and mind-stultifying) things like Space Invaders but intellectual and artistic pursuits. Social activities, which will also be intellectual and artistic as well as sporting, will be especially important in the smaller communities we may hope to see replacing conurbations, espe- cially as much work will no longer need to be done in groups and will take place in isolation-some of it at home. Individually and socially, the per- forming arts will gain in importance, and the development of creative talents of all kinds, from the making of furniture to the making of poetry, must be encouraged. My earlier use of the term "necessary" in relation to work begged several questions. Some work is necessary to keep people alive, but merely being kept alive is hardly a sufficient objective for humankind: Man Cannot Live by Bread Alone. Other kinds of activity than work are equally necessary for a reasonably satisfactory human existence. This is recognized already to some extent, indirectly rather than specifically, by the increasingly large amount of work created by the leisure industry . Note the terms "work" and "leisure industry" -we even have to fit leisure into our work-oriented, industry-dominated ethos. In my (perhaps rather idealized) society the artist is as "necessary" as the coal miner, the sportsman as the government official. EDUCATION FOR FUTURE SOCIETY The tasks of education for future society are numerous and formidable. As well as meeting the continuing needs for scientific and technical knowl- edge and skills, education must educate people for leisure. This education must be both "positive" and "negative"- "positive" in developing social, 258 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 physical, intellectual and artistic skills, "negative" in the sense that train- ing for the rat race must be superseded by personal development for con- tentment. Certainly the present tendency of the educational system to stifle creativity and originality at an early age must be eliminated. All this is a very tall order, and to meet it may require radical changes in the system. Above all, the idea that education begins in infancy and ends in middle or late adolescence should be abandoned, because the kind of education needed in the future must be available at all ages. Education must be literally a continuous process, not a separate and definable chunk of life. There is no reason why all education should be left to professional educa- tors. Not only should people be encouraged to educate themselves, but they can educate one another. These processes go on all the time, of course, but they would benefit from some planning and professional help. The genera- tion of educational materials-"educational" in the broadest sense-will be a major activity. GOVERNMENT AND PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS Government, whether national, regional, or local, will have a massive and increasing need for information. Much of this will be of a technologi- cal, political, and economic nature, as it is now. If there is more local and regional autonomy, and some cultural autonomy , some of this information will be concerned with coordination, holding together as a nation a society that could easily become fragmented. Information will have to flow from, as well as towards, the center. The main dangers are that government's needs will be so huge that the information system will be designed primar- ily to serve them, possibly neglecting other needs; since much of the infor- mation transmitted to and generated by government will never appear as print-on-paper (POP), access to it will be almost impossible unless it is deliberately provided. Freedom of access to printed information is far easier to ensure and monitor than freedom of access to closed information stores. At the same time, access could be made much easier if governments so desired. This must be ultimately a political judgment, and will undoubt- edly be a political issue: for better or for worse, politics and information will be even more inextricably mixed than now. Service occupations, such as the medical profession, will also have a massive and increasing need for information, which should not be con- fined to any narrow specialism, such as surgery, but should encompass social aspects. Many wrong tacks have been taken because the context in which they were adopted was too narrow: a good example of this is the planning and building of high-rise flats. Such errors, which are colossally expensive in social as well as economic terms, are due partly to a failure of imagination but also to an insufficiently broad body of information; future doctors and planners working on a problem must be made aware of the wider framework of that problem. At the same time the background and Libraries/LINE 259 nature of their plans and decisions must be made publicly available: they must convey information to the society they serve, abandon their mystique and expose themselves to public scrutiny. For this to be useful the public must have some understanding of what is being conveyed. CHANGING RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Development research will continue to be as important as it is now, but there will be much less fundamental research in science and technology because the funds will not be there, and such fundamental research as is carried out will tend to have its origin and inspiration in problem solving- the problems set by government and industry, and, one must hope, society. The cutbacks in basic research we are seeing on both sides of the Atlantic, especially in academic institutions, are unlikely to be a temporary phe- nomenon. The cutbacks may be made by governments for economic rea- sons, but there is little resistance to them, partly because of a widespread public suspicion of science and technology. Research will of course still be done because some people like doing it and will have access to the necessary facilities, but there will be less of it, and it will become even more interdis- ciplinary than now-or rather, the present boundaries will give way to quite new ones, and science will be structured differently. Restriction of money and facilities will curb scientific and some social science research, but it need not seriously hamper research and private study in the arts and humanities, and in a leisured society one would expect the balance of research to shift substantially toward these subjects. If my diagnosis and forecast are even approximately accurate, then we shall see a society in which there is less work, much less hard work, and shorter working hours; in which conurbations and large industrial concen- trations are unnecessary and smaller communities and plants may take their place; in which there will be less centralization; in which services will grow and interact much more with the people they serve; in which funda- mental research in science and technology will shrink, but private research in other fields will grow; in which, above all, there is far more leisure, and hence far more scope and need for leisure activities of all kinds. If we are wise, we shall adapt and develop education toward this sort of society; and in the process much education will be de-institutionalized. INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES All up to this stage is really an extended prologue to the setting of information and libraries in a broader context. I do not propose to spend long on likely developments in information technology , since it is becom- ing almost impossible to pick up even a newspaper without reading some- thing about them. The vision of the "paperless society" is held out before us as an unavoidable and desirable ideal. Those who advocate such a society seem to me either naive or deliberately misleading. They speak as if all 260 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 published literature were scientific and technical journals or report litera- ture and as if all readers were involved in research and development. This is patently not the case, and if my predictions are correct scientific and technical literature will come to constitute a diminishing proportion of published material. The advocates, moreover, appear to assume patterns of reading behavior-where, when, and how people read-that can hardly be wide- spread. For example, it is doubtful if many people read most books, apart from novels, in a linear fashion from the first page to the last, or read for long continuous periods, or do most of their reading, whether for the purposes of work or leisure, in only one or two places. I certainly do not, yet a system of "publication" based on electronic transmission and recep- tion on a screen would impose these restrictions on me. My reaction would be the same as with microfilm-to get a legible hard copy as soon as possible to read when, where, and how I like. Unless very high quality receiver/printers are used, my copy may be legible but it will be much inferior to what I am used to, so that the new media will merely be an expensive way of producing inefficient old media. There will be even more paper around than now; it will simply be produced in vast quantities at the receiving rather than the producing end. Nor do I believe that economics favor, let alone necessitate, the electronic transmission of most published material: if enough copies of a document are produced at the receiving end it may even occur to someone that centralized production and distribution would be more efficient, and the book would be reinvented. The POP culture is likely to be with us for some time yet. Are the paperless prophets offering yet another example of trying to do something because it can be done, of giving technology priority over soci- ety, which then has to adjust to the changes that technology has brought about? The adjustment would have to be not only individual but political, because paper is a democratic medium in that it can find its way almost anywhere it can be read, whereas electronic communication will tend to be elitist both within and between countries, widening the already huge information gap between developed and developing, rich and poor, north and south. The future will surely be a mix of more or less conventional publications-many of which may be produced from machine-readable versions by computer phototypsetting-and of electronically transmitted information-some of which will end up, and be distributed, as printed matter. Technology should be used to extend the range of media available, not reduce it, and it is more sensible to consider who needs what informa- tion before deciding that one mode of provision is inevitably best. NEW CONCEPTS OF PUBLICATION Nevertheless, the changes will be profound. The concept of "publica- tion" will need to be redefined; it certainly cannot be confined to a printed document, or to any physical object at all. There will be no permanent Libraries/ LINE 261 archival form of many items, since the electronic originals of papers can readily be corrected, updated, or even deleted. (Incidentally, the danger that this will give governments or others the ability to control information and to reinvent the past as well as adjust the present cannot be ignored, and in an open society there must be strong safeguards). Some (by no means all) journal articles and reports, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and various kinds of handbooks are well suited to electronic storage and transmission. The contents of these materials too will be subject to frequent change. Although most published material is likely to continue to appear in a more or less conventional form, the fact that much of it will be produced from a machine-readable version will mean that it need never go out of print because copies can always be produced on demand. So long as the electronic masters are kept somewhere, there will no longer be a need for permanent paper: books can be disposable objects. They have been re- garded as disposable by many individuals for a long time- books are a rare example of an object which is consumed but after consumption is still there unless thrown or given away-but libraries have generally deplored self- destructive paper and research libraries have avoided disposal whenever possible. If and when existing printed matter whose content is significant can be captured and converted to machine-readable forms, conservation efforts can be directed to works that should be preserved in their original form because of their artistic and literary value (Paradise Lost just doesn't look the same or communicate the same message in a seventeenth-century edition as opposed to a computer printout) . Luckily, many such works were printed before the quality of paper began to deteriorate. A leisured society, educated to entertain itself and to create, will pro- duce more media, written, visual, and aural. Written media can of course simply be handwritten and duplicated for local distribution and use, and one would devoutly hope that most will stop at this stage. It will not be difficult, however , for authors to input their writings on word processors, and once they have done this there is, in theory, nothing to stop them from being added to larger files. Book publishing has always been a rather uncertain business, but at least somebody somewhere has had to make a decision on whether a given book was worth publishing. Who decides, and how, whether a book, or a short story, or a poem, is "worth" putting into a nationally accessible database? Will there be an equivalent of the book publisher in the form of a database provider, who may concentrate on a certain type or range of material and who will exercise some quality con- trol over input? Or will input be relatively uncontrolled, and the control be exercised by the consumer, who will decide whether material and how long material remains accessible? There are obvious dangers in the latter. Similar considerations apply to research literature-whether and how in- put will be controlled, or whether and how control will be exercised by users. What does seem clear is that it will be very difficult to prevent rubbish getting into the system -even more than happens now. 262 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL In any case bibliographic control will be essential. Bibliographic control over conventionally published and printed material is far from complete or perfect, and this has not always mattered because there has been visual and physical exposure to the material itself. But with a closed store of informa- tion this kind of exposure is impossible. Solutions in the case of research literature should not be hard to find : most of it is readily indexable and exposure is important mainly for keeping up-to-date with general develop- ments in and around one's specialty. With other kinds of literature, expo- sure may be achieved by means of television and videotex. It is clear that while POP will continue to be published as now, it will increasingly be supplemented, and in some sectors supplanted, by alterna- tive media. Alternative media will include videocassettes and sound re- cordings of various kinds as well as surrogates for POP. Some of the infor- mation on alternative media will be ephemeral-though no more than much present printed material-but much of it will be of long-lasting, if not permanent, interest. This will be especially true of the unprinted word-matter that would today be published as a journal article or report, but tomorrow may be accessible only electronically. The strange concept that appears to be held by many librarians that everything printed has permanent value and must be preserved while other communication me- dia are largely disposable will become untenable (as it should already be- many books are of far less value, even as ephemera's of interest to future social historians, than many films or television programs). HOME INFORMATION SERVICES One obvious trend is that most homes in Western society will have (as they have now) television sets, and also videotex adaptations. Many homes will also have their own computer terminals. The average home may be poorer in real terms than now, but such equipment will be cheap and commonplace. In one way or another , many individuals will be able to call up a great deal of information without having to leave their houses , and some will be able to print it out. It looks then as if there will be a greater volume of information gener- ated at all levels, from government through academic and research bodies to individuals, in a wide variety of forms , with imperfect bibliographic control and only limited quality control. The information will range from that needed and generated by management, through research papers, to material produced for leisure-for the enjoyment or amusement of others or the satisfaction of the creator. Much of this information will be available on television, much on machine-readable databases some of which will be accessible in many homes, and much in conventional POP, which because it need not be permanent can be produced very cheaply and hence made available to a wide market. Libraries/LINE 263 In this situation, the workers will be able to obtain the information they need for their work either at a place of employment where others work or at home if their work is such as can be done at home, whether online or from printed paper produced at a terminal. Their leisure needs, and the much greater leisure needs of the increasing numbers of unemployed, will be met by television, including videotex and videocassettes, and by cheap throwaway POP. So will their education needs-and I suggested earlier that education will involve many more people as educators as well as learners, that it will be lifelong, and that its strictly functional element will be limited and less socially important than its leisure element. INFORMATION SUPPLIERS Some of the information will be produced by government and made available as a public service if not a public necessity. It may or may not be supplied by the government, and even if it is, it may not be free . Some information will be produced by amateurs, whether groups or individuals, at their own initiative and expense-but access to it may still be paid for, partly depending on how it is supplied. Some information will be produced for no direct payment (like research papers), but will be commercially supplied. Much will be both produced and supplied for profit. To state the obvious, someone will have to pay for the supply if not the production of all kinds of information, and if it is supplied electronically, particularly in direct response to demands, the costs cannot and will not be concealed. This would not need stating if much of the information supplied by and through libraries at present were not detached from any costs and prices. It has of course been paid for at one stage, usually from public or institutional funds, but uses are not paid for, and the consumer very rarely pays anything. This very point has, of course, led to the campaign by authors and publishers for so-called public lending rights and for photocopying fees. There are various answers that can be made to the arguments put forward , but most of these will be irrelevant to much information in the future because the supply of information, for each and every use, will be in the producers' or suppliers' hands and under their control. If they want to sell, say, a videodisc to an institution on terms that permit subsequent use without payment to them, that will be their decision-but in such cases the initial sale price will hardly be small. WHERE DO LIBRARIES FIT IN? Where might libraries fit into future society? The need for current recre- ational reading will be supplied (as now) largely by disposable paperbacks. Needs for publications of the past will be capable of being met directly by on-demand printing from a machine-held database, or possibly from mi- croform. Reference needs, fulfilled at present largely by directories, hand- books, encyclopedias, etc., will be met online, probably through television screens. Research needs will be satisfied largely through commercial data- 264 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 base operators, selling printouts or computer time. Libraries are interme- diaries in the communication of information, at best transmitters: if inter- mediaries are less needed, and transmission is done in other ways, where do libraries come in? Should libraries wait and see how things develop and then see what they can do about it? Should they try and influence matters at an early stage-if so, how, and is it already too late? Should libraries become producers as well as intermediaries? Should patrons be charged? All or some? If some, where should the line be drawn? The questions are agreed, but no one knows the answers. Librarians who consider these matters tend to start from the assumption that public and other libraries exist, that they will still be supplying POP, and that the main issue is whether they add electronically accessible infor- mation to their services. An alternative approach would be to start with the "null hypothesis" that in the future libraries will not be needed-not even to supply books-and then to consider the best means of making informa- tion available in various forms. If the best means turns out to include something like libraries as we know them, at least they will be based on more secure foundations. THE INFORMATION UNIT In institutions such as industrial firms and universities there will almost certainly be an important role for an information unit-important if only because there will be such a quantity and variety of information, available in so many ways, that an access and control unit will be vital if users are to acquire the information they need and to acquire only the information they need-sipping or drowning, both inferior to a decent drink, will both be possible without expert help. Since conventional POP will still exist the information unit may as well acquire and provide that as well: note that the unit will be adding POP to electronically accessible information, not vice versa. A large store of books will be unnecessary, since only those needed fairly frequently need be kept for long; others can be obtained on demand as required. As well as remotely accessible information and POP, there will be local information stores held in electronically accessible form, whether built up locally or acquired as electronic packages (such as video- discs or tapes containing the future equivalent of journals). The unit will supply both information, orally or on paper, and POP, much of which will be generated at terminals. There will of course also be local access points within an institution of any size, e.g., the chemists will have direct access to chemical data. The unit will have one very big advantage over local termi- nals in that it will be able to afford machinery to produce far higher quality POP. The unit must also be able to supply remote workers, since many will not need to come into the institutional buildings regularly. The institutions will pay all necessary fees for the use of information, since their staff will Libraries/LINE 265 presumably be using the information for the purposes for which the institu- tion employs them. Whether the unit itself pays or whether it charges departments of the institution is a minor issue. Information, in its widest sense, for the public is a rather different matter . Or is it? There may be terminals and screens at home, but the same problems of diversity and quantity of information sources and media will exist, perhaps on an even larger scale. There is no reason why there should not be- indeed, it is fairly certain there will be-various information suppliers, some of them competing with one another. The question is whether there is a place for a publicly-funded service embracing a wide range of information sources and media, and if so what form it should take. In the public interest, and ultimately in the national interest, ready access to official information should be provided, but this information could still be made available at home: a physical unit open to the public, on the lines of today's public libraries, would not be necessary. The same applies to other information sources: there is a strong political and social case for a publicly-funded guidance unit, and probably also a supply unit, though it would not always be easy to decide when the supply costs should be carried on public funds on the grounds of public utility. A very strong case can be made for free, or at least heavily subsidized, access for deprived sectors of the community, but borderlines are no easier to draw here than elsewhere . Some people will have no television and no money to spend on books, and for these there could be places that were open to the public and where free and direct access could be provided . In this case the future equivalent of the public library would become a sort of information flophouse. COMMUNITY CENTERS Another approach is more promising. The growth and importance of leisure have been stressed several times in this paper. At first it will be enforced leisure, but one can also expect more voluntary, guilt-free leisure. It will be a matter of the utmost importance to provide leisure centers-on public funds, because the unemployed will not be wealthy. These would be community centers that would serve the functions of self-education and mutual education, creative activities, and individual and group recrea- tion. All of these will need access to information of different kinds , and most of them will generate information as well. An information unit will therefore be an absolutely essential part of the community center. Some information will be produced for (and often by) groups rather than indi- viduals: listening and viewing, retrieving and assessing information, are often better done in groups than individually. The Pompidou Centre in Paris may be more forward-looking than even its originators thought. Since the identity and coherence of the community will be very important, there will of course be no question of restricting it to one sector. Issues of 266 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 who pays for what will still have to be resolved , but this will be a commu- nity decision. In other words, something rather like the public library will have to be reinvented-but it will be necessary because it is vital to serve society, not because it happens to be there already. It would be rash to prophesy that community centers will be an inevitable element in future society, but it is hard to see how otherwise society can respond intelligently and humanely to the changes it will undergo. At the least, community information service and integration with education and leisure seem a more than worthy objective for the public library or its future equivalent. It is, moreover, an objective that the public library is in a good position to help achieve: it can give a lead as perhaps no other public service can. Finally, it is an objective that is as applicable to developing as to developed countries. The concept of a worldwide network of community information units is very attractive, and may not be as Utopian as it seems at first. NATIONAL CENTERS Has all this future-gazing anything to do with national libraries? This is another question that I would turn round, and, instead, ask, What na- tional library/information service will be needed to serve future society? This question is too big to discuss just now. However, one function seems fairly certain-that of acting as a backstop reservoir for permanent storage and supply, in support of all the local and institutional units. This function will have to be applied selectively, and selection will be one of the most difficult problems to handle. To avoid corruption of records, they should be stored in a more "fixed" form than volatile electronic media-paper, perhaps? Bibliographic control--also selective-may also be a function, though the national center's role here may be mainly one of coordinating and standardizing rather than generating records. Since the frontier between publishers and librarians, already subject to occasional frontier disputes, will become more and more fluid, and since both producers and disseminators are working towards a common end, separated only by the need to recover costs or make profits, not only should a truce be called between the parties but they must form an alliance. This will inevitably be somewhat uneasy-only a dead marriage has no tensions or conflicts-but continued warfare will incur penalties not only for the parties themselves but for society. LIBRARY EDUCATION Finally, and briefly, what kind of training will be needed for our future intermediaries? Even today I would like to see a much more broadly based course than conventional library education normally offers, one that is concerned with communications rather than librarianship and informa- tion technology-"communications" to include the whole field of publish- ing, bookselling, advertising, and communications technology. Future ed- Libraries/LINE 267 ucation may need to be broader than this. Since such a course could not possibly be contained within three or four years, and since much of it anyway is relevant to much of the population, it would be diffused, spread over a large number of years, starting in childhood and continuing through life. The educators too will need to be diffused-we should all be educating ourselves and one another and it should no longer be a question of adminis- trators retiring to stud in their latter years to produce people in their own image. Where expertise and special training will be needed is in informa- tion analysis and coding, even though one would hope and expect much of this to be done directly by the computer through analysis of the full original text. CONCLUSION Who will decide what happens? Not the technologists, one must hope, nor any sort of elite; though opinion may need to be led, this is different from decision making by a few for the many. Libraries and information people should obviously have a major say, and they may have to represent their users, present and potential. This implies that librarians must be fully integrated with the society they serve-just as doctors and planners should be, but so rarely are, integrated with the people they are supposed to be serving. Information, as perhaps the major national resource of developed countries in the future, must never become the domain of "experts". A massive and continuing process of discussion, leadership, and consultation with information users-most of them ordinary people-is necessary, and should begin now. Leadership of social trends is not a common or natural characteristic of the library and information profession, but it is desper- ately and urgently needed. The post-technological society, to conclude, should see libraries and information services totally integrated into society in a way that we are only beginning to glimpse today. The implications of this are much more profound than this paper indicates, and the whole future system needs to be thought through in depth. If there is a single main message in this paper, it is that a technological vision alone is hopelessly incomplete, that librar- ians and information people must at all costs avoid the planning disasters that narrow-thinking, well-meaning experts have scattered so liberally around us, and that they can take a positive lead not only in developing libraries and information services for the future society but in helping to shape that society. Maurice B. Line is director general of the British Library Lending Division at Boston Spa, England. 
5305	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012113937 268 The Use of Automatic Indexing for Authority Control Martin DILLON: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ; Rebecca C. KNIGHT: Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas; Margaret F. LOSPINUSO: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and John ULMSCHNEIDER: National Library of Medicine. Thesaurus-based automatic indexing and automatic authority control share common ground as word-matching processes. To demonstrate the resemblance, an experimental system utilizing automatic indexing as its core process was implemented to perform authority control on a collection of bibliographic records. Details of the system are given and results dis- cussed. The benefits of exploiting the resemblance between the two systems are examined. INTRODUCTION It is not often realized how close the relationship is between automatic indexing using a thesaurus , on the one hand , and automatic authority control, on the other. Making the connection is worthwhile for many reasons. The first has to do with terminology. Though one would be naive to hope for a reduction in specialized vocabulary, it is helpful to appreciate that what is called a thesaurus in one application is referred to as an authority file in the other; that the two have virtually the same structure, similar working parts, and play the same role in controlling the content of fields in a bibliographic file in their creation and, at least potentially, during retrievals by users. A second reason emerges in system development. Below we discuss the various ways that a library can implement authority control. They range from a fully manual system, where the authority file exists only in card form, to online, automatic authority management. There are intermedi- ate points as well. For each of the automated implementations, the system investment in software can be great. Recognition of the close parallel in function of these two library needs allows for parallel development of software for any of these stages. A third reason looks to the future. Successful system-patron interaction Manuscript received Apri11981 ; accepted September 1981. Automatic Indexing/DILLON, et al. 269 ought not to depend upon a patron's knowledge of the authorized entry forms currently in use for a library. First, the concept of a controlled vocabulary is far too narrow: authority control should encompass all fields available for searching. But the patron need not be aware of complicating details: substitutions of recognized variants for authorized forms ought to be carried out automatically during patron retrievals (with due regard, of course, for the intent of the patron). This article describes a project in authority control in a specialized system environment, one that is increasingly typical in many of its fea- tures. The file of records is relatively small, currently below 10,000, and has a potential for growth not exceeding 100,000. The collection, derived from the Annabel Morris Buchanan Collection of American religious tune books at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) Music Library, has many similarities with standard book collections, but its details vary greatly and cataloging conventions have been developed locally. Its use for scholarly research is similar to that for any standard collection of biblio- graphic records. A great many such nonstandard collections exist-the morgue file in a newspaper, machine-readable data files, even properties marketed by co- operatives of real estate agencies. Developing automated retrieval systems for such collections are similar enterprises, sharing similar goals and prob- lems. In particular, all require extensive authority control similar to that required by a tune-book collection. The important feature of the method of authority control described here, one that makes it likely to be of interest to others, is its use of the same structures and software that are used for general vocabulary control. The three major software components we will refer to below are: thesaurus maintenance, automatic indexing, and automatic updating. These com- ponents antedated our effort to implement a similar system for authority control. When the problems that dealt with authority control per se were investigated, it was discovered that the system already available for subject control could be used exactly as it stood for authority control as well. Initial experiments confirmed this relationship. 1 Authority Control and Automatic Indexing Automatic authority control has been approached largely as a unique problem requiring special software development for its implementation. But authority control shares common ground with automatic subject in- dexing. Both are term-matching activities based on a list of preferred terms plus a much larger list of match terms. Each preferred term is tied to a number of match terms, but each match term is tied to only one preferred term. In the indexing environment, document text is examined for certain terms; these "free text" (uncontrolled vocabulary) terms are tied to equiva- lent (controlled vocabulary) terms in a thesaurus. When an uncontrolled vocabulary term is encountered in a document, its associated controlled 270 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 vocabulary term is posted to the document as a descriptor. In authority control, document text is also examined for certain terms, e.g., author names. These "free-text" author names (i.e., names just as they appear on a title page) are tied to their authoritative name form (controlled vocabu- lary) in an authority file . When a "free-text" author name is encountered, the authoritative name is posted to the document or book (i.e., assigned as a heading or entry point). An automatic authority control system, then, is realizable by applying standard automatic subject-indexing software, which exploits the resem- blance between the two processes. The input would consist of a thesaurus (in this case, an authority file) and bibliographic records; the indexing discovers matches between the list of possible terms in the thesaurus (vari- ants of author names) with the "free-text" terms (title-page author names) , and posts the appropriate controlled thesaurus terms (authoritative author name form) whenever a match occurs. (See figure 1.) THE TUNE-BOOK PROJECT An experimental version of an authority control system using automatic indexing was implemented to test the feasibility of automatic indexing as I THESAURUS I (Authority File) \ \ I I \ Fig. 1. At1thority Control by Indexing. MATCHING AND POSTING , l ' PDATED RECORDS I \ ' I BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS ~ Automatic Indexing/DILLON, et al. 271 the core process for authority control. The goal was automatic authority control for the Buchanan Collection index, the first step in work on a more comprehensive project, an index of American religious tune books, in par- ticular, the shape-note tune books. For the study of American cultural and musical history it is important to be able to trace the dissemination of these hymn tunes and texts, but the absence of a comprehensive index of American hymn tune books severely constrains such studies. Many factors have discouraged scholars from con- structing an index, among them the magnitude of the repertory . Using computers to sort, file, and print reduces many of the problems associated with the size of the repertory, but does not address those created by the diverse forms of names and texts used by the tune-book compilers. Correct hymn titles and especially accurate composer attributions were not impor- tant to the compilers of the tune books. Consequently, although many tune-book compilers did attempt to indicate who had composed the work, the names of the composers appeared in various forms. For example, the name "Israel Holdroyd" might appear as simply "Holdrad" or "Holdrayd" with no first name given, or a first initial might be added, or an abbrevi- ated first name, such as "Is." might be used with one of several forms of the family name. Automatic authority control over these names is necessary to the study of this collection, since only automatic means can address the problems of magnitude encountered in approaching the index as a whole. The database now contains about 6,000 records for these tune books. They are stored in MARC format with variable-length fields giving a variety of information about each tune . Creation of the Authority File A thesaurus of authority records for the Buchanan Collection was manu- ally created and placed in an online file. The initial authority file com- prises a selection of composers whose names are present in conflicting forms in the present database. These were obtained by analyzing the file sorted by tune names, noting those tunes for which it appeared that the name of the same composer was given in more than one form. All forms of the name found were entered on cards along with the name of the tune (or tunes) through which the relationship was established . We used an explicit algorithm as a guide in determining which names were actually forms of the same name (see appendix for details). This process resulted in a list of 266 distinct composers, each with one to four different name forms. All were compared with the list sorted by composers, noting additional forms. These names were then checked in several reference works, and authorita- tive forms (with dates) were established when possible. IMPLEMENTATION Software Systems File processing for the tune records and the authority thesaurus was 272 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 accomplished using a local software product, Bibliographic/MARC Pro- cessing System (BPS). BPS is a general-purpose software package for the manipulation of MARC-format records. This experiment used BPS subsys- tems for creation of MARC-format records, sorting and formatting, and file updating (i.e., updating a master file with the contents of a transaction file). The automatic indexing program used here was intended as part of a thesaurus-based document query system. 2 It is compatible with BPS, but utilizes generalized automatic indexing principles-its compatibility de- pends only on properly formatted thesaurus and bibliographic records. It includes file-processing programs for the thesaurus (authority file) and the bibliographic records (tune records) and a matching program that per- forms the indexing. Posting of the authoritative name forms to the proper MARC record is done with standard BPS updating procedures using out- put from the matching program. Automatic Authority Control Process As input the system uses a thesaurus and the text of fields selected from MARC-format document records. The thesaurus consists of pairs of terms: the first of each pair is the term searched for in a document, the second is the authority term assigned to the document, whenever the first term is found. Figure 2 gives examples. The text may be abstracts, titles, or the contents of any field selected from the documents for authority control. In this case, the text is derived from the composer field; for authority work in general, any field requiring authority control would be input. The first step in authority control is as follows. The text sample and a stop-word list are input to the initial text-processing program. The incom- AU'IHCRITY FCRI'I Cole, J_ I Cvle, Joh~ 1774-1855 Clarkf", Thos. 1 Clark, Thomas \:ol e!' , ~ eo. I cuzens, 9. / Cuzens, Benjamin ilall , ::;_ B- I Ba 11 , R. F- Holraj / Hcld r oyd , Israel aolroyd I Hcldroyd, Israel Fig. 2. Thesaurus/Authority File Format . Automatic Indexing/DILLON , et al. 273 ing text (in this case, composer names) is separated into individual words. The stop-word list is used to remove designated words from the input, which in authority control might be titles of address and so on- terms such as "Miss," "Elder," or "Reverend." (Automatic indexing uses the stop-word list to eliminate similarly noncontributory terms, such as conjunctions and prepositions.) The processing program can also convert plurals to singulars if desired. The purpose of this option in automatic indexing is to pare down variants in order to increase matches by standardizing term forms. How- ever, plurals are not converted in authority control, since names are usu- ally distinguished from one another by their full forms. The processing produces a list of individual terms. Each term is given once along with the number of words in the term, then broken up with the document number attached to each piece. The thesaurus authority records are edited by the thesaurus processing program into specially formatted matched pairs of variant and authorita- tive forms. Input is the match-term/variant-term file (figure 2) and the same stop-word list used for document processing. The stop-word list elim- inates all unwanted words in the list of variant name forms. Output is a file containing all possible name forms (variants), the number of terms in each name and their positions in the name, and the authoritative name form, as in figure 3. Next the two files are used as input to a matching program that creates an inverted file of the processed document text, then compares each match term from the prepared thesaurus with the inverted file. A match is discov- ered according to one of the following criteria: 1. Exact match: Match term and document term are the same words, in the same order, and adjacent. 2. Stop word exact match: Words are the same in match term and in document term, and in order, but deleted stop words may intervene between words in the document term. 3. Any order match: Term must be the same words and adjacent (i.e., without intervening words) and may be in any order. VA!'IANI tWC!lD S ~:UTIV~ AUTI:-Ci\IlY ?cs: no FCH Hlstin'js, 'Ihos. 2 1 2 rastinq~ , TL:HII.l S 17~4-l tl7 _ Hastl.nqs, l h:>s :le i 1 2 rds tL nq.< , Th.:>llll S 17cl~ - 1 -!72 Holde a':! l!ol:lccyd , l S cd<! l Holdcoy1 I· Holiroyd , I sra~: Housec, w 2 1 2 lid U Se [', Willia m 1 '3 12 -1tHO Fig. 3. Processed Authority File. 274 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 4. Stop word any order match: Terms must have the same words and in any order, but intervening stop words are ignored. 5. Any match: Any word of the match term may be in any part of the document text in any order. These match criteria are similar in intent to the criteria for deciding composer-variant forms/composer-authority form match mentioned above and presented in the appendix. An interesting possibility is to use such match criteria to discover variant author name forms in creating the authority file, since many variant forms result only from misspellings, title attributions, and so on. Pseudonyms would not be detected, but such a procedure would be useful in collating forms morphologically similar. The experiment used criterion two, one of the most restrictive; the "free- text" composer name must match exactly and with its parts in the same order (except that stop words, such as "Miss" or "Elder," may intervene) as the variant author name before an authoritative form is posted. This seems the most reasonable choice for this project; presumably more flexibility could be achieved by adding criteria to the match process or by allowing Boolean combinations of criteria analogous to those outlined in the appen- dix. The final output from the match module is three files: a print file of all match terms, a file of all unmatched authority names, and a file con- structed for the update of the bibliographic records, giving the document and field to be updated and the update term. The print file is a record printed for each term matched. The record gives the variant form matched, its field type, the proper authoritative name form as given in the thesaurus , and the identifier numbers of the documents in which the term is found. Field type is an identifying code assigned to each term in the prepared thesaurus, not necessarily the same as those identifiers in the MARC-format authority file; here, the field type is Preferred Composer N arne (PCN). An example of the printed output file is in figure 4. The update file is for use in an update program that posts the authorita- tive name form assigned by the indexing. It contains the document identi- fier number in which a match was found, the field type of term found (PCN), and the authoritative name form. The update program uses this file to add the authoritative composer name form as a new bibliographic data field to the appropriate bibliographic record, assigning as a field identifier the field type identifier accompanying it. Figure 5 gives the new records with added fields. During the update process, a file containing all records not receiving a new authority-name field is generated. These records may contain a new variant of an authoritative name already in the file or a name altogether new to the file; in either case the unmatched author name would have to be added to the authority file and tied to an authoritative name form. The output also assists in tracing erroneous name-form assignments. Automatic Indexing/DILLON, et al. 275 '1AT'...:II ~i::R:1: walk er 'Y"E: PCil .\'JTnORITi ':ZR~: ~alk'?r, Williu 1tj Q9 -1 d 7S LOCHC:ONS: H-1J59, .&.A-11~ij, A!l-1273, ••• MAIC!i n:a'l: Oaviison TYPE: POl .;oTHO!li:iY IER,1: Da vi s~or., An-1ias 17 ~0 -1 857 LOCAT!ON.:i: H-1035 :1!\TCH T C:R ~: h an de l TYPE: PCN AUTHCR:TY TER M: Han1el, George Frideric 1685-17 5 9 LOCATIONS: AK-1J~5, AA- 2 1)93 MATCH TERM: Ev€rett TYPE: PC:I AUTHOR!'!'Y TERM: Everett, E. r.. LOCATIONS: AA-1015, ~A-1090, A~-1105, Al-10~3, AK-1060, AK-1111, A!-13 57 ••• IB'ICH TE8ll: Pond lYPE: PCN AUTHO<!ITY TERl!: Pond, Sylnnus Sillings 179~-1871 LOCATION!>: AB-1054, .\3-166Q, AD-1248, AQ-133b, ••• Fig. 4. Update File. Results Table 1 gives some statistics on the experimental runs. In the 5, 788 bibliographic records, 760 distinct composer names were present, the re- mainder (one composer per record) being duplicate forms; many of these are simply "anon," where the composer was not known. Earlier test runs on a subset of the file had fewer duplicates, and additions to the full database show few new composer name forms. Thus the database is near- ing a stable state with an exhaustive list of composers; this stability contrib- Table 1. Implementation Statistics F ile Statistics: Total number of bibliograp hi c records Number of composer names in biblio reco rds Ave rage number of compositions per composer Tota l number of authorit y na me forms (in authority file) Tota l number of variant and authority names (in authority file) Run Statisti cs: Total number of variant thesauru s names matched Total numbe r of variant thesaurus n am es unmatched Average number of documents per match ed ter m Average number of docume nts per term Total number of reeords updated b y authority form 5,788 760 13.2 266 599 372 213 5.87 3.61 2, 110 276 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 JQC 10: Af- 1 14 7 .\NT HO L O.:; Y ; 'I h <:> ~ n ion iliH Jl on y I MJRIN : : sel~cted ty ;ecr qe Y~njr~ckson TUNE NA:1E: i e::-usa lem FIRS: LIN~:Je~us, my all tc h~~v•n is gone, PCN: Walk e r, William 18 09 -187 5 CC.'1P!)3:':R: loi al k e r, \oJr • JOC I D: AA-1353 "ANTHOLO.:;Y: The Sacred harp IMPRINl': oy 3. F. lthite, E . J. King [and D.P. White}--- 4th ed.---Atalnta : D. P. Byrd, 1870 TUNE NAME: the hilt cf zion Frgsr ~INE:The Hill cf Zion yield s , PC~: White, Benjamin Franklin 1800-1879 COi1PO SER: White, B. F. )Ot: ID: Afl -1100 ANTHOLOGY: The Culcia;er IMPRINT : or, 'Ihe New York coll~ction of ~acred music 1 by I. B. Woccbury. --- Neli York f. J. Huntington TUNE NAME: Carson fiRST LINE:Jesus an1 shall it ever be, PCN: Bradbury, Williaa; Batchelder 1816-1868 COMPOSER: Er, W. !l. Fig. 5. Updated Records. utes to decreasing errors and fewer unmatched composer names in the automated authority control process. The total numbe r of thesaurus records matched applies to variant forms, authoritative forms (matching occurs for these also) , and for those few forms that have no variants. The unmatched terms (213) are largely vari- ants not in the database but gleaned from reference sources in anticipation of their occurrence, and authority forms, most of which do not occur in the database. The 2, 110 matched represent the total number of composer names matched of the originalS, 788 names. Most of the unmatched names are the "anon" entries (more than 2 ,000); the remainder are unanticipated forms not detected in the initial manual construction of the authority file. These unanticipated forms become new variants added to the authority file as described above. CONCLUSIONS Automated authority control as presented here has a number of advan- tages, either for libraries with their own processing facilities or for the management of information collections outside the standard library envi- ronment. Unifying the processes of subject control and authority control by using the same procedures and software for both simplifies the tasks of Automatic Indexing/DILLON, et al. 277 systems personnel and information managers. Where catalog access is on- line, the patron benefits by applying subject access facilities to other searches. Ideally, substitutions for all variants would occur automatically, accompanied by an alerl lo the patron where it was felt necessary. At a minimum, the same command structure would be available for referenc- ing names as would be normally available for consulting an online the- saurus. In either case, the difficulties of the patron are reduced, both in comprehending how the system works, and in acquiring a facility for using system commands. REFERENCES 1. Gordon Ellyson Jessee, "Authority Control: A Study of the Concept and Its Implemen- tation Using an Automated Indexing System" (Master's paper, School of Library Sci- ence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1980). 2. Margaret S. Strode, "Automatic Indexing Using a Thesaurus" (Master's thesis, Depart- ment of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1977). APPENDIX Rules for Decisions on Similar Names The following conditions may exist: A = identical tune name B = identical surname C = identical first initial D = same first letter of surname and close match of the rest of the surname. (55 percent match of latters in content, not in order. Such a similarity is presumed to represent a similarity in sound. ) E = similar tune name (same criteria as in D for percentage of match). EXCEPTION: words "new" and "old" cancel any presumed relation between similar tune names. F = information in CMP subfield x field is identical in content The following combinations of conditions indicate the same person, expressed in decreas- ing order of reliability: l. A&B 2. B&C 3. A&D 4. C&D 5. B&E 6. C&D&E 7. D&E 8. F&(BorD) Note: points seven and eight are regarded as tentative, and matches using these combina- tions are flagged for later checking. Martin Dillon is associate professor of library science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Rebecca C. Knight is administrative services librarian at Wichita State Uni- versity, Wichita, Kansas. Margaret F. Lospinuso is music librarian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. John Ulmschneider is library associate at the National Library of Medicine. 
5306	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114038 278 Circulation Systems Past and Present* Maurice J. FREEDMAN: School of Library Service, Columbia Univer- sity, New York City. A review of the development of circulation systems shows two areas of change. The librarian's perception of circula- tion control has shifted from a broad service orientation to a narrow record-keeping approach and recently back again . The technological development of circulation sys- tems has evolved from manual systems to the online systems of today. The trade-ojjs and deficiencies of earlier systems in relation to the comprehensive services made possible by the online computer are detailed. In her 1975 Library Technology Reports study of automated circulation control systems, Barbara Markuson contrasted what she called "older" and "more recent" views of the circulation function. The "older" or traditional view was that circulation control centered on conservation of the collection and recordkeeping. The "more recent" attitude encompasses "all activities related to the use of library materials. " 1 It appears that this latter outlook is not as new as Markuson had sug- gested. In 1927, Jennie M. Flexner's Circulation Work in Public Libraries described the work of circulation as the "activity of the library which through personal contact and a system of records supplies the reader with the [materials] wanted. "2 Flexner went on to characterize four major func- tions of circulation as follows: (1) The staff must know the books in the collection, and have a working familiarity with them. (2) The staff must know the readers; their wants, interests, etc. (3) The circulation staff must fully understand the library mission and policies and work harmoniously with those in related departments. (4) The circulation department has its own particular duty to perform .... Effective routines and tech- niques must be established by the library and mastered by the staff if the distribution of books is to be properly accomplished and the public is to have *This article is adapted from a speech delivered at Rutgers University. Manuscript received November 1980; revised May 1981 ; accepted July 1981. Circulation Systems/FREEDMAN 279 the fullest use of the resources of the institution. The library must be able to locate books, on the shelves or in circulation; to know who is using material and how the reader can be traced, if he is misusing or unduly withholding the books drawn. 3 The function of circulation has not changed since Flexner's description. Even within the context of online circulation systems, it is absolutely essen- tial that the circulation system be seen in as broad a context as possible. It is not merely an electromechanical phenomenon staffed by automaton- clerks. Circulation services involve that function which is ultimately one of the most fundamental: the satisfactory bringing together of the library user and the materials sought by that person. It follows, then, that the mechanism and means of delivery and control of the service are only a small part, and certainly not the most important part of the circulation function. Knowing your collection, your readers, and clearly knowing your library's mission are crucial prerequisites for the effective circulation of library materials. An examination of the history of circulation systems and their evolution to the present state reveals the change in outlook from a narrow view of the circulation function to a broader view. Let us begin by establishing the basic elements of record keeping, upon which circulation control is based. There are three categories of records: 1. For the collection of materials, books, tapes, microforms, etc., com- prising the library. 2. For the readers or users of the library service. 3. For the wedding or concatenation of the first two, i.e., the library user's use or borrowing of the library's materials. A minimal circulation model is a set of procedures or recordkeeping with respect to only the third category, i.e., records of the materials held by the library user outside of the library. A total or complete system would then be one that provides for all three categories. Using these criteria to judge the level of control provided by the various circulation systems of the past, let us review. The earliest method of circulation control was the chain method. In this case, "circulation" is not an accurate term; "use" of materials is more appropriate, as the collection did not circulate. Books were chained to the wall and the user did not take the material outside of the library. The minimal circulation model is not met, and records were not required. Several hundred years later, the ledger system's first iteration involved a simple notation into a ledger. The identification of the book-call number and/or author and title-and the borrower's identification were recorded. Upon the return of the book, the borrower or the receiving clerk initialed the ledger entry or otherwise indicated the return of the item. Minimal circulation control is met. A more developed or sophisticated ledger system exceeded this minimal circulation model. The new ledger had each page headed by a different 280 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 borrower or registration number. Consequently, a given user had all of his or her charges recorded on the given page indicated by the user's number. The economy of not having to write the borrower's name for every transac- tion was made possible through the creation of a file of patron records linked to the ledger page by common registration numbers. In effect, this was our first "automation." The use of a master file in support of anum- bered page provided information that had previously been handwritten every time someone wished to borrow books from the library. The new ledger system also allowed for a more orderly control of charges. Only the borrower's number was needed to get at the page of transactions relating to that borrower, as opposed to the former method- a benchmark method, in a sense- in which the transactions were chrono- logically entered and had no other ordering whatsoever. Even with the improved ledger system, though, the only ordering was by borrower num- ber and date of issue to the borrower. There was no arrangement that provided for sequencing or finding the books borrowed. The need to identify borrowed books led to the dummy system. Every book had a concomitant dummy book (or large card) that had a ruled sheet of paper with the book identification information on it and the borrower's name and/or number. When a user wished to borrow a book, the dummy was pulled from a file and the borrower information was written on the sheet of paper. The dummy was then filed on the shelf occupying the space formerly occupied by the book itself. When the book was returned, it was reshelved, the dummy removed, and the circulation transaction was crossed out. This system is interesting in that it provides for a complete inventory control. Either all items are on the shelf in proper sequence or a physical surrogate or record for circulating items is substituted and placed in proper sequence. One has instant and, in effect, "online" access to the presence or absence of materials if one has the call number and can go to the shelf. Unlike most systems that can only tell whether or not the book is present, the dummy system tells who has the book and when it was charged. In terms of a minimal model, this system provided less and more than the ledger system. If a reader wanted a list of books he or she borrowed, the reader would have to view every dummy and see if the listed item was charged to him or her. In contrast, the ledger system served such a request well, though every page of the ledger might have to be examined to find out who had borrowed a book not found on the shelf. Leaping past several systems, let us now discuss the Newark system , the overwhelmingly prevalent system in the United States today (if we include the mechanical or electromechanical versions of Dickman, Gaylord (the manual, not automated), and Demeo). The Newark system incorporated the best features of the systems already mentioned. A separate registration file was kept which provided both alphabetic access by patron and numeric access by patron registration Circulation Systems/FREEDMAN 281 number. Consequently, the recording of the borrower's identification dur- ing circulation transactions only involved the notation of the number. For book identification, a card and matching pocket were placed in each book with the call number and/or author-title identification information. The circulation transaction involved the removal of the card from the pocket and the entering on it, ala dummy system, the date of the transaction and the borrower number. The cards for all of the books borrowed on a given day were aggregated and filed in shelflist sequence in a tray headed by the date of the transactions. Resorting to computer jargon, the major or pri- mary sort of the book cards (read circulation cards) was by date, but the minor sort was by call number. Consequently, if one wanted to know the status of a given book and one had the call number, it would not take too long to search, even with a file as large as the one in the main branch of Newark Public Library, by looking for the item in all of the different days' charges. When a book was returned, the clerk noted from the date-of-issue card inserted in the book's pocket, the tray in which to search, and the matching call number on the pocket which was used for discharging the book, i.e., removing the charge card from the tray and replacing it in the book. The combination of the books on the shelf plus the cards in the different trays in shelflist order constituted a complete inventory. Additionally, the trays of cards comprised a comprehensive record of all current charges, i.e., all transactions by date, call number, and borrower, with borrower number pointing to fuller information in the registration file. Looking back at our basic model, the Newark system offered not just the minimum-a record of the item and the borrower who took it-but also introduced a major step toward inventory control. There was an inventory sequence involved, or, more accurately, several inventory sequences-one for each given collection (or day) of circulation transactions. What was still missing was a record by borrower of what was charged to him or her. In the original Newark system, the borrower's card had entered upon it dates of issue and return of items. This way, even if the library could not tell the user what items (s)he had, the user's card would reflect the number of items outstanding. The handling of reserves, renewals, and overdue notices occurred as follows: a colored clip or some indicator on a circulation card would be used to indicate a reserve. A renewal would be handled the same as a return except the person would wait while the charge card was pulled from the appropriately dated tray, and assuming that no reserves had been placed on the circulation card, the book would be recharged (i.e., renewed) to the borrower. Overdues automatically presented themselves by default. Cards left in a tray after a predetermined number of days represented charges for which overdues were to be sent. The tray was taken to the registration file and the numerically sequenced registration cards for the delinquent bor- rowers removed so that notices could be prepared and sent. Then the 282 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 registration slips and circulation cards had to be refiled at the completion of the process. Essentially, most subsequent systems are variants on the Newark system. The McBee key-sort system involves the use of cards with prepunched holes around the edges, one of which can be notched to indicate the date an item is due. The cards are arranged by call number creating a single sequence. The insertion of a knitting needle .like device through a given hole will allow all of the books overdue for a given date to fall free of the deck. This system is like the Newark system in that it has inventory and date access, but unlike Newark it places a horrible burden on the borrower. Each card has (written by the borrower) the borrower's name and address and the call number, author, and title of the book. Thus, the library is saved the labor of creating circulation cards and maintaining registration records for every patron-all of the information needed is on the charge card. But here, as Marvin Scilken has pointed out, the burden of the library's tasks are merely passed on to the users. This point should be emphasized. The next system to be considered is the photo-charge system. Micropho- tos are taken of the borrower's card, which has the name and address on it, the book card (as in the Newark book identification card), and a sequen- tially numbered date-of-issue or date-due slip . Again, as with the McBee, since the photo record includes the borrower's name and address, one can throw away registration files. Also, a list or range of transaction numbers is kept by date used. Since the numbered date-of-issue slip is placed in the book at the time of charging, and one removes it when the book is returned, it is a simple step to cross off or remove the number on the slip from its corresponding duplicate on the list of numbers for that day's transactions. Overdue transactions are found by searching for unchecked transaction numbers on the numerically sequenced microfilm. This system does meet the criterion of the minimal model, a record of the user's use of the item. In terms of labor intensity, one has eliminated the maintenance of charge-card files and registration files by a single micro- film record. Reserves, though , are terribly time-consuming with the photo-charge system: each returned book, before it can be returned to the shelf or renewed, must be searched against a call-numbered sequence of reserve cards. Academic libraries would not use this kind of system because call-number access is a necessity, especially in relation to recalls of long- loaned items . The elimination of paper files is what so commended this system to public libraries over the Newark-based systems. But, as was noted, one has virtually no way of determining who took a book out or when it is due back except, in principle, by searching all of the reels of microfilm. Some variants on this microfilm system were developed. Bro-Dart mar- keted a system that thermographically produced eye-readable records in- stead of microimages . Such was the state of circulation systems before computers began to be used. The following-a discussion of the involvement of computers-can Circulation Systems/FREEDMAN 283 be separated by the type of hardware: main frames, minicomputers, and microcomputers. The main-frame computer has been used primarily in the past as a processing unit for batches of circulation transactions collected and fed to it via punched cards, terminals, or minicomputers. Call number and author and title (albeit brief) and user identification number, were captured for each transaction. In the 1960s and into the early 1970s, this information would be batch-processed by the computer and a variety of reports would be produced. What the computer does, then, is keeps track of numbers, their ranges, and the dates of the ranges. But the computer can do much more than this. It is capable, as none of the nonautomated systems were, of rearranging the data input and then com- paring and tabulating them as desired and appropriate. Consequently, the fact that the call number, author, and title are stored by the machine means that lists or files can be arranged by any of these elements. The same goes for date of transaction. As to borrower identifica- tion number, a master file much like the Newark registration file is kept (only now in its machine-readable form), and the computer does the com- paring at high speed instead of the clerk taking the charge record and going to the numeric file to find the name and address of the borrower. Of course, the computer can then readily and quickly print out overdue no- tices with an obvious absence of clerical support and labor intensity. As we all know, the rate of increase of labor costs in increasing, and the rate of increase of computer costs is decreasing. Two kinds of large computer systems have been used. The batch- oriented one, which either kept track of items in circulation only (the absence system-only items absent from the collection were tracked), or one that kept track of the entire collection (the inventory system). 4 Nor- mally, identification numbers were used for patrons in either system. Although relatively rare in academic and public libraries, the main- frame-based online system is also in use. Ohio State University is famous for its online system. What is meant here is that all transactions are imme- diately recorded and all files are instantly updated. Printing is still neces- sary for overdue notices, but printed circulation lists are not necessary because of the online answers to queries regarding books or patrons now possible through terminals distributed to appropriate locations. The minicomputers came on the scene in two stages. CLSI's entrance in 1973 utilized one of the early minicomputers, quite small by today's stan- dards. For relatively small libraries that had not begun to dream of having their own computers, it became possible to have an entire inventory (in abbreviated form) and an entire patron file online. Consequently, all of the access power of the Newark system, and none of its labor intensity, was available online and much more besides. Few libraries could afford the main-frame system of Ohio State, but many could pay for CLSI's, and indeed they did. In the last few years, minicomputers have grown several magnitudes 284 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 above the capacity and speed of main-frame computers of the 1960s. Con- sequently, such firms as Dataphase, Systems Control, GEAC, Gaylord, and others offer these larger minis, which can now support online the needs of large branch systems with inventories of hundreds of thousands of books. Incidentally, CLSI, with a new mini line, can do this now as well. Both the mini- and maxi-based systems do all of the basic work origi- nally outlined: the whole inventory can be accessed online or with printed lists arranged by author, title, or call number (and, presently, some ven- dors offer online subject access and cross-references); access can also be made by patron's name. Further, the basic transaction- item, borrower, and date-is recorded and checked for holds or delinquency before it is accepted. Without overly extolling the present state of the art, it should be said that all of the information identified as important in the earliest systems is now not only available in a far quicker and more usable fashion, it can be manipulated by the machine in a variety of ways to meet and serve man- agement objectives not considered practicable in the past. Peter Simmons showed how collection development could be aided by automatically gen- erating purchase orders when reserves exceeded a specified acceptable level. 5 All kinds of statistical data regarding collection and patron use can be generated that could not have been possible in a manual mode. While at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, William McGrath was able to adjust book budget allocations in terms of collection use and undergradu- ate major in a most interesting fashion. 6 The net result was an empirically based expenditure of book funds. Now the microcomputer or microprocessor is the newly emerging phe- nomenon , and in many respects it is not unlike the minicomputer of the early 1970s. It is being used to perform single data-recording functions, and is also being seen as the link to the larger computer . So we have moved from chained books to microcomputers the size of a desk top. Originally, a great deal of information was captured at great expense and laboriously maintained. Certainly the handwritten and typed records of the Newark system, although relatively comprehensive, were obtained and preserved at great cost. And, despite it all , there were real limitations of access . The succeeding McBee and photo-charging systems appreciably cut out-of-pocket costs to the library, but either passed labor directly on to the user, or eliminated access altogether. Book or patron access are virtually impossible with the photo-charging method. Simply put, that system tells what is overdue, and that's all. The entry in the 1960s of the computer radically altered the ground rules. Now all sequences of encoded elements are possible, and manage- ment information can be derived. Important statistical data pertaining to collection use and library users can be obtained by further manipulating the data accumulated in the circulation process. It is now possible for all but the smallest and the very largest libraries to have access to and control Circulation Systems/FREEDMAN 285 of their materials through the current range of minicomputers on the market. Jennie Flexner told us that circulation had to be more than maintenance and record keeping of loan and borrower transactions. Through the ad- vances of the computer technology and its application to circulation con- trol, we have finally seen what seems to be an optimization of the record- keeping process and, by extension, an improvement in circulation service. If instantaneous access to patron files, inventory files, and outstanding transaction files through a variety of modes and computer-developed man- agement data does not constitute that optimization, it will have to do- until the real thing comes along. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author is deeply indebted to Susan E. Bourgault for her editorial assistance. REFERENCES 1. Barbara Evans Markuson, "Automated Circulation Control," Library Technology Re- ports Quly and Sept., 1975), p.6. 2. Jennie M. Flexner, Circulation Work in Public Libraries (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1927), p.l. 3. Ibid., p.2. 4. Robert McGee, "Two Types of Design for Online Circulation Systems," Journal of Library Automation 5:185 (Sept. 1972). 5. Peter Simmons, Collection Development and the Computer (Vancouver, B.C.: Univ. of British Columbia, 1971), 60p. 6. William E. McGrath, "A Pragmatic Allocation Formula for Academic and Public Libraries with a Test for Its Effectiveness," Library Resources & Technical Services 19:356-69 (Fall1975). Maurice J. Freedman is an associate professor at the School of Library Service, Columbia University, New York City. 
5307	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114126 286 Communications MARC Format Simplification D. Kaye CAPEN: University of Alabama, University. This is a summary of a paper written on the consideration of the feasibility as well as the benefits, disadvantages, and conse- quences of simplification of the MARC for- mats for bibliographic records. 1 The origi- nal paper was commissioned in June 1981, by the ARL Task Force on Bibliographic Control as one facet in exploring the per- ceived high costs of cataloging and adher- ing to MARC formats in ARL libraries. The conclusions and recommendations, how- ever, are entirely those of the author and the opinions and judgments stated here result from a wide-ranging canvas of technical services people, computer people, and/o r li- brary administrators. Because the MARC format has so many uses, the paper is di- vided into five perspectives from which the MARC format can be viewed: history, stan- dards, and codes; present purposes; library operations; computer operations; and on- line catalogs. The Library of Congress has already be- gun a review of the MARC format and has distributed a draft document. 2 The general thrust of that review is a close examination of the MARC format in an attempt to begin to lay the foundation on which revised MARC formats can firmly stand- particularly in regard to content designa- tion (tags, indicators, and subfield codes used to identify and characterize the data explicitly). As that review deals with the very spe- cific, this paper aims generally at attempt- ing to paint with broad strokes a picture of today's MARC in its many relationships, benefits, costs, and what the impact would be to the whole from any change to the part. PERSPECTIVE: MARC HISTORY, STANDARDS, AND CODES Relationships The original MARC format document es- tablished conventions for encoding data for monographs. Though it was understood that early applications were going to relate to the production of catalog cards, the MARC designers looked ahead to an in- creasing emphasis on data retrieval applica- tions. Other design considerations in- cluded, for example, the necessity for providing for complex computer filing, al- lowance for a variety of data processing equipment, and an attempt to provide for some analytical work (more specific de- scription of contents notes or other types of analysis). Later the single MARC II format was transformed into a series of formats, and as time passed, those formats became inex- tricably tied to other developments at the national and international levels: The In- ternational Standard Bibliographic De- scriptions, the Anglo-American Catalogu- ing Rules , 2d ed., UNIMARC, the National Level Bibliographic Records, and the Na- tional and International Communications Standards; e.g., ANSI Z39.2-1979 and ISO 2709. Benefits The benefits of the MARC formats and other standards and codes have been sub- stantial both philosophically and pragmati- cally. The sharing of cataloging records through the computer-based, online net- works have been shown in a variety of cost studies to have contained the rate of rise of per unit cost. A further benefit of the MARC formats is the momentum its crea- tion gave to the steady movement toward standardization which can benefit individ- uallibraries in a number of ways: first, bib- liographic information can be exchanged among libraries and countries. Second, in recent years we have moved steadily to- ward creating an environment in which the Library of Congress would become one of many authoritative libraries thus enhanc- ing the shareability of records. Costs The early costs of the development and implementation of the MARC formats were borne by LC (aided by Council on Library Resources funds). LC continues to bear most of the costs of MARC formats, such as new MARBI proposals, duplication and distribution of documentation, and so forth. Direct investment of library dollars came through the purchase of the MARC tapes and the development of systems to re- ceive, process, and output data in MARC formats. Impact of Change Throughout the years of its use, the MARC format content designation and content rules have been augmented or mod- ified. In the beginning, however, databases were small and changes could be absorbed more readily. The number and complexity of the formats have increased, as have the interrelationships of the MARC formats with other standards and codes resulting in a present environment in which the impact of change is felt more strenuously. PERSPECTIVE: PRESENT RELATIONSHIPS AND CONSTRAINTS Relationships Today's close interrelationships between the MARC formats and other codes and standards affect both library and computer operations. Though, for example, the gen- eral International Standard Bibliographic Description was implemented by the li- brary community prior to the adoption of AACR2, the second edition of the rules has firmly incorporated the ISBDs. When this format description system is combined with the machine-based MARC formats, some ISBD information will be supplied by hu- mans and some generated by programmed machine manipulations. Communications 287 As a second example, in the last couple of years, the Library of Congress has spear- headed the development of National Level Bibliographic Record(s) which define the specific data elements that should be in- cluded by any organization creating cata- loging records which may also be shared with other organizations or be acceptable for contribution to a national database. As the logical idea of a national database comes to fruition, it is necessary for the MARC format to provide for greater speci- ficity in the coding of originating library, modifying library, and so forth. Benefits The benefits of the use of the MARC for- mat continue to lie in the ease with which bibliographic information can be shared and the concomitant beneficial impact on cost control. In addition, the MARC format supports a host of other standards and codes and the benefit from these relationships has been consistency in and fostering of stan- dards development. In the bibliographic arena, the more that standards are developed-locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally-the more we will be able to transmit and share bibliographic data, thus controlling the costs of original cataloging. On the other hand, we also "pay" when we standardize. Cost The two costs associated with increased standardization are additional time and thus cost required to meet standards, and the increased expense of maintaining local practices which may often be idiosyncratic. In relation to the latter, while many local idiosyncrasies are often unnecessary and counterproductive, there are generally some which have become an integral part of a large catalog database or upon which a major procedural activity is based. But, to benefit from compliance with standards, increasingly we will move away from local practices. In terms of the time required to adhere to the MARC format, it is possible to continue to utilize the format (or participate in sys- tems that use it) and yet control the amount of complexity with which one has to deal. Both AACR2 and National Level Biblio- 288 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 graphic Record documents allow for "levels of description" which provide for more or less description; and various online net- works allow, in a similar manner, for lim- ited input standards. As we view the array of standards and codes which together make up today's bib- liographic scene, we can see that each of the separate elements is consistent within itself, is understandable, and counts for only a portion of the costs associated with the cata- loging process. The combination of ele- ments, however, begins an accretion of complexity that for most requires an effort of organization and education in order to control work flow and meet standards. Impact of Change Because the MARC format is closely in- terwoven with a number of national and international codes and standards, changes to the format would have implications far beyond the local library. At the very least, discussions would have to involve a host of individuals and groups, all at different stages of development and implementation based upon the present MARC format. PERSPECTIVE: LIBRARY OPERATIONS Relationships In the library-operations perspective, any operations related to the MARC format have to be viewed as only one of many ele- ments which must be interfaced with daily work flow. Let us look, for example, at the amount of time which might be expended in a typical large academic library by catalog- ing personnel in training and ongoing work activities required in MARC-related opera- tions. In those libraries which obtain access to cataloging databases as members of net- works, contact with the MARC format is filtered through the standards, require- ments , MARC implementation design, doc- umentation and other related training facil- ities of the network. Libraries which maintain their own databases do the same kind of filtering, though staff may have somewhat more control of the user cordial- ity of the interface. The shared networking environment , however, generally seems to imply more standards and requirements be- cause of the attempt to guarantee as much "shareability" as possible. Libraries participating in OCLC, for ex- ample, must train staff in the following codes: AACRI; AACR2; standard subject heading codes; standard classification codes; OCLC/MARC formats for each type of material being cataloged; OCLC biblio- graphic input standards; OCLC Level I and Level K input standards; OCLC sys- tems users guides; in some instances, input standards documents for regional or special-interest cooperatives; local library interpretations, procedures, and standards. Any close review of the time library staff expend in the use of these tools for either training or ongoing operations reveals that MARC per se requires only a limited pro- portion of a typical library staff person's day. While training may be intensive at ei- ther the beginning of a person's job or at the beginning of work with a new type/format of material, this portion of the cataloging unit cost is small. Benefits, Costs In the cataloging activity, the benefits from the use of the MARC formats are at least two: first, the MARC format as part of an online cataloging system permits the machine-production of catalog cards at a major savings over manual production. Second, access to a shared cataloging data- base permits the use of "clerical" catalogers at an estimated unit cost saving per book of twenty dollars when compared to "origi- nal" cataloging.3 Third, depending upon the information available in the cataloging record, the time required for decision mak- ing during the cataloging process can be de- creased significantly. Impact of Change It was the general consensus of the tech- nical services people I contacted that sim- plification of the formats through the con- sistent assignment of tags would make training and introduction to new formats somewhat easier, but that any savings of time would probably be trivial. There was no consensus that either simplification or shortening would result in any significant time or cost savings. To a certain extent, the use of the very specific MARC formats has made the de- scriptive cataloging process (and the train- ing to undertake it) clearer in that the logi- cal relationships and description of the data elements are so clearly exposed through the assignment of tags and other codes. Also, once initial familiarity with the format(s) is achieved, ongoing use becomes second na- ture. It is also possible for cataloging staff to control the complexity with which they will deal through the use of less than "full," but still nationally acceptable levels of catalog- ing and, hence, MARC coding. Finally, most technical services people believe that cataloging and maintenance activities in libraries have always been com- plex, requiring long and detailed proce- dures and intricate work flow . While mem- bership in networks requires new skills and knowledge, it is the sum of the whole rather than the difficulty of any single portion which affects unit costs today. Changing the MARC format through either simplifi- cation or shortening would have only a slight effect on the total technical services operation and costs. PERSPECTIVE: THE COMPUTER OPERATIONS ENVIRONMENT Relationships In looking at computer operations, there are at least two major subdivisions: opera- tions that serve only one client (e.g., ali- brary system serving itself) or operations that serve many clients (e.g., RLIN or Blackwell/North America). The constraints differ for each operation and are further complicated by whether or not the com- puter operation must be able to produce as well as accept bibliographic records in a MARC format. Each computer facility, for example, can have distinct operating software depending upon the type and mix of computing equip- ment used. In addition, each computing fa- cility translates the MARC-formatted rec- ords into an internal processing format which may differ extensively from MARC. Too, further tailoring may be done for batch processing as opposed to online oper- ations and computer operations which serve a single user may not have to re-create records in the MARC format and may even Communications 289 more radically redesign the MARC- formatted records for internal use. As changes to the MARC format occur over the years, each computer system will write additional software to incorporate those changes into the then existing system. In some instances, it may be too difficult to attempt to convert old databases to reflect changes in MARC coding, and there will then exist an "old" database and a "new" database for that particular MARC field or subfield. Since changes have occurred in many fields, most databases are an amal- gam of new and old interpretations (this is true in relation to cataloging codes, too) of MARC coding, and original internal soft- ware design may reflect the same type of patchwork quilt. Operating these computer systems is complicated, in addition, by the fact that a wide range of user library needs and desires must be accommodated. Indeed, a report prepared by Hank Epstein for the Confer- ence to Explore Machine-Readable Biblio- graphic Interchange (CEMBI) revealed af- ter an exhaustive review of the use of MARC data elements that there was no data ele- ment not used by someone!• Benefits Benefits that accrue to computing opera- tions as a result of the MARC format in- clude the use of what was called "a pretty decent general communications format ," which facilitates communications, card/ COM production, and online information retrieval. As a communications format it is as coherent as any other structure for carry- ing bibliographic data. Because the format allows for a very specific level of detail in description, computing operations can sup- ply a variety of products to fill a variety of needs. Costs While specific cost information was not available for inclusion in this paper, discus- sion does reveal some widely held general- izations. First, the MARC format does not seem to be any more complex or costly to use than other variable field communications formats. Beginning programmers are gen- erally introduced first to the internal com- munications format of their particular 290 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 computing system, and when they come to the MARC tags rapidly become familiar with the coding through experience. In- deed, if the programmers know the struc- ture of and have a specification for the for- mat, they can work with that format even though they may be unfamiliar with it from the users' point of view. Thus, the format itself, and training in its use does not seem to be significantly costly. Second, every change in the MARC for- mat requires some programming effort and may or may not require concomitant changes in the database. The consensus of the computer people with which I spoke was that the sophistication and specificity of the MARC formats was a good thing, but the inconsistencies among formats is prob- lematical. The benefits of consistency can be important, but to justify changes finan- cially, the major changes should be done at one time. Indeed, most individuals doubted whether or not there was sufficient capital in these straitened times to be able to imple- ment consistently a major MARC format change- and this is from the perspective of both the operations serving one and many users. Impact of Change Without a philosophical and practical framework (or benchmark) against which to compare the benefits and costs of alterna- tive solutions to MARC format mainte- nance issues and without a better and more comprehensive description of the require- ments of the internal processing formats of the computer operations, it is difficult to assess clearly the costs and benefits of MARC format changes. It does seem to be the case presently that, once established, computer operations can deal with the complexity and specificity of the MARC format without undue ongoing financial in- vestment. The strength of the MARC format for computer operations lies in its specificity. For the batch processing environment espe- cially, the MARC format is a reasonably efficient format and one that facilitates de- velopment. Its inefficiencies are not drastic and its specificity buys valuable flexibility. Severe cuts or major simplifications would be a mistake since discontinuing specificity is a one-way street-once it is gone, it can- not be retrieved. The ability of the machine to assist in editing is weakened by the loss of specificity and it then becomes more diffi- cult to edit out poor data. Simplification through consistency, rather than shorten- ing, would produce the most beneficial impact-though it must be done carefully to be cost beneficial. PERSPECTIVE: ONLINE CATALOGS Relationship The major difficulties facing us when we attempt to discuss the relationship of the MARC format to online catalogs is that, first, we know so little about how people think when they use our card catalogs; and, second, we have so little experience with how those thought and use patterns might change when the online catalog replaces the card catalog. Another aspect of online li- brary system development is the combina- tion of subsystems such as acquisitions, se- rials control, or authority control with the online catalog and the implications of such a combination for system design, the inter- nal processing format, and compatibility with the MARC format. The index design of most large online cat- alogs or information retrieval systems today relies upon precoordinated search keys in order to facilitate the large sorting activities that have to occur. The second indicator in the 700 field, for example, is designed for the purpose of formulating search keys, fil- ing added entries or for selecting alternative secondary added entries. This type of speci- ficity is necessary for both card production and online retrieval. Taken together, all of these considerations make most systems and library technical people hesitate to recom- mend any major changes to the MARC for- mat at this time. Benefits At this time, therefore, in terms of infor- mation retrieval, there does not seem to be any major force toward either simplifying or shortening the MARC format to facili- tate retrieval. This becomes an even more cogent sentiment when we consider that major development efforts have already been begun in the areas of online catalog access and information retrieval. Delays in these development efforts now caused by ........ changes in the MARC formats could be enormously wasteful of the time and effort already invested, and could postpone ur- gently needed implementation of new, eas- ily maintainable online systems. Costs There is no firm cost data to guide us in considering the impact of MARC format changes in the information retrieval envi- ronment. Generally accepted assumptions are, however, that because of our lack of knowledge and experience in this area, it is simply too risky and potentially costly to experiment. Impact of Change Overall, without more experience in this area, it is the general opinion that the fullest level of descriptive specificity of the MARC format might be required to design and im- plement online catalogs/information re- trieval systems which can be responsive to the needs of a variety of users and levels of information. Interaction with other subsys- tems and formats is also incomplete, thus clouding our vision of the impact of change over the breadth of the library community. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The original purpose of the MARC for- mat is still a cogent and necessary one-that of allowing for a great variety of individual library needs for products, practices, and policies via a standardizing communica- tions format. Both catalog card production and online retrieval necessitate the same level of specificity, though particular tags, indicators, and subfield codes may vary. As we look toward a variety of authorita- tive cataloging sources the MARC format, in addition to a specific coding of biblio- graphic information, might also have to specify descriptions of cataloging actions so that the greatest degree of "shareability" might exist. Some of this related authority- type information will either be carried as part of the MARC format or in some man- ner as linked records. The computer operations that utilize the MARC formats exist under the constraints of a variety of internal processing formats and design constraints. For each internal processing system, however, the specificity of the MARC format offers flexibility and Communications 291 efficiency for a number of different pro- cesses and products. Taken by itself, the MARC format is no more difficult to work with than any other standard or technique for both librarians and computer people. While it might be useful for librarians to implement training aids such as online documentation, access to library manuals (particularly that of the Li- brary of Congress), and so forth, the bene- fits of aids such as these are trivial since the coding can be learned rather quickly through experience. For computing people, on the other hand, changes in the formats can be very expensive and disruptive. There is general agreement, moreover, that over the long term we have got to be able to maintain the MARC format in response to experience with retrieval and other theoret- ical and technical advances. The main thrust of maintenance in the computing realm is consistency across formats, but ap- proaching this type of simplification re- quires a number of preliminary steps if it is to be implemented effectively. We need to develop a vocabulary for jointly discussing the elements of the prob- lem. In addition, a major review needs to be undertaken of the internal processing for- mats and design constraints of the major computer operations-both to serve as a benchmark for measuring the impact of for- mat changes, and as a guideline for newly developing systems to assist in avoiding mis- takes in the development of new computer operations. Someone needs to be thinking about and designing the ultimate, comprehensive MARC format-not to be implemented, but to serve as a springboard for discussion and for consideration of system design. We need to establish limitations on what we will handle with the MARC formats and where we will begin to rely on underlying formats instead. The development of a comprehensive MARC conceptualization would also provide a protocol for undertak- ing the improvement of MARC and would serve as a benchmark against which local systems could be compared. At the very least, the steps described here would facilitate the consideration and im- plementation of making the formats con- sistent across types of material - a goal which is seen by all to be highly desirable. 292 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 We need a format which is consistent, easily maintainable without being uncontrollably disruptive, and responsive to changing needs which are likely to accelerate as we gain experience with online systems. Rather than recommending or support- ing the implementation of specific changes to the MARC format, it is essential that the library community begin to establish the framework and benchmarks necessary to maintain the MARC formats over the long term as well as to guide short-term consider- ations. ARL and others can play an impor- tant role in undertaking and encouraging a broader approach to this pressing problem. Such an approach will not only reduce the risk of decision making, but will also assist in the development of the cost/benefit data needed to enhance consideration of format changes. REFERENCES 1. D. Kaye Capen, Simplification of the MARC Format: Feasibility, Benefits, Disadvantages, Consequences (Washington, D.C.: Associa- tion of Research Libraries, 1981), 22p. 2. "Principles of MARC Format Content Desig- nation,'" draft (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1981), 66p. 3. IchikoT. Morita and D. Kaye Capen, "A Cost Analysis of the Ohio College Library Center On-Line Shared Cataloging System in the Ohio State University Libraries," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 21:286- 302 (Summer 1977). 4. Council on Library Resources Bibliographic Interchange Committee, Bibliographic Inter- change Report, no. I (Washington, D.C.: The Council, 1981). Comparing Fiche and Film: A Test of Speed Terence CROWLEY: Division of Library Sci- ence, San Jose State University, San Jose, Cal- ifornia. INTRODUCTION For more than a decade librarians have been responding to budget pressures by al- tering the format of their library catalogs from labor-intensive card formats to computer-produced book and micro- formats. Studies at Bath, 1 Toronto, 2 Texas, 3 Eugene, 4 Los Angeles, 5 and Berkeley, 6 have compared the forms of catalogs in a variety of ways ranging from broad-scale user sur- veys to circumscribed estimates of the speed of searching and the incidence of queuing. The American Library Association pub- lished a state-of-the-art reporf as well as a guide to commercial computer-output mi- crofilm (COM) catalogs pragmatically sub- titled How to Choose; When to Buy. 8 In general, COM catalogs are shown to be more economical and faster to produce and to keep current, to require less space, and to be suitable for distribution to multi- ple locations. Primary disadvantages cited are hardware malfunctions, increased need for patron instruction, user resistance (par- ticularly due to eyestrain), and some ma- chine queuing. The most common types of library COM catalogs today are motorized reel microfilm and microfiche, each with advantages and disadvantages. Microfilm offers file- sequence integrity and thus is less subject to user abuse, i.e., theft, misfiling, and dam- age; in motorized readers with "captive" reels it is said to be easier to use. Disadvan- tages include substantially greater initial cost for motorized readers; limits on theca- pacity of captive reels necessitating multi- ple units for large files; inexact indexing in the most widespread commercial reader, and eyestrain resulting from high speed film movement. Microfiche offers a more nearly random retrieval, much less expensive and more versatile readt:r~, and unlimited file size. Conversely, the file integrity of fiche is lower and the need for patron assistance in use of machines is said to be greater than for self-contained motorized film readers. THE PROBLEM One of the important considerations not fully researched is that of speed of search- ing. The Toronto study included a self- timed "look-up" test of thirty-two items "not in alphabetical order" given to thirty- six volunteers, of whom thirty finished the test. The researchers found the results "in- conclusive" but noted that seven of the ten librarians found film searching the fastest method. "Average" time reported for searching in card catalogs was 37.3 min- 
5308	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012122710 292 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 We need a format which is consistent, easily maintainable without being uncontrollably disruptive, and responsive to changing needs which are likely to accelerate as we gain experience with online systems. Rather than recommending or support- ing the implementation of specific changes to the MARC format, it is essential that the library community begin to establish the framework and benchmarks necessary to maintain the MARC formats over the long term as well as to guide short-term consider- ations. ARL and others can play an impor- tant role in undertaking and encouraging a broader approach to this pressing problem. Such an approach will not only reduce the risk of decision making, but will also assist in the development of the cost/benefit data needed to enhance consideration of format changes. REFERENCES l. D. Kaye Capen, Simplification of the MARC Format: Feasibility, Benefits, Disadvantages, Consequences (Washington, D.C.: Associa- tion of Research Libraries, 1981), 22p. 2. "Principles of MARC Format Content Desig- nation," draft (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1981), 66p. 3. IchikoT. Morita and D. Kaye Capen, "A Cost Analysis of the Ohio College Library Center On-Line Shared Cataloging System in the Ohio State University Libraries," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 21:286-302 (Summer 1977). 4. Council on Library Resources Bibliographic Interchange Committee, Bibliographic Inter- change Report, no.1 (Washington, D.C.: The Council, 1981). Comparing Fiche and Film: A Test of Speed Terence CROWLEY: Division of Library Sci- ence, San Jose State University, San Jose, Cal- ifornia. INTRODUCTION For more than a decade librarians have been responding to budget pressures by al- tering the format of their library catalogs from labor-intensive card formats to computer-produced book and micro- formats. Studies at Bath, 1 Toronto, 2 Texas, 3 Eugene, 4 Los Angeles, 5 and Berkeley, 6 have compared the forms of catalogs in a variety of ways ranging from broad-scale user sur- veys to circumscribed estimates of the speed of searching and the incidence of queuing. The American Library Association pub- lished a state-of-the-art reporf as well as a guide to commercial computer-output mi- crofilm (COM) catalogs pragmatically sub- titled How to Choose; When to Buy. 8 In general, COM catalogs are shown to be more economical and faster to produce and to keep current, to require less space, and to be suitable for distribution to multi- ple locations. Primary disadvantages cited are hardware malfunctions, increased need for patron instruction, user resistance (par- ticularly due to eyestrain), and some ma- chine queuing. The most common types of library COM catalogs today are motorized reel microfilm and microfiche, each with advantages and disadvantages. Microfilm offers file- sequence integrity and thus is less subject to user abuse, i.e., theft, misfiling, and dam- age; in motorized readers with "captive" reels it is said to be easier to use. Disadvan- tages include substantially greater initial cost for motorized readers; limits on the ca- pacity of captive reels necessitating multi- ple units for large files; inexact indexing in the most widespread commercial reader, and eyestrain resulting from high speed film movement. Microfiche offers a more nearly random retrieval, much less expensive and more versatile readers, and unlimited file size. Conversely, the file integrity of fiche is lower and the need for patron assistance in use of machines is said to be greater than for self-contained motorized film readers. THE PROBLEM One of the important considerations not fully researched is that of speed of search- ing. The Toronto study included a self- timed "look-up" test of thirty-two items "not in alphabetical order" given to thirty- six volunteers, of whom thirty finished the test. The researchers found the results "in- conclusive" but noted that seven of the ten librarians found film searching the fastest method. "Average" time reported for searching in card catalogs was 37.3 min- -- utes, in film catalogs 41.6 minutes, and for fiche catalogs 4I. 7 minutes. A reanalysis of the original data shows a stronger advan- tage of fiche over film (45.3 minutes versus 51.7 minutes) when all times except dupli- cates are totaled, but that difference is al- most entirely due to one extreme score (203 minutes). 9 The Berkeley report of fiche/film compa- rability addressed the issue of retrieval speed directly. By constructing a series of look-up tests composed of items selected from a large public library COM catalog, the researchers were able to compare mi- crofiche and microfilm formats while hold- ing other variables constant. In one test in- volving thirty-six paid users and 252 trials, microfilm was determined to be faster by 7.6 percent (±2.5 percent). In a second test, forty volunteer users were timed in 240 trials and the advantage of film over fiche dropped to 5. 7 percent ( ± 2.5 percent) .1° Although rigorous in design and execution, the Berkeley experimenters used in their look-up tests questions that naive users might misinterpret, e.g., "You want a book about Paul Robeson, written by Eloise Greenfield. Find the listing and give the call number"; and some which could be confus- ing, e.g., "Does the library have any joke books? If so, give the call number for one. "11 Such questions potentially pose an element of uncertainty for subjects: Should I look under Robeson or Greenfield? under joke books or humor? In addition, questions were selected by "browsing the file for tar- get items," a procedure which could result in an uneven distribution of items which in turn could bias the results. Since the num- ber of observations is relatively large the reliability of the results is not questioned; the validity may be. The study reported here was executed by a class in research methods taught by the author during the same time as the Berkeley study; we used the same two formats of the same catalog, and attempted to answer the same question: Using the best available equipment, which microformat is faster to search? ASSUMPTIONS We assumed (I) the two forms of the cat- alog were identical; (2) the quality of the image was not significantly different; (3) a Communications 293 search for items selected randomly from the file and arranged randomly was a fair test of retrieval speed; and ( 4) graduate students in library science were reasonably repre- sentative users for a test of speed. METHODOLOGY We used a dictionary catalog from a pub- lic library system with 436, 79I entries, of which 5,63I were author, Ill,l58 were ti- tle or added entries, and 320,002 were sub- ject entries. Using a random number table, we selected from the catalog I6 entries which were reproduced and randomly ar- ranged to form the test. Of the I6 items, 3 were author entries, 8 were title or added entries, 5 were subject entries. The se- quence, which presumably would affect the speed of retrieval more in the film format because of the necessity to scroll from one letter to another, wasACWNS KCB WM H L P PAL. The test was then administered to thirty-seven volunteer graduate students randomly assigned to a Micro-Design 4020 fiche reader or an Information Design ROM 3 film reader. The two readers were located in the same room. The 86 fiche were held and displayed by a Ring King binder. All times were measured by a stopwatch. Questionnaires administered before and af- ter the test established that the two groups did not differ significantly in age or in self- perceived mechanical ability. Of the film users, 64 percent used micro-formats "occa- sionally" or "frequently" compared with 35 percent of the fiche users. Of the total group, 73 percent wore glasses and 62 per- cent reported prior physical problems with both film and fiche readers used before the test. RESULTS Table 1 shows that the mean speed of the film users was I6. 7 minutes, significantly faster than the 25.3 minutes recorded by the fiche users; the range of speed for the film users was less than V3 that of the fiche users. Even the slowest film user was faster than 70 percent of the fiche users. However, the fastest fiche user was faster than 70 percent of the film users. The range of fiche scores is more than 3 times that of the film scores (Figure I). The standard statistical test shows the difference of means to be signifi- cant at the .Oilevel. 294 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 Table I. Speed of Retrieval (in Minutes) Format Low Microfilm (n = 17) 12.3 Microfiche(c = 20) 14.6 t = 4.8,p< .01 DISCUSSION Searching motorized microfilm appears to be significantly faster than searching mi- crofiche, on the average, for relatively inex- perienced users. Even the slowest time on the film was faster than most fiche times. The wide range of fiche scores suggests the possibility that frequent users could im- prove their searching times; very experi- enced users may be able to search fiche faster than film. • Because of the relatively small numbers of subjects and observations •The author, an experienced fiche user, was timed at 11.6 minutes; this was the fastest time recorded by either fiche or film users. <J) Q) Ol ~ c: Q) (..) .... & Standard High Mean Deviation 19.45 16. 7 2.34 18.0 25 .3 7.47 involved, the results should be interpreted with caution. Although the advantage of film over fiche in this study is greater than that shown in the Berkeley report, differ- ences in design and analysis must be taken into account. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the mem- bers of his research methods class, especially David Fishbaugh and Carol Manoukian, for their assistance. REFERENCES 1. Bath University Comparative Catalog Study : Final Report. Papers No. 1- 10. I Film n•20 ~ Fiche n•l7 Time in Minutes and Tenths Fig. I. DislribulionsojTest Scores. (Bath: The Library, 1974-75). 2. Valentine De Bruin, "Sometimes Dirty Things Are Seen on the Screen," Journal of Academic Librarianship 3:256-66 (Nov. 1977). 3. Carolyn M. Cox and Bonnie Juergens, Mi- croform Catalogs: A Viable Alternative for Texas Libraries (Dallas: AMIGOS Biblio- graphical Council, 1977). ERIC Document No. ED 149 739. 4. James R. Dwyer, "Public Response to an Ac- ademic Library Microcatalog," Journal of Academic Librarianship 5:132-41 Quly 1979). 5. Brett Butler, Martha W. West, and Brian Aveney, COM Catalog: Use and Evaluation: Report of a Field Study of the Los Angeles County Public Library System (rev. ed.; Los Altos: Information Access Corporation, 1979), 71p. 6. Theodora Hodges and Uri Bloch, "Fiche or Film for COM Catalogs-Two Use Tests" in Library Effectiveness: A State of the Art (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1980), p.122-30. 7. William Saffady, Computer-Output Micro- film: Its Library Applications (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), lOOp. 8. Commercial COM Catalogs: How to Choose, When to Buy. Catalog Use Commit- tee, Reference and Adult Services Division, American Library Association. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), 47p. 9. DeBruin, ''Dirty Things," p.266. 10. Hodges, "Fiche or Film," p.l28. 11. Hodges to Crowley, September 1979. Electronic Order Transmission James K. LONG : OCLC, Inc., Dublin, Ohio. In this era of decreasing library alloca- tion from the public sector, libraries are re- alizing increased benefits from the automa- tion of the acquisitions process. The price of hardware is decreasing and the capabilities of the available offerings increasing. We have evolved from the small local library collection of data and printing of orders, through the book vendor offerings of an on- line connection to a single vendors inven- tory. These systems still required local mail- ing for all other vendor orders. Communications 295 In 1981 we have seen a greater emphasis on electronic ordering. Memorial Univer- sity in Canada has been experimenting in sending orders directly to John Coutts Li- brary Services Ltd. in print format using the UTLAS CATSS System. Wayne State University is planning to use the Ringgold NONESUCH acquisitions system to trans- mit orders electronically to Book House us- ing the BISAC tape format. Blackwell/ North America and the Academic Book Center have experimentally used WL~ to receive test orders in a print file format. These all save time in getting the orders to the respective vendor. If sufficient volume can be generated there may be a savings in transmission costs over the U.S. Mail. However, in order to realize maximum economics in this electronic process, four activities need to occur. 1. Acquisition orders must be collected from multiple libraries at a central site to generate volume for dispersal to multiple sites. 2. Standard formats need to be accepted and enforced for order transmission. 3. The ISBN must become a universally accepted part of the library acquisi- tions order. 4. The library must receive order status information from the vendor. Once again, this should occur via a stan- dard data format. At OCLC there were 113 libraries, as of November 1981, thatcouldsendprintedor- ders from a central site to over 15,000 ad- dresses of their choice. By July 1982 the pro- jection is for over 200 libraries to be using the system. The library's order is hatched by the vendor address that the library has spec- ified. This process offers savings by sharing mail and printing costs between partici- pants. With the proposed installation of di- rect transmission in 1982, this central col- lection will afford shared transmission costs. This is the type of centralized collec- tion that maximizes the benefits of elec- tronic ordering. Within the book industry, standards for electronic data transmission for book order- ing have been developed. In May of 1981 the Book Industry Systems Advisory Com- mittee (BISAC), a subcommittee of the Book Industry Study Group (BISG), ap- 
5309	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114209 (Bath: The Library, 1974-75). 2. Valentine De Bruin, "Sometimes Dirty Things Are Seen on the Screen," Journal of Academic Librarianship 3:256-66 (Nov. 1977). 3. Carolyn M. Cox and Bonnie Juergens, Mi- croform Catalogs: A Viable Alternative for Texas Libraries (Dallas: AMIGOS Biblio- graphical Council, 1977). ERIC Document No. ED 149 739. 4. James R. Dwyer, "Public Response to an Ac- ademic Library Microcatalog," ]ourru~l of Academic Librarianship 5:132-41 Ouly 1979). 5. Brett Butler, Martha W. West, and Brian Aveney, COM Catalog: Use and Evaluation: Report of a Field Study of the Los Angeles County Public Library System (rev. ed.; Los Altos: Information Access Corporation, 1979}, 71p. 6. Theodora Hodges and Uri Bloch, "Fiche or Film for COM Catalogs-Two Use Tests" in Library Effectiveness: A State of the Art (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1980), p.122-30. 7. William Saffady, Computer-Output Micro- film: Its Library Applications (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), 190p. 8. Commercial COM Catalogs: How to Choose, When to Buy. Catalog Use Commit- tee, Reference and Adult Services Division, American Library Association. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1978), 47p. 9. DeBruin, "Dirty Things," p.266. 10. Hodges, "Fiche or Film," p.128. 11. Hodges to Crowley, September 1979. Electronic Order Transmission James K. LONG: OCLC, Inc., Dublin, Ohio. In this era of decreasing library alloca- tion from the public sector, libraries are re- alizing increased benefits from the automa- tion of the acquisitions process. The price of hardware is decreasing and the capabilities of the available offerings increasing. We have evolved from the small local library collection of data and printing of orders, through the book vendor offerings of an on- line connection to a single vendors inven- tory. These systems still required local mail- ing for all other vendor orders. Communications 295 In 1981 we have seen a greater emphasis on electronic ordering. Memorial Univer- sity in Canada has been experimenting in sending orders directly to John Coutts Li- brary Services Ltd. in print format using the UTLAS CATSS System. Wayne State University is planning to use the Ringgold NONESUCH acquisitions system to trans- mit orders electronically to Book House us- ing the BISAC tape format. Blackwell/ North America and the Academic Book Center have experimentally used WLN to receive test orders in a print file format. These all save time in getting the orders to the respective vendor. If sufficient volume can be generated there may be a savings in transmission costs over the U.S. Mail. However, in order to realize maximum economics in this electronic process, four activities need to occur. 1. Acquisition orders must be collected from multiple libraries at a central site to generate volume for dispersal to multiple sites. 2. Standard formats need to be accepted and enforced for order transmission. 3. The ISBN must become a universally accepted part of the library acquisi- tions order. 4. The library must receive order status information from the vendor. Once again, this should occur via a stan- dard data format. At OCLC there were 113 libraries, as of November 1981, thatcouldsendprintedor- ders from a central site to over 15,000 ad- dressesoftheir choice. By July 1982 the pro- jection is for over 200 libraries to be using the system. The library's order is hatched by the vendor address that the library has spec- ified. This process offers savings by sharing mail and printing costs between partici- pants. With the proposed installation of di- rect transmission in 1982, this central col- lection will afford shared transmission costs. This is the type of centralized collec- tion that maximizes the benefits of elec- tronic ordering. Within the book industry, standards for electronic data transmission for book order- ing have been developed. In May of 1981 the Book Industry Systems Advisory Com- mittee (BISAC), a subcommittee of the Book Industry Study Group (BISG), ap- 296 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 proved the third version of their purchase order format. This is a simple format with fixed length fields and fixed length records. It was developed for tape transmission of book orders and relies heavily on the use of the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) for accuracy. ANSI Z39 subcommit- tee U is working on an ANSI purchase order data transmission format for libraries. This effort is in cooperation with BISAC. In 1981 there were nine book vendors using the BISAC purchase order format, including the large retail chains Walden and Dalton. There were also twelve vendors using the BISAC invoice format, five vendors using the title update format, and one vendor us- ing the approved data transmission proto- col (IBM 3780). This book ordering activity and stan- dards use is fine for the book vendors and retailers. But where are the libraries? OCLC plans to use BISAC data transmis- sion protocol and fixed data format in their initial direct transmission effort. However, there are some real problems with these for- mats relative to library needs. First, the for- mats do not provide for serials ordering or renewal. Second, data fields in the format are fixed length. This is a real problem when ordering esoteric publications. Espe- cially since the title and descriptor entries are a single field. Obviously there are many items that a library needs to order that can- not be supported by this current standard. OCLC and DataPhase have representatives on the BISAC purchase order subcommit- tee. This subcommittee is developing a vari- able length P. 0. format. However, if there is to be real cooperation, and the accompa- nying economics, we must have more active participation from the library community. The cataloger has the Library of Con- gress Catalog Number (LCCN). However, this is inadequate for library acquisitions. The ISBN was developed for acquisitions. The ISBN identifies the publishers or cur- rent distributor, the binding, etc., so neces- sary for accurate acquisitions. You can or- der music, maps, recordings, or film by using the ISBN. This is providing you order from a publisher that assigns ISBNs to those materials. It also assumes that you include the ISBN on the order. Baker and Taylor, Brodart, Random House, and McGraw- Hill estimate less than 25 percent of their orders contain an ISBN. Yankee Book, Blackwell/North America, and the Book House report approximately 10 percent use on orders received. A significant number of these ISBNs are incorrect, obsolete, or oth- erwise erroneous. If we are to realize the tremendous economies possible with elec- tronic transmission, we MUST have greater and more accurate use of the ISBN. It is simply uneconomical to transmit all of the data necessary to accurately identify a piece via the cataloging fields and subfields for every order; even if this information were available for ordering. Another standard developed by BISAC is the Standard Address Number (SAN). All library vendors, public, academic, and school libraries have been assigned a SAN. Do you know yours? Do you know the SAN of your vendor? These SANs are available in your libraries' reference sections, as well as the online name-address directories that ac- company the network acquisition systems. If electronic ordering is going to be used most effectively and economically, the SAN plays an important part. It is not economi- cally efficient to transmit hundreds of char- acters of address information. The last item that becomes feasible with electronic transmission is order status infor- mation. The day is gone when we can af- ford to keep thousands of dollars encum- bered with acquisition pieces that are unavailable. The normal practice of auto- matic cancel after sixty or ninety days, keeps those monies committed. How much better would it be to know within twenty- four to forty-eight hours of an order that the material was unavailable. Those funds, that become more dear each year, could be recommitted to more available items. This would be advantageous to both the vendor, the library and ultimately the library pa- tron. Both the BISAC invoice and title up- date formats have potential for use in re- porting. It would be better, however, if we could derive a format specific for title status. In closing, I urge you to use the ISBN and SAN; pursue avenues of collective ordering; and lastly, become active in the standards effort. It is the library that ultimately has the most to gain from a cooperative, coordi- nated, volume-oriented, resource-sharing electronic ordering process. For information relative to BISAC trans- mission formats or BISAC membership, write to: Book Industry Systems Advisory Committee, 160 Fifth Ave., Suite604, New York, NY 10010. For input to BISAC purchase order for- mats, write to: J. K. Long, Chairman, BI- SAC P.O. Subcommittee, c/o OCLC, Inc., 6565 Frantz Rd., Dublin, OH 43017. (Mr. Long is also the library or network repre- sentative on the ISBN advisory council.) For input to the ANSI Z39 P.O. transmis- sion formats, write to: Mr. E. Muro, Chair- man, Subcommittee U, c/o Baker & Taylor Co., 6 Kirby Ave., Somerville, NJ 08876. For problems with the ISBN and SAN, write to: Mr. Emory I Koltay, Interna- tional Standard Book Numbering Agency, 1180 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 20036. Microcomputer Backup to Online Circulation Sheila INTNER: Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Our primary objective in purchasing microcomputer systems for the Great Neck Library was to provide a better alternative to paper and pencil checkouts when our minicomputer-based CLSI LIBS 100 auto- mated circulation system was down. Two difficult and lengthy downtime periods oc- curring shortly after going online convinced the administration that public service should not be jeopardized because of system failure. After investigation of the backup systems vended by Computer Translation, Inc., 1 two of them were purchased in No- vember 1980. Computer Translation, Inc. (CTI) sells a turnkey backup system based on an Apple II Plus microcomputer, with two mini-disk drives using 5\14 " floppy diskettes, a TV monitor, and a switching system connect- ing the Apple to the LIBS 100 console and terminals. Software designed to interface with the CLSI system is part of the package. The backup collects and stores data for Communications 297 check-ins and checkouts and then dumps them into the database by simulating a ter- minal when the mini-main-frame is opera- tional again. This requires dedicating a ter- minal to this process until complete. It can also be used alone as a portable unit for circulation purposes, or with any of the many Applesoft packages available, or with an Applesoft program of the user's own de- sign. Our initial experience in Great Neck was with a borrowed demonstration system, set up by a sympathetic CTI representative on the spur of the moment in tandem with and connected to the Main Library checkout station's CRT laser terminal after several days of downtime. The circulation staff cheered as the familiar prompts appeared on both screens. They used the CLSI equip- ment which they were accustomed to oper- ating and the computer room staff learned to operate the CTI system. The ease with which the Apple could be transported to different locations in the building and the immediate relief it gave wherever it was connected, sometimes one checkout station, sometimes another, led us to put off decid- ing on a permanent installation at first. We thought it might be more advantageous to keep it on a rolling cart and use it wherever a terminal was down, or wherever the traf- fic appeared to be heaviest. We continued in this manner for a while even after both of our own Apple systems were delivered. It soon became apparent that the Apple and its accompaniments, especially the switching system with its dangling cables, was a nuisance at the checkout counter. People with piles of books or records tended to nudge it dangerously close to the edge or jiggle its connections loose. The circulation staff didn't like waiting until someone from the computer room could be spared to bring up the system, secure the connections, and turn on the Apple. Also, although the Apple is a very reliable instrument which has given us negligible downtime, bumpy rides over various floors , carpets, lintels, and tex- tured tiles occasionally loosened its chips and rendered it, too, inoperative. CTI representatives were called in to make a more permanent installation for the Apple in our computer room , a simple oper- ation requiring some additional cable. Se- 
5310	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114220 nated, volume-oriented, resource-sharing electronic ordering process. For information relative to BISAC trans- mission formats or BISAC membership, write to: Book Industry Systems Advisory Committee, 160 Fifth Ave., Suite 604, New York, NY 10010. For input to BISAC purchase order for- mats, write to: J. K. Long, Chairman, BI- SAC P.O. Subcommittee, c/o OCLC, Inc., 6565 Frantz Rd., Dublin, OH 43017. (Mr. Long is also the library or network repre- sentative on the ISBN advisory council.) For input to the ANSI Z39 P.O. transmis- sion formats, write to: Mr. E. Muro, Chair- man, Subcommittee U, c/o Baker & Taylor Co., 6 Kirby Ave., Somerville, NJ 08876. For problems with the ISBN and SAN, write to: Mr. Emory I Koltay, Interna- tional Standard Book Numbering Agency, 1180 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 20036. Microcomputer Backup to Online Circulation Sheila INTNER: Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Our primary objective in purchasing microcomputer systems for the Great Neck Library was to provide a better alternative to paper and pencil checkouts when our minicomputer-based CLSI LIBS 100 auto- mated circulation system was down. Two difficult and lengthy downtime periods oc- curring shortly after going online convinced the administration that public service should not be jeopardized because of system failure. After investigation of the backup systems vended by Computer Translation, Inc., 1 two of them were purchased in No- vember 1980. Computer Translation, Inc. (CTI) sells a turnkey backup system based on an Apple II Plus microcomputer, with two mini-disk drives using 5 '14 " floppy diskettes, a TV monitor, and a switching system connect- ing the Apple to the LIBS 100 console and terminals. Software designed to interface with the CLSI system is part of the package. The backup collects and stores data for Communications 297 check-ins and checkouts and then dumps them into the database by simulating a ter- minal when the mini-main-frame is opera- tional again. This requires dedicating a ter- minal to this process until complete. It can also be used alone as a portable unit for circulation purposes, or with any of the many Applesoft packages available, or with an Applesoft program of the user's own de- sign. Our initial experience in Great Neck was with a borrowed demonstration system, set up by a sympathetic CTI representative on the spur of the moment in tandem with and connected to the Main Library checkout station's CRT laser terminal after several days of downtime. The circulation staff cheered as the familiar prompts appeared on both screens. They used the CLSI equip- ment which they were accustomed to oper- ating and the computer room staff learned to operate the CTI system. The ease with which the Apple could be transported to different locations in the building and the immediate relief it gave wherever it was connected, sometimes one checkout station, sometimes another, led us to put off decid- ing on a permanent installation at first. We thought it might be more advantageous to keep it on a rolling cart and use it wherever a terminal was down, or wherever the traf- fic appeared to be heaviest. We continued in this manner for a while even after both of our own Apple systems were delivered. It soon became apparent that the Apple and its accompaniments, especially the switching system with its dangling cables, was a nuisance at the checkout counter. People with piles of books or records tended to nudge it dangerously close to the edge or jiggle its connections loose. The circulation staff didn't like waiting until someone from the computer room could be spared to bring up the system, secure the connections, and turn on the Apple. Also, although the Apple is a very reliable instrument which has given us negligible downtime, bumpy rides over various floors, carpets, lintels, and tex- tured tiles occasionally loosened its chips and rendered it, too, inoperative. CTI representatives were called in to make a more permanent installation for the Apple in our computer room, a simple oper- ation requiring some additional cable. Se- 298 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 lection of the terminals to be attached as alternate backup or dumping sites was not so easy, however. The choice of the primary backup site was not a problem, since one of the two checkout stations flanking the main door was fairly obvious. But the second ter- minal which would be preempted for dumping was a more difficult decision. Dumping sessions vary in length depending on the number of records to be processed and the activity on the rest of the LIBS 100 system. In our library, we find it takes about an hour to dump 100 to 150 transac- tions. This appears to be slower than aver- age and may well be due to the extremely high level of system activity. Thus, dump- ing 1,000 transactions would take a full working day. We had been online for such a short time that great backlogs of patron and material data entry from new registrants and unconverted books had developed and were a high priority item. Neither the circu- lation department, which was handling registrations, nor technical services, which was handling materials, felt they could af- ford to lose much terminal time for dump- ing. Thus, the reference department's infor- mation desk terminal was reluctantly chosen as the alternate terminal on the grounds that they only did inquiries forma- terials which borrowers could locate by means of searching the catalog and making trips to the shelves. If necessary, informa- tion desk personnel could step across the aisle to the circulation department and use a terminal there. The permanent installation was set up in this way for one backup system , while the other one remained mobile in the event we wanted to use it at one of our three branches. Only the switching box and ca- bles were really unmovable. The Apple, drives, and monitor could still be discon- nected and moved about at will. Experience over the last few months with this arrangement demonstrated that, all things considered, it is unwise to attach two public service terminals to one Apple, in spite of the pressure it puts on behind-the- scenes operations to lose terminal time in the event of an extensive dump. The reac- tion of the public to being told a terminal that usually helped them was inoperative has been so negative it outweighed the de- lays in data entry. Therefore, a change in the current configuration will soon be made. Meanwhile, we realized the second backup system was not being used to great- est advantage. When the LIBS 100 was down, the next most pressing demand after main library checkouts were checkouts at the largest branch, located near the rail- road station. We were collecting about thirty transactions an hour or less at other locations in the main building while the sta- tion branch staff were writing down twice that amount or more and explaining to their public that the computer was down. It seemed important to pursue the possibility of connecting one of the station branch's terminals to the second Apple while keeping the Apple itself in the computer room in the main library. Not only was there even less space in the branch for another piece of hardware on their counter, but staff train- ing and hardware control presented a greater problem since many more part-time people were employed there. CTI worked on the problem for about two months, resolving it through the addi- tion of a modem to the basic configuration. In this new installation, which we did our- selves with phone assistance from CTI, and which has been operational for three weeks as of this writing, the dedicated phone line connector for the branch terminal is re- moved from its port on the LIBS 100 console and inserted into one of the switching box connectors. The Apple is turned on as usual and the CRT laser terminal at station branch appears to operate normally. In fact, it operates so closely to its usual LIBS 100 mode that staff members forget they are not online with the LIBS and call up to find out why inquiries don't work. We are still experiencing a significant amount of downtime with our LIBS 100. Some of this is attributable to our relatively full storage, requiring us to perform house- keeping routines frequently, but the rest is a result of system failure. Now, however, be- cause of the Apples, this causes far less an- guish in the circulation department. When the LIBS 100 goes down, the permanently connected backups are switched on in the computer room by their staff and circula- tion clerks continue checking materials out on their regular CLSI equipment in the main library and station branch. On days when housekeeping chores are scheduled, the console operator's job includes turning on the Apples so we can begin serving the public when the doors open at 9:00 a.m. Unless downtime persists for more than a day, no other routines are done except checkouts. Under some circumstances, cer- tain materials might be checked in on the Apple, but it is not desirable to do this for newer materials on which holds may have been placed. When the LIBS 100 is online again, the checkout station is switched back to normal mode and the Apple takes over the informa- tion desk's port for dumping, rendering that terminal inoperative. Dumping continues around the clock until all transactions have been processed from both Apples. Normal activities proceed at all other terminals. Diskettes are dumped in chronological or- der. As the dumping process operates, a file of transactions eliciting error or exception messages from the LIBS 100 is created on the Apple diskette. This file is available for attention at a later time for manual entry into the database. The chief asset of the dumping process is the accuracy achieved by automatic input- ting. When we used paper and pencil, not only was the original writing time consum- ing, but manual data entry was difficult be- cause of illegible handwriting, inaccurate transcription of the numbers, inaccurate in- putting into the database, and lack of avail- able personnel for the job. The CTI system resolves all of these difficulties, but a price is paid in the loss of the dumping terminal's services. The public may be less disturbed if a terminal in a nonpublic area is used. But to the department involved, access to the database is a central part of their work and its loss severely limits their output. In fact, dependence on the automated circulation system by all departments in the library has been swift and universal even though we originally assumed the terminals outside the circulation department would be used spar- ingly. Plans are being made to store personnel records in machine-readable form on disk- ettes. Other developments are being put on a back burner until we have less frequent Communications 299 need for the Apples as backups. However, LEVELS, Great Neck Library's Youth De- partment, has several Apples of its own on which budding "computerniks" practice their art. For them there are few limits to possible applications-perhaps only the outermost boundaries of imagination. REFERENCE 1. Joseph Covino and Sheila Intner, "An Infor- mal Survey of the CTI Computer Backup Sys- tem;· journal of Library Automation 14:108-10 Oune 1981). Computer-to-Computer Communication in the Acquisition Process Sandra K. PAUL: SKP Associates, New York City. In the 1970s, we entered the period of computer-to-computer communication; we now appear to have reached the second stage of development. Today more than seventy publishers are equipped to receive computer tape orders and input them di- rectly to their order fulfillment systems; twenty-six publishers can produce com- puter invoices and credits for their cus- tomers; six are capable of sending monthly updating information about titles, prices, publication dates, and books declared out of print. All of this, however, is based on a system through which computer tapes are sent from buyer to seller and back via the United States mail. The next step- computer-to-terminal or computer-to- computer communication-is just around the corner. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE How did this happen? It started in Sep- tember 1974 when DeWitt C. ("Bud") Baker, newly appointed president of the Baker & Taylor Company, envisioned the savings his company could find if their cus- tomers provided the International Stan- dard Book Number (ISBN) on their orders. He also believed that the volume of paper created by the computer was expensive and time-consuming for publishers to handle. 
5311	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114231 on their regular CLSI equipment in the main library and station branch. On days when housekeeping chores are scheduled, the console operator's job includes turning on the Apples so we can begin serving the public when the doors open at 9:00 a.m. Unless downtime persists for more than a day, no other routines are done except checkouts. Under some circumstances, cer- tain materials might be checked in on the Apple, but it is not desirable to do this for newer materials on which holds may have been placed. When the LIBS 100 is online again, the checkout station is switched back to normal mode and the Apple takes over the informa- tion desk's port for dumping, rendering that terminal inoperative. Dumping continues around the clock until all transactions have been processed from both Apples. Normal activities proceed at all other terminals. Diskettes are dumped in chronological or- der. As the dumping process operates, a file of transactions eliciting error or exception messages from the LIBS 100 is created on the Apple diskette. This file is available for attention at a later time for manual entry into the database. The chief asset of the dumping process is the accuracy achieved by automatic input- ting. When we used paper and pencil, not only was the original writing time consum- ing, but manual data entry was difficult be- cause of illegible handwriting, inaccurate transcription of the numbers, inaccurate in- putting into the database, and lack of avail- able personnel for the job. The CTI system resolves all of these difficulties, but a price is paid in the loss of the dumping terminal's services. The public may be less disturbed if a terminal in a nonpublic area is used. But to the department involved, access to the database is a central part of their work and its loss severely limits their output. In fact, dependence on the automated circulation system by all departments in the library has been swift and universal even though we originally assumed the terminals outside the circulation department would be used spar- ingly. Plans are being made to store personnel records in machine-readable form on disk- ettes. Other developments are being put on a back burner until we have less frequent Communications 299 need for the Apples as backups. However, LEVELS, Great Neck Library's Youth De- partment, has several Apples of its own on which budding "computerniks" practice their art. For them there are few limits to possible applications-perhaps only the outermost boundaries of imagination. REFERENCE 1. Joseph Covino and Sheila Intner, "An Infor- mal Survey of the CTI Computer Backup Sys- tem,'' journal of Library Automation 14:108-10 Oune 1981). Computer-to-Computer Communication in the Acquisition Process Sandra K. PAUL: SKP Associates, New York City. In the 1970s, we entered the period of computer-to-computer communication; we now appear to have reached the second stage of development. Today more than seventy publishers are equipped to receive computer tape orders and input them di- rectly to their order fulfillment systems; twenty-six publishers can produce com- puter invoices and credits for their cus- tomers; six are capable of sending monthly updating information about titles, prices, publication dates, and books declared out of print. All of this, however, is based on a system through which computer tapes are sent from buyer to seller and back via the United States mail. The next step- computer-to-terminal or computer-to- computer communication-is just around the corner. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE How did this happen? It started in Sep- tember 1974 when DeWitt C. ("Bud") Baker, newly appointed president of the Baker & Taylor Company, envisioned the savings his company could find if their cus- tomers provided the International Stan- dard Book Number (ISBN) on their orders. He also believed that the volume of paper created by the computer was expensive and time-consuming for publishers to handle. 300 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 Always a visionary, he believed that com- puters communicating directly with each other would not only save time and money, but would prevent human errors intro- duced by research clerks or keypunchers. He invited publishers, booksellers, librar- ians, wholesalers, representatives of school systems, and others to a full-day meeting at theW. R. Grace building. This diverse group of individuals dis- cussed the ISBN-what it was, what it might do. By the end of the day, the group defined two areas in which efforts might bear fruit. One was educational- publishers needed to be told the importance of printing valid ISBNs on their books, in their promotional materials, in their adver- tising, and on any other source of ordering information, and on the invoices and pack- ing lists they send to their customers. Wholesalers, librarians, and booksellers needed to be shown the efficiency their use of ISBNs on orders introduces to the fulfill- ment process at publishing houses and wholesaler offices. These functions were as- signed to an ISBN Publicity Committee, chaired by Franklyn ("Lee") Rodgers of Scribner Book Company. The second func- tion was the design of computer-to- computer formats for orders and invoices that would be keyed to the use of ISBN as title identifier and would be industry-wide in scope. This function was undertaken by an ISBN Data Transmission Committee, chaired by David Wolverton, then of Bro- dart. The ISBN Publicity Committee pro- duced a booklet and posters, distributed them at all major conventions, made press releases available, and prepared articles for inclusion in the newsletter of all of the ma- jor industry associations. The committee surveyed the use of ISBNs by publishers and published a list of in-house contacts for ISBNs. The committee's program was a suc- cess! FORMAT DEVELOPMENT The ISBN Data Transmission Committee had a more difficult task. The first question they faced was one of basic approach. Im- mediately they decided to proceed with a format for orders rather than invoices. Next, they reviewed the level to which the format would be directed. Believing it was more appropriate to "crawl before they walked," they decided to develop a format that could be generated on computer tape, which would be mailed from buyer to seller through the United States mail. Once there had been experience with that format, work would begin on direct computer-to- computer communication formats and pro- tocols. The final decision related to form. The majority of people volunteering their time to work on this committee came from the major book publishing houses. Ad- ditional members included two major bookstore chains, B. Dalton and Walden- books; the New York Public Library (NYPL) and three major wholesalers, Bro- dart, Baker & Taylor, and the Ingram Book Company. Representatives from NYPL, R. R. Bowker Company, and the library wholesaling organizations were familiar with American National Standard Z39.2- Bibliographic Information Interchange on Magnetic Tape. They felt that this stan- dard, which is the basis for the MARC tapes, should also become the basis for an order to be sent on magnetic tape. The ma- jority of the committee, however, was not only unfamiliar with Z39.2, but with the concept of programming for variable length records and/or fields. These data- processing managers argued that the for- mat basically would consist of sending a quantity and the ISBN for each title or- dered, not the sending of bibliographic re- cords as such. After review of a strong and well thought out letter from Michael Malin- conico supporting the use of Z39.2, the ma- jority held to their decision and the subcom- mittee, chaired by Tom Brady, then of Baker & Taylor, was assigned responsibility for developing the first computer-to- computer order format. It is a fixed length field and record format. Debate continued throughout its devel- opment. Each publisher hoped to have to do minimal programming in order to inter- face the new format and the input require- ments of his or her specific order fulfillment system. Provision was made for minimal bibliographic information if an ISBN was unknown. Polling of the members resulted in decisions to limit author and title to thirty characters, for instance. Shortly before the format was approved by the committee, Dick Fontaine, then sales manager of B. Dalton (now president) and Dick Lieberman, sales manager of Random House decided that they would begin send- ing tapes in the mail as of January 1975. Once the format had been approved, other publishers joined the group. Orders were sent from Baker & Taylor and Brodart to Random House, John Wiley, Prentice Hall, and Doubleday. B. Dalton continued to send Random House tape orders in a slightly different version of the format. By the end of 1976, it appeared that the task of the ISBN Publicity Committee had become publicizing the order format, rather than the ISBN as such. The two com- mittees decided to merge in March 1977, selecting the name Book Industry Systems Advisory Committee (BISAC), as much be- cause it was a pronounceable acronym as for any other reason. Development of an invoice format, originally considered of im- mediate importance by Waldenbooks, had been shelved after that company lost inter- est and the individual chairing the subcom- mittee working on the format left the field. The next step became reports of experi- ence with the order format. Fields left open for individual use came under review for standardized coding; procedures were de- veloped for the marking of information on the outside of the tapes and paperwork to accompany it; some publishers refused to accept tapes without ISBNs, while others pondered the procedure to separate titles without ISBN from those with and then merge the two for discounting purposes. With all of its inadequacies, the format was working. Publishers reported saving up to one week of time in processing tape orders. Random House analyzed returns for wrong title or wrong edition one year after they began receiving tape orders from Dalton, Baker & Taylor, and Brodart. They found an extraordinary 47 percent decrease in that type of misshipment to those three cus- tomers. With a few years experience under their belt, BISAC decided to revise the format to accommodate the inadequacies and prob- lems members had found with it. In addi- tion, the R. R. Bowker Company and OCLC, Inc., had just announced their in- Communications 301 tentions of developing acquisition systems which would replace them in the role of "order forwarders." They would prepare orders for other organizations and transmit those orders, on tape or directly online, to the vendor of the organization's choice. This forced BISAC to include a field for an "order placer" in addition to the traditional "bill-to" and "ship-to" customer name and address. The revision was approved in Feb- ruary 1977 and called "Format 112." (It is this version of the format which has been programmed by publishers and wholesalers noted in the introductory paragraph). BISAC members began pressuring B. Dalton to convert from their original "pre- format 1" format to Format 112. In analyz- ing the cost of doing so, Dalton also consid- ered the potential saving they would have if invoices from publishers were received on tape. Although they have never made those figures public, the potential was so great that Jim Nermyr, then their vice president of data processing, agreed to chair a sub- committee to develop an invoice format, paralleling as closely as possible, the order format. Once that was approved Jim made "selling trips" to New York and elsewhere, convincing over forty publishers to pro- gram for the invoice format in return for receiving orders on tape in Format 112 from Dalton. Finally, BISAC members began express- ing concern about misinformation on or- ders and invoices. Typically, when two or- ganizations agreed to communicate using the standardized formats, they would ex- change tapes of titles, descriptions, and the appropriate ISBN for each. They would produce error reports and the purchasers would bring their computer records in line with the publisher's. However, once price changes occurred, books were made out of print, or publication dates changed for not- yet-published titles, orders carried erro- neous information. To resolve this, a sub- committee, chaired by Andrew Uszak of R. R. Bowker Company, set about developing what has come to be known as the "Title Update Format." This format allows a pub- lisher to send a monthly tape of all titles on file indicating those fields that have changed since the prior month, or simply sending the ISBN and changed field infor- 302 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 mation. Six publishers are now sending in- formation in this format to the Ingram Book Company on a monthly basis; others will be doing so shortly. (The format is also the basis for information college textbook publishers send to update the monthly AAP Microfiche Service.) MOST RECENT CHANGES At its May 1981 meeting, BISAC ap- proved minor modifications to its order and invoice formats. These changes included in- creasing the zip code field to nine digits and specifying a seven-digit field for the Stan- dard Address Number. The invoice format was modified to accommodate its use for sending credits as well as invoices. These new formats were released in August 1981 and are "titled" Order Format #3 and In- voice Format #2. We guess that it will take at least a year before the bulk of those orga- nizations now sending tapes in Order For- mat #2 and Invoice Format# 1 program for the revisions. During 1980, BISAC members began ex- pressing concern that the "crawl before you walk" philosophy had stopped in the crawl stage. Baker & Taylor and Brodart, in par- ticular, expressed concern that the genera- tion of tapes was expensive and using the mails introduced such delays that orders were filled more promptly when phoned into publishers than when sent in the BI- SAC format. In addition, OCLC, which had programmed the order format into their new acquisition system, agreed that sending this information on tape would be far less effective than transmitting it online to the major vendors. In 1980, BISAC es- tablished a subcommittee, chaired by Jim Long of OCLC, Inc., to develop an alterna- tive version of the order format. This ver- sion, with variable length fields and re- cords, is intended for use in a communication mode between the main frames of two computers. We expect there will be deep consideration and long debate on this proposed version at BISAC meetings in the next few months, with passage ex- pected in 1982. Finally, BISAC brought its formats to the attention of American National Standards Committee Z39 (ANSC Z39) when format #2 was completed. At its May 1981 meet- ing, the committee decided to ask Z39 to officially begin work on formalizing both the Order Format #3 and the new variable- length order-format alternative as Ameri- can National Standards. The Z39 program committee and executive council agreed; Ernest Muro of Baker & Taylor is chairing the Z39 subcommittee charged with this task. As BISAC activities became more widely known, this ad hoc committee strained the resources of its volunteer officers in answer- ing requests for information, for copies of the formats, and in preparing and dissemi- nating the minutes of their meetings to an ever-increasing number of interested indi- viduals and organizations. In 1980, BISAC approached the Book Industry Study Group, Inc. (BISG) with the suggestion that they become a permanent committee of that research organization, whose mem- bership also included publishers, librarians, booksellers, and wholesalers, as well as book manufacturers. The BISG agreed and today supports BISAC activities through its offices. At the end of this communication is the address which can be used to request any of the formats from the BISG office. THE FUTURE Automation is here and here to stay. Indi- viduallibraries that once considered it im- possible to imagine being able to afford a computer now have several-and soon will have more-acquisition systems available to them through independent vendors and through the national bibliographic utilities. Wholesalers are gaining computer sophisti- cation, as are publishing houses. As an in- dustry, we are lucky that those volunteer data-processing types who formed BISAC and kept it alive were each willing to make the compromises necessary to provide us with a standardized industry-wide format. Other industries have not been so lucky, with major vendors using their dollar- volume clout to demand that their cus- tomers accept orders in their own , unique formats. However, the need for standard- ization is known. In 1979 the American Na- tional Standards Institute approved the cre- ation of a new committee-ANSC X12-Business Data Interchange. This committee is charged with developing ana- tiona! standard format for transmission of orders, invoices, and other transactions re- lated to the sale of merchandise, and the payment for that sale through electronic funds transfer. BISAC and ANSC Z39 have been carefully reviewing the progress this new committee is making. It appears that the formats that result from their efforts will be variable length fields and suffi- ciently general in nature to fit the needs of librarians, booksellers, wholesalers, and publishers, along with those involved in the sale and purchase of all other types of com- modities. The traditions and laws of this country preclude any organization from "forcing" a library to make use of these standardized formats. However, the cost savings, the guarantee of accuracy of the record re- ceived, and the speed with which the order reaches the fulfillment center suggest that these formats will increase in use in the fu- ture. We also anticipate that more and more use of the formats will be in an online trans- mission mode, rather than in the form of computer tapes in the mail. As the volume Communications 303 of transmissions grows, we expect that some day messages from purchasers will be forced into queues to reach the more popu- lar suppliers. To the extent that the major wholesalers provide terminals to their cus- tomers and/or facilities to accommodate a large number of transmissions, their queues may be minimal. However, it will be inter- esting to discover how individual publishers will cope with this situation. Readers who are interested in receiving copies of Order Format #3, Invoice Format #2 or Title Update Format# 1, should write to: Book Industry Study Group, Inc., 160 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10010. There is no charge for these formats. If all three are requested and first class mail is requested, postal costs are billed to the recipient. Those interested in active participation on BISAC should send a letter to the organization stat- ing that request. Finally, those interested in receiving copies of the minutes of the bi- monthly meetings held between September and May should send a request, accompa- nied by a check for thirty-five dollars to the BISG address. Hungry for answers in the life sciences? No matter how unusual your search question , the new 1981 810SIS Search Guide can help you find the right answers. In response to a request for references on " people eating insects as food," an information scientist searched 810SIS Previews online: " ... I wanted a file with a broad subject coverage and wide range of search options. The first step I took in my search strategy was to use the free-text faci lity for the word 'edible' . Then I used the keywords insect , insecta, and insects, which I identified from the 810SIS Search Guide. The Guide also led me to several biosystematic codes .. . " from a prize-winning 8/0S/S Search Tourna - ment essay. For your online searches of biological and medical research, you need the right words ... the right concepts ... the right codes ... You'll find them all in the: 1981 BIOSIS Search Guide The price? Just $75.00. For further information, or to place your order, contact: BIOSIS Customer Services, 2100 Arch Street , Philadelphia, PA 19103. 800-523-4806 or 215-568-4016. 
5312	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114302 304 Reports and Working Papers Cable Library Survey Results Public Service Satellite Consortium: Washington, D .C. The following paper was distributed to PSSC members in May 1981 , and is repro- duced here to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. BACKGROUND The Public Service Satellite Consortium (PSSC) conducted a survey of academic li- braries in July 1980 to study their data com- munications needs and services. Results of that study, coupled with library interest generated by that study, convinced PSSC that: (1) libraries have a wide variety of communications needs which could be ad- dressed with appropriate uses of telecom- munications; (2) all types of libraries are affected, not just academic libraries; and (3) data transfer was but one of many types of library services in need of better com- munications. This information motivated PSSC to take a broader look at library communications. That second look resulted in the identifica- tion of the "cable library" (CATVLIB) phe- nomenon and video library services. In December 1980, PSSC launched a sec- ond survey directed to cable libraries; that is, libraries of all types which are connected to local cable companies. This study was aimed at determining to what extent, if any, a national satellite cable library net- work might be already in technical exis- tence. How many libraries are presently connected to cooperative cable companies with satellite hardware and excess satellite receiver capacity? And of that number, how many cable libraries would be inter- ested in participating in satellite-assisted li- brary services and video-teleconferences? To answer these questions, PSSC mailed questionnaires to 101 libraries that had been identified as potential cable libraries. In order to allow the participation of uni- dentified cable libraries, PSSC also adver- tised the survey in various library periodi- cals, including American Libraries, Cable-Libraries, and lOLA. That ad re- sulted in an additional 97 cable libraries re- questing to participate in the survey, raising the total number of libraries receiving the questionnaire to 198. As of April 1981, 86 libraries have responded, yielding a 43 % return. Follow-up phone calls have indi- cated that more surveys are forthcoming, or that the questionnaire proved to be irrele- vant to present library conditions. In some cases, copies of the survey were requested and distributed for informational purposes only. THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT The questionnaire incorporated explana- tions of terminology and was eight pages long. Additional enclosures furnished more specific information about PSSC and video- teleconferencing. The respondent was not only questioned about his/her library facili- ties, but also was asked to interview theca- ble company for necessary technical infor- mation. Though contributing to slower returns, this two-tiered approach did suc- ceed in establishing contact between the li- brary and the cable company, as well as provide all the data required to profile each library as a potential network participant. SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Since a national network is being pur- sued, an attempt was made to reach as many of the states as possible. Thirty-seven states received copies of the survey, while thirty-one had at least one responding li- brary. All types of libraries were surveyed. Those surveyed included elementary school libraries, high school libraries, vocational school libraries, academic libraries, public libraries, regional library networks, state li- braries, library systems, special libraries, and libraries that also double as their local community access center for cable televi- sion. Of the 86 who responded, 63 were public, 18 were academic, 4 were school, and one was a special library. Responding libraries have been catego- rized according to their ability to be an ac- tive member of the network: UF Usable Facility-Those libraries that have met all the technical require- ments for network participation. The library must be currently connected to an operational cable system which has a satellite receiving station and excess receiver capacity. In addition, the cable system and the library must have indicated an interest in partici- pating in and hosting occasional satellite-transmitted events. NXC No Excess RO Capacity-Libraries that meet all technical cable connec- tivity requirements, but whose cable system cannot presently accommo- date any more activity on its satellite receiver(s), are grouped here. Should time become available in the future, these libraries are then technically able to advance to the usable facility group. NRO No CATV RO- Here are placed those libraries that are connected to an operational cable system . How- ever, the cable system has no satellite receiving station and, therefore, no satellite access. In order to become a usable facility, these cable systems must install a satellite receiving sta- tion and be able to offer excess re- ceiver capacity. NCC No CATV Connection- While a ca- ble system with all the satellite hard- ware requirements may be operating in the library's area, these libraries are not connected to the cable system. Reasons given in the survey are var- ied including logistics, economics, and disinterest . Depending upon the technical status of the cable system, a Reports and Working Papers 305 simple link may be all that is needed for the library to become a usable fa- cility. NCA No CATV in Area- Libraries in this group are located in areas that pres- ently have no operational cable sys- tem. Some areas are now in the fran- chising process, some have awarded franchises but are not operational, and others have no idea if and when cable service will come to their areas. Libraries here have the advantage of knowing what requirements are nec- essary for network participation and can use this information when fran- chising negotiations begin. NI No Interest-Here are grouped those li- braries that are at various stages of technical capability, but have no de- sire to participate in a national satel- lite cable library network. Table 1 illustrates responses according to geographical location. (Numbers refer to the quantity of libraries from each state that fit into the above defined categories .) Exactly half of these respondents are us- able facilities. The largest hindrance to net- work participation is lack of connectivity between the library and the cable system. LIBRARY /CABLE CONNECTIVITY Part one of this survey established the de- gree of connectivity between libraries and their local cable companies. PSSC's major concern was to find libraries wired to at least receive cable programming. PSSC also discovered that the highest percentage of libraries had two-way connection, usually for the purpose of cablecasting. Connectiv- ity among the 86 respondents was broken down as follows (all percentages have been rounded off): 33 (39%) two-way interconnection (transmit and receive video) 29 (34%) one-way CATV drop (receive only- regular subscriber) 14 (16%) no CATV connection 9 (10%) noCATVinmyareaor presently operational in my area 1 (1%) no answer to question Other questions in this section profiled the technical capabilities of the cable sys- tem. Specific hours of each day of the week a satellite receiver was available for occa- 306 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 Table I. State Nabama Naska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho lllinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mi ssouri Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virg inia Wash ington Wisconsin Wyoming TOTAL Total State Respondents UF 0 - NO RESPONSE 3 I 5 2 2 4 I I I 0- NO RESPONSE 2 2 I I 2 2 2 I 3 3 I 2 2 II 7 I I I I 4 I 14 5 2 I 0 - NO RESPONSE I I 0- NO RESPONSE 2 2 2 2 I 2 2 2 0 - NO RESPONSE 4 2 2 I 3 3 0 - NO RESPONSE 86 43 sional use were charted. Weekday morn- ings proved to be the most available time block. It is also imperative for PSSC to know what transponders (channels) of the satel- lite cable systems can access. There are twenty-four transponders on SATCOM I, the main satellite used by cable. When PSSC coordinates a satellite telecast, time on a satellite transponder must be secured . Each transponder is leased to someone, such as Home Box Office (HBO), Ted Turner's Cable News Network, or the Ap- palachian Community Service Network NXC 3 I 7 NRO 2 3 9 NCC 3 I 2 2 2 14 NCA 2 I 2 8 Nl 5 (ACSN), to name a few, for the carriage of their programming. Time needed by PSSC for a two-hour satellite event, for example, can be sublet from a transponder lessee, subject to availability. However, finding time slots on SATCOM I transponders is be- coming increasingly difficult as many les- sees are expanding the number of hours of their own programming. As a result, PSSC must know which transponders each cable system can receive so that an attempt can be made, where possible, to accommodate the majority of survey facilities. The ideal situation is for CATVs to own "frequency agile" satellite receivers; that is, receivers that can access any of the tran- sponders. Some receivers can get only even- numbered transponders or odd-numbered transponders; others can access only certain individual transponders. Transponder ac- cessibility is usually related to the type of programming the cable operator offers or plans to offer to the local cable subscribers, or to the age of the system. (Older systems often use twelve channel receivers, tunable to only even- or odd-numbered transpon- ders on SATCOM I.) For example, if a ca- ble operator does not anticipate offering anything besides HBO now or in the future from SATCOM I, often he/she cannot jus- tify the need for a frequency agile receiver. Table 2 outlines transponder accessibility for usable facilities only. This abundance of frequency agile re- ceivers will provide the connected libraries with a greater amount of flexibility in re- ceiving programming since their participa- tion will not be dependent upon a certain transponder. Another question probed the availability of provisions for closed-circuit, discrete de- livery of satellite transmissions from theca- ble system's receiver into the library. Being able to provide closed-circuit capabilities would ensure the privacy of a satellite tele- cast. Some PSSC clients insist that their transmissions be safe-guarded through closed-circuit delivery. As expected, closed-circuit arrangement does not exist between very many libraries and their CATVs. Unless part of an institu- tional cable loop, most libraries cannot presently be singled out for closed-circuit cable reception. Under normal conditions, what is transmitted from the head end of the cable system travels to everyone sub- scribing to the cable service. Eleven of the forty-three usable facilities claimed closed- circuit capabilities are currently available. Those thirty-two without described what technical considerations must be present be- fore such provisions could be offered. These technical requirements included scram- bling devices, mid-band channel usage, modulators and demodulators. Such up- grading of the cable company's hardware was quoted as costing from hundreds to sev- Reports and Working Papers 307 era! thousands of dollars. No CATV indi- cated willingness to assume the expenses for such special capabilities, but a few did offer to investigate the possibility of temporary special links on a per-occasion basis. LIBRARY FACILITIES The survey also asked about the library's facilities. Information in part two centered on library accommodations and equip- ment. Answers here provided a description of each library, which gave PSSC an idea of how adaptable to hosting satellite telecon- ferences each might be. A basic satellite program viewing facility consists of the viewing area, equipped with chairs and tables, at least one television monitor (wired to receive the cable pro- Table2. # of Facilities Able to Access Transponder # Transponder I 2 2 2 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 4 7 3 8 3 9 6 10 3 11 0 12 2 13 I 14 3 15 0 16 3 17 I 18 I 19 0 20 2 21 3 22 4 23 0 24 5 Frequency Agile 30 Not Sure 4 NOTE: These ligures are for transponder accessi- bility on SATCOM I. Numbers for the specific transponders were tabulated from those surveys that indicated their satellite receivers were not frequency agile, but rather could access only those transponders they had listed. 308 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 gramming), and , for interactive programs, a telephone. Survey libraries reported they had conference rooms, auditoriums, and classrooms available for viewing satellite telecasts. The number of viewers able to be accommodated at one time ranged from 6 to 400, with the average facility holding 75 people. Some libraries could provide simul- taneous viewing in more than one room, which increased the total number of people they could accommodate for a single event. A majority of the libraries had more than one monitor; some as many as fifteen moni- tors. Three lib!aries indicated they owned a large-screen television projector. Forty- four percent of the usable facilities have no phones in the viewing rooms, but many ex- plained that phones were either nearby or could be temporarily installed for an inter- active event. In response to a question about the location and accessibility of the library within its community, the general com- ments described the majority of the libraries as being in a convenient part of town, with ample parking and barrier-free design. When given enough advance notice, most libraries were willing to schedule an event at any time, even during hours and on days the library was normally closed to the pub- lic. Traditionally, as a part of its standard networking service, PSSC rents viewing fa- cilities for the client, whether they are pub- lic television stations, hotels, or other facili- ties. Libraries, as another type of viewing resource, would be entitled to receive pay- ment for use of their facilities. Obviously, this fact treads on controversial "fee or free" waters. Being aware of this, PSSC asked the libraries whether they could accept money for these purposes; and, if not, whether they might have some other mechanism, such as a "Friends of the Library" group, to which the money could be given instead. Those libraries that said they could accept money directly for the use of their facilities num- bered thirty-four. Oddly enough, thirty- four libraries also said they could not accept money directly for the use of their facilities. Of that group, thirty-one indicated they did have a "Friends of the Library" or similar group to which money could be given for indirect channeling back into the library. Eighteen libraries did not answer this ques- tion (many due to libraries not completing the entire survey once they felt the cable information made them technically ineligi- ble for participation). Only three libraries might have a problem with financial ar- rangements for an event. PROGRAM INTERESTS The final section of the survey (part three) gave each respondent the opportu- nity to list topics of interest to the library and community that could be presented via a satellite video-teleconference. General comments identified continuing education, organizational conferences, training, semi- nars, workshops, media distribution, and information dissemination as major activi- ties suitable for satellite-assisted delivery and distribution. Special target audiences included the following: 1. senior citizens 2. handicapped 3. minorities 4. the disadvantaged (economically, edu- cationally, socially) 5. the abused (drug addicts and alco- holics; abused children and spouses, teachers and students; victims of crime; and the sexually harrassed) 6. the institutionalized (in hospitals, prisons, nursing homes, mental health centers, hospices) These special patrons are often served through outreach programs and were named here as potential beneficiaries of sat- ellite programming. The most frequently named special population was the elderly, with suggestions for retirement, social ser- vices, nursing-home care, insurance, and other senior-oriented programming. Three major classes of other potential users of satellite video-teleconferencing in the library were identified: 1. Education-oriented: Preschool and nursery students; elementary, middle, junior high, and high school students; postsecondary and graduate students; vocational, technical, extension, and cooperative education students; special education students; adult and continu- ing education students; educational administrators, faculties, and staff 2. Government-oriented: Federal, re- gional, state, county, and local govern- ment officials and employees 3. Employment-oriented: Professional! nonprofessional; salaried/hourly; union /nonunion; management/staff; public/private sectors; employed/ un- employed; full /part-time; permanent/ temporary; big/small business; human services/ trade Particular topics of interest felt to be ideal satellite program areas within each li- brary's community included the following (appearing in no rank order): energy (solar and natural resources) consumerism community services environment historic preservation/oral history legal aid librarianship computers, data processing technology communications/telecommunications fund raising safety recreation , physical education, sports, parks language (bilingual, sign, foreign, liter- acy) economics and finance (investment, banking, inflation, budgeting) conservation genealogy religion business and industry civil defense agriculture and forestry health and medicine mental health arts and humanities curriculum sharing therapy and rehabilitation real estate Several local associations, who have affil- iates or branches located nationally, were listed as potential users of satellite video- teleconferencing (in order of popularity): 1. American Association of Retired Per- sons 2. League of Women Voters 3. Historical Societies 4. American Library Association 5. Chamber of Commerce 6. American Association of University Women Reports and Working Papers 309 7. Parent/Teacher Associations 8. Councils of Government 9. Jaycees 10. Boy Scouts 11 . Friends of the Library Three questions concerning interest and ability to participate in future satellite video-teleconferencing activities were asked . The questions, vital to the outcome of this survey, are reiterated here with their respective answers: 1. Would you be interested in helping set up one or more of these specialized tele- conferences? Yes 63 (73%) No 10 (12 o/o) Maybe 5 (6%) No Answer 8 (9 %) 2. Would you be interested in doing a lo- cal follow-up program after a national teleconference that is of interest to your community? Yes 65 (76%) No 6 (7%) Maybe 8 (9%) No Answer 7 (8%) 3. Periodically, nationally based organi- zations sponsoring teleconferences or special programs enlist promotional and site arrangement support from lo- cal site facilitators. Would you like to be listed as available to provide this support? Yes 54 (63%) No 18 (21 o/o) Maybe 3 (3%) No Answer 11 (13%) The interest of the libraries surveyed is well documented in questions one and two. However, their ability to presently partici- pate is limited to financial and personnel resources as demonstrated by question three's responses. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The majority of surveyed libraries recog- nize the need for libraries to expand their community service roles through some use of telecommunications. Many of the 86 li- braries indicated the concept of libraries be- coming satellite program viewing facilities through their cable connectivity was an idea so new to them that they could not fully 310 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 understand or visualize what would be ex- pected of the library in this novel role. Yet the general consensus was that if joining with their cable systems to provide satellite programs receiving locations was a method of improving community library services, while not making demands on the library's budget, then the concept was worth explor- ing individually on an operational basis. To illustrate this concept of the CA TVLIB as a satellite program viewing facility, a typical scenario would find par- ticipating CATVLIBs contacted by an or- ganization or networking agent who wishes to reach the general community or a special segment with its satellite-transmitted pro- gramming. The CATVLIB, as the commu- nity contact, would have the option to re- spond negatively or positively. If the CATVLIB is interested, it must begin per- forming local coordination duties, most im- portant of which is garnering the agree- ment of its cable system. CATVLIB and cable system discussions will determine five things: 1. Can the cable system access the satellite transponder on which the program- ming will be carried? 2. Will the cable system have a satellite receiver available on the date and time of the program? 3. Will theCA TV LIB have its viewing fa- cility available on the date and time of the program? 4. If desired by the program's sponsor, will the CATV LIB contact the local group who is to participate in the pro- gram and work with them prior to the satellite telecast to the extent needed by the requesting organization? 5. Can the cable system and/or the CATVLIB handle special program considerations, if any? For example, - provide closed circuit capability in the CATV LIB? - tape the program? - provide telephone(s) for interactive programs? - provide local site facilitation? -coordinate local follow -up activi- ties? - provide refreshments? - coordinate advance publicity within the community? Once the CATVLIB has determined whether or not it is able and desires to offer their services, the CA TVLIB would be re- corded as a satellite program "receive site." TheCA TV LIB will then assume the degree of local responsibility requested and con- tracted by the requesting organization, in- cluding all negotiations necessary with the cable system. While there were survey indications of general support for such a national satellite cable library network, what are the pros and cons of its operation? Pros Pre-existing conditions. CA TVLIBs need no investment for hardware, but merely take advantage of pre-existing cable con- nectivity. Community service. Such CA TVLIB participation potentially offers service to every member of the community. Outreach to new patrons. Those commu- nity residents not previously using the li- brary may find this new service applicable to their needs. Economics. CATVLIBs could recoup any charges incurred through this service, as well as expect payment as a rented re- ceive site. Program interaction. Live satellite pro- gramming has the advantage over taped programming of allowing the option of of- fering viewers the opportunity to interact with the program's presenter(s). Resource-sharing potential. This service has the future potential of providing CATVLIBs with an alternative method of accessing new information resources and data bases. Human resources can be shared now through this service. Potential CATV expansion. More CATVs are expanding and upgrading their satellite access capabilities as usage of satel- lites by cable programming vendors in- creases. Some CATV s have already pur- chased WEST AR III hardware in addition to their SATCOM I hardware. Future implications. If satellite-related services become valued by the community, the residents might decide the CATV LIB should have its own satellite hardware so that the community could take advantage of more programming available directly from satellite. Cons Lack of SA TCOM I occasional time. It is becoming increasingly difficult to sublease transponder time on this satellite for occa- sional satellite programs. Dependency. The CATVLIB must de- pend entirely on the cable system to be able to be a network participant and offer this service. CA TVLIB participation is depen- dent upon the cable system's satellite access capabilities, which generally means SAT- COM I only. Lack of CCTV. Generally, most CA TVLIBs cannot offer closed-circuit ca- pability, so absolute privacy cannot be guaranteed to the program's sponsor. CATVLIB policies. Some CATVLIBs will have to make decisions about various controversial items, such as: -accepting money for use of facilities. -allowing some clients the right to limit viewing to only registrants. -hosting controversial groups. Range of CATVLIB capabilities. The survey demonstrated that CA TVLIBs can- not all offer the same degree of service due to the wide range of technical capabilities. At present, each satellite event would have to be judged individually to determine which CATVLIBS were equipped to par- ticipate. A glance at the pros and cons of marrying libraries and satellite communications through cable connectivity suggests a na- tional satellite CATV LIB network is a pres- ently available and usable resource with po- tential for future expanded capabilities and unlimited programming uses. The obstacles imposed by the cons, however, are cause for a serious and objective look at the present and future viability of such a network. Popular present uses of satellite video- teleconferencing are for telecasting contin- uing education and organizational confer- ence interactive programming to special audiences. Some PSSC clients will often re- quest to: -charge his/her special audience for par- ticipating (course or conference fees, for example). -have the satellite-transmitted event Reports and Working Papers 311 closed-circuit telecasted to the receiving locations only. -reach specific geographical locations (often large urban areas, such as New York or Los Angeles). CHARGING SPECIAL AUDIENCES FOR CLOSED-CIRCUIT SATELLITE EVENT The first two client requests are often re- lated. If the client intends to charge the registrant-viewer a fee, he/she often expects the program to be viewed only at desig- nated receive sites that are hosting the pay- ing participants. (Why should a viewer pay if heishe could watch the same program at home on a cable channel for free?) Obvi- ously, those clients interested in a "box of- fice" approach to their event, that is, to make a profit rather than offer a service, are not suited for CATVLIB network use. However, how can the CA TVLIBs accom- modate those public service groups which must recoup expenses in order to offer such satellite program services? Client-designed incentives such as giving the phone number for viewer interaction in a program only to the CA TVLIBs rather than displaying or announcing the number during the program; requiring participants to have special materials and/ or integrating local pre- or postevent activities in the CATVLIBs with the program; even offer- ing course credit to registrants only are manageable alternatives for those CATVLIBs that cannot terminate the pro- gram in their facilities only. Some CATVLIBs may be able to negotiate wHh their CATV for the provision of the neces- sary equipment to provide closed-circuit ca- pabilities. However, this survey did not identify many CATVs that were willing to cooperate with the libraries to that extent. For those CATVLIBs whose policies re- strict their involvement with financial transactions, particularly money exchange among library patrons, advance registra- tion fees paid directly to the client could enable the libraries to avoid being required by the client to "collect at the door." Most libraries, however, by their very nature, cannot prohibit anyone from viewing a pro- gram within their facilities, thereby mak- ing it generally impossible for them to guar- 312 journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 antee the client their requested selective audience. SIZE, LOCATION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF RECEIVE SITES Video-teleconference users generally want to reach as many of their members or special populations as possible, yet they must pay to rent each receive site. Eco- nomics influence their attempt to reach more people at fewer locations, not neces- sarily those most in need of the program. Therefore, it is no surprise that popular re- ceive sites are located in heavily populated cities. While cable television is finally coming to urban areas, present conditions find a lack of operational CATVs available. The typical CATVLIB now is located in a smaller city or rural area. Large states, such as California and Texas, have little or no CATVLIB representation. Only twenty- three states currently have a usable CATVLIB facility, which makes the net- work descriptor "national" not quite accu- rate. Expanding the CATVLIB network to include more and larger cities and all states is a must to make it competitive with other satellite networks available to a client. But even if the network is able to expand, the previously mentioned inability of CATVLIBs to provide closed-circuit capa- bilities will lessen its desirability as a re- source when that capability is offered by another satellite ground facility in the same city. One competitive alternative a CATV LIB can consider is rental cost. Clients expect to pay a reasonable rate for the use of each facility. This rate differs among different types of satellite networks, and even within the same network. For example, renting a public television station is generally less ex- pensive than booking a hotel. Yet the rate for two public television stations can vary in the hundreds of dollars. If a CATVLIB chooses to offer its facilities for free, asking only for compensation os any expenses it might incur because of the satellite event or charges a minimal amount, their facility becomes economically attractive. One fac- tor the CA TVLIBs must not overlook when contemplating such a decision is the cable system. Will the cable system expect remu- neration for its services, especially if the CATVLIB is receiving payment? Libraries must remember they have entered into a cooperative arrangement with their CATVs in order to become a satellite pro- gram viewing facility. TOWARD FUTURE INDEPENDENCE While a skeletal cable library network does technically exist, it is imperative that libraries work toward their own future in- dependence before they can truly establish themselves as a viable satellite network. Evolution of a CATVLIB network to a sat- ellite library network might include the fol- lowing two steps: l. Expanded CATVLJB network. The survey instrument should now evolve into an interview tool for profiling ad- ditional libraries to become part of this network. Efforts should be made to en- courage libraries within poorly repre- sented states to join the network if tech- nically feasible. Expansion is urged for two main reasons: - To allow libraries the opportunity to experience being a satellite program viewing facility without financial obligations. -To allow community residents the opportunity to experience a library service with great potential for all local population segments. Once the library is regarded as the logical place for community communi- cations, it will be much ea~ier to begin a community drive toward supporting the outfitting of the library with the proper hardware necessary to function in that capacity. Requirements for becoming part of the expanded CATVLIB network in- clude: -At least one-way connectivity be- tween the library and the CATV. (A typical subscription for basic service will suffice.) -The CATV must have a satellite re- ceiving station. -The CATV must have excess capac- ity available on its satellite receiver. -CATV must be willing to cooperate with the library in providing satellite reception of occasional satellite tele- casts. - Library must have at least one view- ing room available to seat those viewing the satellite program. - Library must have at least one televi- sion monitor, wired to receive cable programming, available in the view- ing room. - Library must be willing to assume role of community contact to extent requested by client. (Need is for li- brary interest in participating in these occasional satellite telecasts; degree of local responsibility can be negotiated.) Even though this network is de- signed to be a temporary method of al- lowing library participation in satellite communications, future implications could find these libraries expanding, improving, or beginning eablecasting on a library-designated cable channel. Thus, libraries deciding whether they should become involved with a tempo- rary network might contemplate the related activities available from library/cable system cooperation. 2. Satellite Library Network. At some point in the not too distant future, li- braries will be faced with the decision of becoming independent from their cable system and obtaining their own satellite hardware. A library with its own satellite receiving station will be- come more desirable to more users as a receive site for a satellite video- teleconference since it will be more Reports and Working Papers 313 flexible and autonomous. Besides satel- lite video-teleconferences, libraries could investigate other uses of their sat- ellite hardware including: - direct satellite access (with permis- sion recommended) for cable televi- sion fare; - reception of nationwide satellite dis- tribution of taped video program- ming for library use; -facilitation of various library data communications. If the library is able to prove the value and practicality of having com- munity satellite access capabilities lo- cated at its facilities to the residents through participation in the CATV LIB network, local funding of a satellite li- brary project might be realistic. If cor- porations are made aware of how such a satellite library facility could benefit their own communications needs, a corporate grant could prove to be an- other funding route. Other sources of support must also be explored. FINAL WORD As a result of this survey, PSSC has pro- filed cable libraries of all technical capabili- ties for input into a database of network resources. However, the limitations of a CATV LIB network have been noted. Ef- fort will be made by PSSC where appropri- ate to use this network for client satellite telecasts. PSSC will continue to profile in- terested cable libraries for addition to the network , upon request of the library. Statement or Ownership and Management }ourrwf of l.ihrary Automatior1 is published qua rterly by the Arn ericnn Library As~iation, 50 E. lluron St .. Chica~o. JL 60611. Annual subscriptio n prk-e, S 15. Am erican Library A.o,sociation. O\\ rwr; Brian Avcncy. editor. Second Class postage paid at Chicago, Ill inois. Pnnted in U.S.A. A .. a nonprofit organization authorized to mail at special ratL'\ (SL'Ction 132.122, Postal S(•rt:ice .\lanual), the puq>OI,(', fu nction. and nonprofit .;:tatu~ of thh organi zation and the exempt status for ft..--dcral in(•Omt.· taJ; purposes have not chan~ed during the preceding l\\ el\ e month~. Extent and ~aturc of Circulatlon ("A\eras;:e" figures denott• the numlx:r of copies printed each issue during the preccdmg: tweh"e months: ''Actual " figure-. denote number of copies o f sin~le l 'iSUe published neart..-Q to filin~date - -the june 1981 i~sue.) Tot al numbt!r o f copll"i printed: Aq~ra~e. 6,869: Ac t ual. 7,345. Paid circulation: not applicable (i.e .. no ... a C"' throuJ!h dealers. carrie rs. street 'endoro, and rountcnal<.--s} . Mail subscription ... : AH•ra~<·. 6,076: Actual. 6 ,308. Total puid circulation: Average, 6.076. Actual6 ,308. Free dhtrihution b y mail, carrier, o r otlwr means, samples, complirnt·ntary. and ot her free cop ies: A\t~ragc . 432: A<:tuul, 446. T olitl di ~t rihution: Average. 6.508: Actual. 6,i.54. Copies no t di. ... tributcd: Offic<' US(', le ft over, unacco unt ed . 11poiled after printing: Aven~ge, 361; Actual. 59 1. Hcturm from news agents: not applicahlc. T otul (sum prcviouo; thrt.."C entries): A\'erage, 6,869: Actual. 1.345. Stateml·nt of 0\\ ncn hi p. ~1anagement and Circulation (PS 3526. j une 19SO) fo r 1981 fil ed with the United Stat<" Po't Office Pmt rna\tN in Chica~o. September 30. 19hl 
5313	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012120558 314 News and Announcements First Use of CATVLIB Network: American Red Cross Satellite Telecast On May 21, 1981, the American Red Cross celebrated their one-hundredth birthday by ending their annual conference in Washington, D.C., with a special two- hour nationwide satellite telecast. The PSSC coordinated distribution of the tele- cast, which originated from Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. , from 10 a.m. to noon. The program was carried on SAT- COM I, transponder 16 (Appalachian Community Service Network), and made available to all cable systems able to receive this transponder. Those areas not able to schedule the live program were offered a satellite-transmitted taped feed later in the day. The American Red Cross had encour- aged all its local chapters to initiate pro- gram reception in their communities by ap- proaching the local cable system about carrying the event. Since the American Red Cross was offer- ing a free program and trying to saturate as much of the United States as possible, use of the CATVLIB network in conjunction with this telecast was appropriate. PSSC con- tacted 53 libraries in 23 states that were in- terested in assuming local coordination for bringing this event to their communities. As the local coordinator, the CA TVLIBs' min- imum responsibilities included alerting the cable systems to schedule receiving this pro- gram (if the local Red Cross chapter had not already approached the CATV) and con- tacting the local Red Cross chapter to offer the CATVLIBs' facilities for their group viewing and concomitant local celebration. Of these fifty-three CATVLIBs , only seven could not participate because of tech- nical problems. Schedule conflicts; lack of CATV, Red Cross, or community interest; and Red Cross alternative plans were the major factors in prohibiting twelve others from directly participating in hosting the satellite-transmitted program. The remain- ing thirty-four CATVLIBs did host com- munity residents in their facilities. Evaluation forms revealed a variety of degrees of CATVLIB participation in coor- dinating their first satellite event participa- tion. Several CATVLIBs (though none came to the library for viewing) were in- strumental in getting the program into the community and available to all local cable subscribers. Advance publicity, birthday cakes and refreshments, sing-alongs, taping for multiple showings, and joint library/ chapter pre- and postevent activities are but a few of the ways the individual CATVLIBs participated. All of the evaluation forms in- dicated that the CA TVLIBs wanted to be contacted as a potential local site for future satellite events. The following list names the fifty-t hree CA TVLIBS that were initially contacted to be local coordinators for the Red Cross one- hundredth birthday satellite telecast. Though not all were successful, CATVLIB made an effort to bring the program to its community. Colorado Boulder Public Library, Boulder Connecticut Thomaston Public Library, Thomaston Florida Tarpon Springs Public Library, Tarpon Springs Georgia Tri-County Regional Library, Rome Idaho Pocatello Public Library, Pocatello Illinois Pekin Public Library, Pekin Rockford Public Library, Rockford Indiana Fort Wayne Public Library, Fort Wayne Monroe County Public Library, Bloomington Iowa Kirkwood Community College Telecommunications Center, Cedar Rapids Iowa City Public Library, Iowa City Kansas Abilene Public Library, Abilene Newton Public Library, Newton Kentu cky Lexington Public Library, Lexington Louisville Public Library, Louisville Camden-Carroll Library, Morehead State University , Morehead Massachusetts Greenfield Community College Library, Greenfield South Hadley Library System, South Hadley Minn esota Anoka County Library, Fridley Cloquet Public Library, Cloquet Crow River Regional Library, Willmar International Falls Public Library, International Falls Minnesota Valley Regional Library, Mankato Marshall-Lyon County Library System, Marshall Western Plains Library System, Montevideo Rochester Public Library , Rochester St. Cloud Public Library, St. Cloud Missouri St. Charles City County Library, St. Peters New j ersey Burlington County College Library , Pemberton New York Albany Public Library, Albany Amherst Public Library , Willia msville Bethlehem Public Library, Delmar Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Library System, Jamestown Gates Public Library, Rochester Mid-York Library System, Utica Ridge Road Elementary School Library, Horseheads North Carolina Davidson County Community College Library, Lexington Ohio Greene County District Library, Xenia Public Library of Columbus and Franklin County, Columbus News and Announcements 315 University of Toledo Library, Toledo Pennsylvania Altoona Area Public Library, Altoona Lancaster County Library, Lancaster Monroeville Public Library , Monroeville Tennessee Memphis/Shelby County Public Library & Information Center, Memphis Utah Merrill Library and Learning Resources Program , Utah State University, Logan Weber County Library, Ogden Virginia Arlington County Department of Libraries, Arlington Washington Edmonds Community College Library, Lynnwood Lynnwood Public Library, Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Public Library, Mountlake Terrace Seattle Public Library, Seattle Wisconsin Middleton Public Library, Middleton Nicolet College Learning Resource Center, Rhinelander Who's Who and What's What in Library Video and Cable For librarians interested in who is doing what in video in libraries, or in how to do it themselves, a guidebook has been published by the Video a nd Cable Communications Section of the Libra ry a nd Information Technology Association . It is the 461-page Video and Cable Guidelines. Edited by Leslie C hamberlin Burk and Roberto Esteves-two of the most active li- bra rians in the video field-the book in- cludes papers from Donald Sager, Kandy Brandt, Arlene Farber Sirkin, Anne Hol- lingsworth , and by Burk and Esteves. Among the topics covered are a description ofthe present operation, future plans, prob- lems, and benefits of video in 250 libraries in the U.S. and Canada. The book is spiral-bound and can be used conveniently as a manual for staff develop- ment programs. Its price is $9. 75 . For additional information, or to order copies (prepaid orders only, please), con- tact LIT A, ALA, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611 ; (3 12)944-6780. 316 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 ELMIG Electronic Mail Arrives The "new arrival" to the library associa- tion family this summer is the Electronic Library Membership Initiative Group. ELMIG is an organization of individuals established to ensure that electronically de- livered information remains accessible to the general public. ELMIG promotes par- ticipation and leadership in the remote elec- tronic delivery of information by publicly supported libraries and nonprofit organiza- tions. The group's efforts are coordinated by Richard Sweeney, director of the Public Li- brary of Columbus and Franklin County; Neal Kaske, director of OCLC's Office of Research; and Kenneth Dow lin, director of the Pikes Peak Library District. The first founding goals of ELMIG are: • Identifying services and information best suited for the remote electronic access to and delivery of information; • Planning, funding, and developing working demonstrations of library elec- tronic information services; • Communicating the availability of electronic library services to the commu- nity; • Informing the library profession of trends, specific events, and future direc- tions in remote electronic delivery of infor- mation; • Creating coalitions with organizations in allied fields of interest. Organizers of ELMIG are working within ALA to foster interest in , and facili- tate the needs of, the electronic library. ALA has established a membership initia- tive group to address the concerns of this group. The Electronic Library Member- ship Initiative Group will meet during the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Denver. Inter- ested individuals are encouraged to attend the meeting scheduled for Monday, Janu- ary 25, 1982, at 2 p.m. in Room 2E of the auditorium. Interest in ELMIG/ELA has surfaced quickly. The membership group was formed in March, and gathered the 200 sig- natures needed for official recognition at the ALA Annual Conference in San Fran- cisco. Some 150 people met at that confer- ence to discuss topics of concern. They de- cided to continue these discussions at the 1982 Midwinter Meeting and plan for an ELMIG program to be presented at Phila- delphia. ELMIG aims to address the issues con- cerning the electronic library on a continu- ing basis through ongoing interaction of its members. To facilitate this interaction, ELMIG will use an electronic mail system. Further information on ELMIG and its members is available from Richard Swee- ney at the Public Library of Columbus and Franklin County, 28 S. Hamilton Rd., Co- lumbus, OH 43213. See page 317 for Subscriber Agreement Form. Heynen to Head ARL Microform Project The Association of Research Libraries has hired Jeffrey Heynen to head a two-year program designed to improve bibliographic access to microform collections in American and Canadian libraries. The association has received $20,000 from the Council on Li- brary Resources to initiate the project, and additional funds are anticipated from other sources. Heynen brings an extensive background in micrographics and publishing to the pro- ject as well as a long-standing commitment to improving the treatment , use, and bib- liographic control of microforms in li- braries. He has served as chair of the Ameri- can Library Association's Reproduction of Library Materials Section, and was a par- ticipant in earlier groups that laid the foun- dation for the current ARL project. Cur- rently president of Information Inter- change Corporation, Heynen has held exec- utive positions with Congressional Infor- mation Service, Greenwood Press, and Re- dgrave Information Resources. These positions have all included responsibility for the creation of large microform collec- tions. Heynen hold~ memberships in nu- merous standards-making bodies, includ- ing the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the American Na- tional Standards Institute, and the National Micrographics Association, and is a lecturer at the University of Maryland College of Library and Information Services. The ARL Microform Project is based upon a planning study conducted for the association by Richard Boss of Information Systems Consultants, Inc. Its purpose is to stimulate and coordinate the work of li- braries, microform publishers, biblio- graphic utilities, and regional networks in providing bibliographic access to millions of monographic titles in microform that are now inadequately or insufficiently cata- loged. Since the development of the plan during 1980, there has been keen interest both in the elements of the plan and in the cooperative efforts needed to achieve them. A number of libraries-both ARL and non- ARL members-are planning to begin or are already entering catalog records for in- dividual titles in microform sets into biblio- graphic databases. For example, three ARL libraries have recently been awarded grants under Title 11-C of the Higher Education News and Announcements 317 Act, Strengthening Research Library Re- sources, to catalog major microform sets, entering the resulting records into one of the major utilities. All three libraries- Stanford University, University of Utah, and Indiana University-will be coordinat- ing their efforts with the goals of the ARL program. Key to these efforts, however, is coordi- nation to ensure that national standards are accepted and followed, to distribute the work load so that as many sets as possible are covered and duplication of effort is avoided, and to ensure that the records are available to all libraries that want to use them. The ARL Microform Project will em- phasize building on existing resources, coor- dinating efforts among the library and pub- SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT ELECTRONIC LIBRARY MEMBERSIUP INITIATIVE GROUP ------------------·(ALA Member), applies for membership in the ELECTRONIC LIBRARY MEMBERSHIP INITIATIVE GROUP, electronic mail system, and states that: RECITALS: A. ELMIG is an association of individuals whose mission is to ensure that information delivered electronically remains accessible to the general public; and B. ELMIG seeks to promote participation and leadership in remote electronic delivery of informa- tion by publicly supported libraries and nonprofit organizations. NOW THEREFORE, the above Member and OCLC agree that: 1. Member will deposit with OCLC a $100 contribution toward the cost of electronic mail service and attendant expenses for the first year of operation, which is to commence January 1, 1982. The Member recognizes that the initial Member contribution may not be sufficient to pay for a year of operation and agrees, when invoiced, to make additional payments of $100, or other agreed upon sums, to OCLC for the continuation of service. 2. OCLC agrees that by accepting Member deposits, it will secure electronic mail service for the Members of ELMIC; and 2.1 Will place Member deposits in a separate ELMIC account from which OCLC will pay the cost of the electronic mail service, U.S. postal mailings, and any other expenses incurred in the adminis- tration of EMS. 2.2 Will provide a year-end accounting of contributions and expenditures to Members with in a reasonable time after December 31 , 1981 , and each year-end thereafter. MEMBER: BY --------------------------------------------------------- TITLE --------------------------------------------------------- DATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 318 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 lishing communities and the bibliographic utilities, and, where possible, facilitating cooperative projects already planned or un- der way. Heynen will be assisted by an advisory committee composed of representatives of both ARL and non-ARL libraries, the ma- jor bibliographic utilities, and microform publishers. The ARL project will operate out of the office of Information Interchange Corporation, 503 11th St., SE, Washing- ton, DC 20003; (202)544-0291. Libraries and publishers interested in participating in the project are urged to contact the project office. Nominations Sought for LITA Award Nominations are being sought for the Li- brary and Information Technology Associ- ation's Award for Achievement. The award is intended to recognize dis- tinguished leadership, notable develop- ment or application of technology, superior accomplishments in research or education, or original contributions to the literature of the field. The award may be given to an individual or to a small group of individuals working in collaboration. Organized institutions or parts of organized institutions are not eligi- ble. Nominations for the award may be made by any member of the American Library Association and should be submitted by January 15, 1982, to Hank Epstein, LITA Awards Committee Chairperson, 1992 Lemnos Dr., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. ARE THESE BOOKS ON YOUR SHELF? The Special Library Role in Networks: Proceedings of a Conference Robert W. Gibson, Jr., ed. 296 p. 1980 ISBN 0-87111·279°5 ........ . ........ . ......... $10.50 D Reports on the cu rrent state of networking and presents a creative approach to special library involvement in network participation and management. Special Libraries Special Issue on Information Technology and Special Libraries April 1981, vol. 72, no. 2 ...... .. ....... . .... .. ............... .. .......... .. ......... $9.00 D The entire issue of this journal is devoted to the technological transformation of the information industry. Topics discussed are such advances as computer and tele communications components, software developments, linking, and modes of access to information systems. Bibliographic Utilities: A Guide lor the Special Librarian James K. Webster, ed. 32 p. 1980 ISBN 0°87111°280°7 ............. 0 •• 0 •••••••••••• 0 •• $3.75 D A comparative study of the services offered by the four major North American online bibliographic utilities. Total$ ___ _ Send to: Special Libraries Association Order Department- Box JLA 235 Park Avenue South Orders from individuals must be prepaid. New York, New York 10003 Date ______ _ Name __________ __ Organization Street Address - -------- - -------------- ----- City - ------ ------ State _ _____ Zip _____ _ New York Ctty purchasers add 8 'I•% state and city sales tax. New York State purchasers add appropriate state and local sales tax. 
5314	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114424 Book Reviews More joy of Contracts: An Epicurean Ap- proach to Negotiation, by Kevin Hegarty. Tacoma, Wash.: Tacoma Public Library, 1981. 66p. $10. Order from: Administra- tive Offices, Tacoma Public Library, 1102 Tacoma Ave. South, Tacoma, WA 98402. Hegarty's book, the second edition of his original joy of Contracts (American Li- brary Association, Dallas, Texas, June 1979), has both strengths and weaknesses. The basic strength is one heck of a lot of information about how to negotiate and write a contract that will assure a library that it gets what it pays for from a turnkey automation system. The weakne.c;ses in- volve the organization of the text, the writ- ing style, the specific focus on automated circulation systems, and the physical for- mat of the document. First, the author has clearly fought his way through a contract negotiation for a turnkey "Computerized Library Circula- tion System." The first edition of this book was produced soon after that negotiation was completed. This second edition seems to be augmented on the basis of experience gained in living with the contract. The main text walks the reader through each element of a contract (e.g., terms of agree- ment, specification of governing law, schedule, acceptance testing, etc.), pro- vides sample contract language and adds comments and recommendations for how to cope with specific problems (e. g., negoti- ation of system reliability standards, p. 3-4). While the contract structure and the specification of contract elements may be useful, the real value of the book lies in the comments (e.g., the difference between two percent downtime and five percent downtime over one year is a system that is disabled for 140 additional hours). The practical value of these comments may be measured in wasted dollars, wasted staff hours, or frustrated library patrons. The section on system maintenance (p. 13-15) 319 alone, may be worth the cost of the book. On the negative side of the ledger, the book is somewhat difficult to use, because of its organization. It is composed of a pri- mary section-in outline form-on the ele- ments of a contract between a library and a vendor, and seven secondary sections, in- cluding examples of plans, sub-agreements, and schedules (and a seventeen-item bibli- ography). That is all that appears in the table of contents and there is neither an in- troduction, an overview, nor an index. It is very difficult to find a specific topic of inter- est without skimming through the text it- self. Second, the body of the text is a mixture of sample (or recommended; it isn't clear) contract language (identifiable by use of the word "shall"), comments on the language of particular portions of the contract (some- times labeled "comment " and sometimes not), and cross-references within the book itself (sometimes labeled "Note:"). The mix- ture of different elements-contract lan- guage, narrative, etc.-are sometimes con- fusing. Moreover, there are a number of small grammatical garbles which are slightly distracting. A bit of professional ed- iting would make this document both more readable and more useful. Third, Hegarty focuses on (or uses as an example; it isn't clear) automated circula- tion systems. This would be very useful if that is what the reader intends to buy. However, with a variety of other turnkey automated systems and sources for libraries on the market or soon to be made available (e.g., acquisitions, book fund accounting, cataloging, online bibliographic access), some language about how the contract should be redesigned or revised to account for different systems and services would have made the book more immediately use- ful to more readers. Last, the book comes as a photocopy of a typed original, with a velo binding. The binding of the reviewer's copy broke apart 320 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 the first time it was opened. However, it should be possible to rebind or staple it to- gether if this turns out to be a persistent problem. On balance, for those about to negotiate a contract with a vendor of automated sys- tems and services, the strengths of More loy of Contracts probably outweigh the weak- nesses. One gets what a contract says one will get; any help in writing a thorough, comprehensive, and airtight contract will be of usei-Donald Thompson, University of California Systemwide Administration, Office of the President, Berkeley, Califor- nia. Computer Science Resources: A Guide to Pro- fessional Literature. Compiled and edited by Darlene Myers. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1981 . 346p. $59.50 (ASIS members: $47.60), pa- perback. ISBN 0-914236-80-6. This comprehensive guide to the English- language literature of computer sciences Catalogs Qn-time Managed by professionals GRC provides • accurate • flexible • economical COM catalog services Contact Don Gill GENERAL RESEARCH CORPORATION A SUBSIDIARY OF FLOW GENERAL. INC. P.O Box 6770, Santa Barbara. Calofornoa 93111 (805) 964-7724 covers books, journals, technical reports, indexing and abstracting resources, directo- ries, dictionaries, handbooks, newsletters, software resources, proceedings, program- ming languages, and publishers. Its appen- dixes give information relating to career and salary trends, societies and associa- tions, academic computer-center libraries, commercial fairs and shows, and Myers' draft of a proposed expansion of the Library of Congress classification for the computer sciences. As Meyers states in the preface, "The work is designed to serve the needs of researchers, managers, librarians, consul- tants and systems analysts in academic, cor- porate and governmental data processing centers." Computer Science Resources, divided into ten main sections with five appendixes at the back, is on the whole easy to use. Since the book does not have an index, its table of contents becomes the key to infor- mation access. Its wide margins together with fairly large print make it very read- able. However, its unconventional ar- rangement of entries-letter by letter ig- noring conjunctions and prepositions instead of word by word-can be mislead- ing. For instance, "Computers and Urban Society" is arranged ahead of "Computer Survey." The word "and" and spaces be- tween words are ignored; resulting in Computersurban . .. filing before Compu- tersurvey. This practice does not follow the traditional library principle "nothing files before something. " The explanation of the idiosyncratic entry arrangement is only given in the preface. When people use a book for quick reference, they usually skip the preface and the introduction; some users will probably miss many terms as a result. The book is international in scope, rela- tively up-to-date, and informative. English titles published overseas, foreign pub- lishers, and trade fairs and shows pertain- ing to the computer industry are included in the directory. Most titles mentioned have been published since 1970 and many cita- tions are as recent as 1980. The annotations for each entry in "Indexing and Abstracting Resources," "Directories, Dictionaries, Handbooks," and "Software Resources'' are very informative. It would have been ideal if titles in the "Current Books" and "Computer-Related Journals" were also an- notated to aid users in selecting the mate- rials. Subject headings and cross-references used in various sections of the book are not al·ways consistent. For example, in the sec- tion "Current Books," there is a see refer- ence from "A. I. (Artificial Intelligence)" to "Cybernetics/ Artificial Intelligence/Ro- bots," but none from "Artificial Intelli- gence." However, in the section "Computer-Related Journals," the heading is "Artificial Intelligence" with a see also reference to "Cybernetics; Robots," but no reference from "A.l. (Artificial Intelli- gence)." In the "Current Books" section, "Careers/Vocational Guidance" is used as a subject heading. In the "Computer-Related Journals" section, "Employment" becomes the subject. There is no cross reference from either heading to the other in either section. In the "Computer-Related Journals" sec- tion, preceding and succeeding titles are linked by cross-references. The history of title changes is outlined whenever applica- ble under the entries for the current titles. This information is invaluable especially for librarians in identifying variant journal titles. Although there are see references un- der most former titles to current titles, some entries are omitted for previous titles. For example, Injosystems was formerly called Management and Business Automation and later changed to Business Automation with the merging of International Business Auto- mation and International Edition Business Automation. Then there was Business Au- tomation News Analysis Edition published Book Reviews 321 as a supplement to Business Automation. Surprisingly there are no see references un- der "Business Automation" and "Interna- tional Edition Business Automation" to "In- fosystems." Maybe it is because ''Business Automation" is quite similar to "Business Automation News Analysis Edition'' and "International Edition Business Automa- tion" is similar to "International Business Automation" and would have appeared close together if not adjacent to one an- other. Again some users may miss the links to the current titles. It might have been bet- ter to include a separate list for ceased jour- nals. Computer Science Uesources is the result of monumental effort and years of thorough research and careful planning. Its compiler and editor, Darlene Myers has been very active in the computer and information sci- ence field, and is the manager of the Com- puting Information Center at the Univer- sity of Washington. The wealth of information in the book and the currentness of cited materials are the prominent strengths. The flaws mentioned earlier are minor if users read the preface and the in- troduction in each section first. This refer- ence tool is strongly recommended for com- puter industry libraries as well as for medium-sized and large public and aca- demic libraries. Although more current, it does not wholly supplant Ciel Carter's Guide to Reference Sources in the Com- puter Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1974). Carter's entries are all annotated, and some of the citations are not included in the newer work.-Frauces Lau, Blackwell! North America, Beaverton, Oregon. 
5315	----	lib-MOCS-KMC364-20131012114451 322 Highlights of LIT A Board Meetings These highlights are published to inform division members of the activities of their board. They are abstracted from the official minutes. 1981 ALA Annual Conference San Francisco First Session June 29, 1981 Board members present: S. Michael Malinconico, Brigitte L. Kenney, Barbara E. Markuson, Nancy L. Eaton, Kenneth J. Bierman, Bonnie K. Juergens, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Helen Cyr, Heike Kordish, Donald P. Hammer. LITA ELECTION RESULTS. Vice-president/President-elect: Carolyn M. Gray Director-at-Large: Hugh Atkinson ALA Councilor: Bonnie K. Juergens VCCS Vice-chairperson/Chairperson-elect: Mary H. Karpinski VCCS Secretary: Patricia M. Paine VCCS Member-at-Large: Leon L. Drolet, Jr. AVS Chairperson: Anne T. Meyer A VS Vice-Chairperson/Chairperson-elect: Louis R. Pointon AVS Member-at-Large: Michael D. Miller ISAS Vice-chairperson/Chairperson-elect: James C. Thompson ISAS Member-at-Large: Sherrie Schmidt EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC MAIL PROJECT. The members of the board reviewed their experiences and impressions with the ONTYME Electronic Mail System. The general consensus was that the system was very good and every- one was pleased with it and wants to expand its use. The board has not yet used THE SOURCE, although we are now subscribers to the system. Motion was made by Markuson , seconded by Rehnberg, and passed that: the electronic mail project be extended through the Midwinter meeting, 1982, with a total budget of $2,000 from the inception of the project. UTA'S REPRESENTATION ON ANSI X-3. X-3 is the American National Standards Institute Committee on Computers and Information Processing. Dis- cussion included the mechanics of keeping the membership informed of proposed standards being considered, the large amount of time required of the representa- Highlights of Meetings 323 tive to monitor, study, and disseminate the proposed standards, and the costs involved for LIT A to support a representative. Juergens requested that if a division-wide representative to X-3 is appointed that that person should also be made ex officio to the ISAS/TESLA Committee or be liaison to the chair of ISAS. No action was taken. GOALS AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE. Kenney an- nounced that she had appointed an ad hoc Goals and Long-range Planning Com- mittee chaired by George Abbott. DIRECTORY OF LIBRARY SYSTEMS IN USE. The suggestion was made that a directory of the many automated systems in use in libraries would be very useful. A motion was made by Markuson, seconded by Kenney, and passed that: in response to inquiry about a directory to assist in identifying specific appli- cations of technology in libraries, media, and information centers, that the Publications Committee explore the feasibility of an online LIT A Directory of Library, Media, and Information Center Use of Technology. The investi- gation should consider format of description, potential of interactive online updating, and possible output byproducts, and should result in a draft RFP for consideration by the LIT A board for review at Midwinter. PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM AT PHILADELPHIA. Kenney announced her plans for the LIT A President's Program at the Philadelphia ALA Annual Confer- ence. She is planning to transmit by satellite to fifty receiving sites around the country an "ALA Sampler" of outstanding technically-based programs from the Philadelphia Conference and short vignettes of what ALA is all about. The subject of "0 n-line Catalogs" has been chosen for the President's Program and segments of it and the RTSD/LIT AIRASD preconference institute on the same subject will be used. The program is intended for people who cannot get to ALA conferences. If not enough registration is received by the coming ALA Midwinter Meeting the whole activity would be cancelled. ORAL HISTORY PROJECT. At the 1980 New York ALA Conference, the suggestion was made that in the future many of the pioneers in the field of library automation will pass off the scene and it was felt that it was LIT A's responsibility to capture for posterity the ideas and philosophy of those people. A motion was made by Kenney, seconded by Eaton, and passed that: an ad hoc committee be formed to investigate an oral history project in all aspects and submit a detailed set of alternative approaches for the Board's consideration. The Library History Roundtable will be informed of the committee's activity and invited to participate. Second Session June 30, 1981 Board members present: S. Michael Malinconico, Brigitte L. Kenney, Barbara E. Markuson, Nancy L. Eaton , Kenneth}. Bierman, Ronald F. Miller, Bonnie K. Juergens, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Helen Cyr , Heike Kordish , Charles Husbands, and Donald P. Hammer. 324 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 LITA SECTION REPORTS: ISAS. Bonnie Juergens, chairperson of ISAS, re- ported that the section has approved three programs for the Philadelphia Confer- ence. ASIS will be asked to cosponsor the program "Information Science, Com- puter Science, and Library Science: In Search of Common Ground". Another program is the "The Uses of Microcomputers in Medium-sized Public and Aca- demic Libraries," and the third one will be a detailed analysis and comparison of the MARC format. Juergens reported that the ISAS Retrospective Conversion Discussion Group and one of the same name in RTSD would like to combine. A motion was made by Juergens, and passed that: ISAS pursue appropriate steps to invite the RTSD section which currently hosts a discussion group on retrospective conversion to combine that discus- sion group with the LIT A/ISAS Retrospective Conversion Discussion Group. The invitation to RTSD will include a specific description of mutual responsibilities. ELECTRONIC LIBRARY MEMBERSHIP INITIATIVE GROUP. (Informa- tion report by Richard Sweeney, Public Library of Columbus and Franklin Co., Ohio; and Neal Kaske, OCLC.) Sweeney reviewed the discussions that took place at a meeting held in Columbus on March 23-24, 1981 concerned with the whole area of remote electronic access to information and its impact on the library field. The group concluded that its members want to have some input on a very immedi- ate level on the direction technology goes and the direction the policies and issues go. Out of that meeting came a mission statement which is now the function statement of the ALA Electronic Library Membership Initiative Group (ELMIG). Sweeney read that statement and reported on the group's concern for the future of libraries when these remote systems become established. He commented on the large number of programs and meetings on these areas that are not coordinated and not really providing the leadership our field should be giving. The almost total lack of research on these areas was also commented on. The need for the associa- tions to provide the leadership was stressed. Several members of the LITA Board expressed interest in providing a "home" for ELMIG within LITA as many of LIT A's interests are those of the MIG. Both groups are concerned with the same issues it was pointed out. LITA SECTION REPORTS: AUDIO-VISUAL SECTION. AVS recom- mended that an audiovisual task force be established, which would include other ALA units, and would share information about their plans, and would try to avoid major schedule conflicts and overlaps. A motion was made by Cyr, and passed that LIT A Board approve ad hoc LIT A A-V Section participation in a broad- based Task Force involving RTSD, PLA, ACRL, AASL and others to coordi- nate audiovisual-related activities. Cyr asked Board's sanction for a "A-V Interest Group Breakfast" where people could just socialize and talk together. This would be sometime in the future. The Board members had no objection. MARBI COMMITTEE REPORT. Elaine Woods reported that the MARBI Committee is focusing more on the principles and the issues that need to be Highlights of Meetings 325 addressed in the MARC format. The committee is current with L.C. proposals. MARBI has drawn up a shopping list of issues to be addressed and they are now working on some of them. PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT. Charles Husbands informed the Board that the Publications Committee feels it is time to change the title of lOLA. They have chosen a title of Information Technology and Libraries, and it is to be effective with the March 1982 issue. After discussion, a motion was made by Bonnie Juergens, and passed to that effect. The matter of raising the subscription price of lOLA was discussed. Due to the fact that the division's subsidy to the journal will greatly increase next budget year, the motion was made by Ken Bierman, and passed that: non-member prices for the journal of the Division be increased to $20 for a one-year subscription and $5.50 for a single issue, effective with March 1982, and that the published member subscription price be raised sufficiently to conform to postal regulation. Husbands requested that various members of the lOLA Editorial Board be included in the LITA Electronic Mail system. Approved by the Board by con- sensus. Husbands asked the Board to keep in mind the possibility of publishing some of the results of the oral history project in lOLA. Brian Aveney asked the Board to allow him to investigate the possibility of putting the full text of lOLA online. It would be an experiment to see what people would do with it. The Board approved by consensus. Aveney will return with a final proposal later. Other such ideas were discussed including the proposals to put the "headlines" from the LITA Newsletter on THE SOURCE, and to include the roster of LITA committees in the OCLC Address Directory. Arrangements are in process for both of these activities. GOALS AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE. George Abbott, chairperson, asked the Board's permission to include his committee on LIT A's electronic mail system. The intent would be to use it for text editing of committee documents. Board approved by consensus. Abbott reported that the committee expects to hold open hearings at Midwinter and to have a basic document for discussion at that time. Third Session June 30, 1981 Board members present: S. Michael Malinconico, Brigitte L. Kenney, Ronald F. Miller, Kenneth J. Bierman, Marilyn J. Rehnberg, Heike Kordish, and Donald P. Hammer. BYLAWS AND ORGANIZATION REPORT. There have been seven changes to the LIT A bylaws that Kordish will prepare in text form for the Board to act on at Midwinter in time for the spring ALA ballot. ALA PRIORITIES SURVEY. Ron Miller reported that the ALA Executive Board took action on the ALA priorities and there are five of them. Briefly, they are 326 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 14/4 December 1981 access to information , legislation and funding, intellectual freedom, public awareness, and personnel resources. JOINT COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS. Lynne Bradley reported that JCET has established a task force to bring information to its members about the new technologies and how they can best be used in education. Since LIT A members have much of the necessary expertise, Bradley suggested that LITA organize a one-day program for JCET. Some Board members were very much interested and Bradley was asked to work with the LIT A Program Planning Committee to organize such a program. PROGRAM PLANNING COMMITTEE. Sue Tyner reported that the Telecom- munications Committee will hold a preconference institute at the Philadelphia Annual Conference called "The Teleconference Center." It is intended to teach librarians how to set up a teleconference center. The LIT A group that has been putting on the "Data Processing Specifications and Contracting" workshops has been asked to hold a workshop prior to the IFLA meeting. Malinconico suggested that the Board adopt a policy of LIT A costs plus 15 percent, but that a subcommittee of the LIT A Program Planning Committee should be set up to define policy in this area. Carolyn Gray was suggested as a person for this committee. Marilyn Rehnberg, chairperson of VCCS, reported a request from National Audio-Visual Association asking LIT A to put on a " Video Showcase" for the seminar part of the NAVA Annual Conference in Anaheim in January. LIT A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETIN GS RECORD OF VOTES - 1981 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Motions (In order of appearance in the " Highlights") Board Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S. Michael Malinconico y y y y y y y y Brigitte L. Kenney y y y y y y y y Barbara E. Markuson y y y y y y y y Nancy L. Eaton y y y y y y y y Kenneth J . Bierman y y y y y y y y Honald F. Miller 0 0 0 y y y y y Angie W. LeCierq 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helen Cyr y y y y y y y y Bonnie K. Juergens y y y y y y y y Marilyn J. Rehnberg y y y y y y y y KEY: Y =Yes A= Abstain 0 =Absent