College and Research Libraries 150 I College & Research Libraries • March 1972 and of student and faculty populations, and brief descriptions are provided of the major university libraries and their research col- lections. The problems facing the major li- braries are reduced here primarily to a dis- cussion of the inadequacy of research re- sources. One must turn to the final chapter for some indication of the strains placed on basic library resources and services by the growth of undergraduate-level populations both in these universities and in the sur- rounding junior and community colleges, and in some cases new universities, often founded with inadequate collections and facilities. Campbell also refers to increasing concern on the part of government _and uni- versity administrations over mounting li- brary costs, leading to proposals for sharing of resources, or "rationalization," such as that in Ontario. The results of these pres- sures can be seen in the increasing sophisti- cation of library procedures, including some highly successful automated systems, and the development of regional cooperation in library services for higher education-vol- untary or otherwise. Campbell points to the coordination of library services at all levels-particularly with the strong lead taken by the National Library-as one of the emerging character- istics . of what may be a distinctive Canadi- an "style." He rightly pays tribute to the debt Canada owes to foreign methods and ideas on which our earliest services were based, and to the expertise of the many Americans who were brought in as admin- istrators during the formative years. But it is his attempt to identify and define for us what is distinctively Canadian--difficult though such a task may be-that gives this book its sb·ength and unity.-Anne Brear- le y Piternick, School of Librarianship, Uni- versity of British Columbia, Vancouver. Copyright: A Selected Bibliography of Periodical Literature Relating to Liter- ary Property in the United States. Matt Roberts. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1971. 416p. $10. This is a monumental work that should be of interest to all librarians. An under- standing of literary property should be one of the more important attributes of librari- anship, and I have always been puzzled by its omission from the library school curricu- lum. The author defines literary property as that part of the law of copyright that deals with printed materials, and he excludes maps, designs, music, radio and television, and music. In other words, this is a bibliog- raphy of that part of copyright that most concerns college and research libraries- books. This bibliography is limited to the peri- odical literature in English related to liter- ary property in the United States and its international aspects. It contains 6,214 cita- tions gathered from approximately 500 pe- riodicals. With so many entries on one sub- ject, a straight alphabetical listing would be too unwieldy. The author attempts to avoid this through classification. Thus, the law of literary property is divided into twenty-six classes ( A- Z) . Each article is listed only once in its most approximate class. The problems of placing an article with related subjects in any one class is supposedly avoided by placing at the end of each section "see" references to entries in other classes. This, at times, makes the bibliography awkward and time-consuming in its use. For example, most articles on the problem of photocopying in libraries are placed in Section V, "Fair Use," and Copy- right. To find every article on this topic, one has to examine items in seventeen other classes, including 131 in Class E (Statu- tory Copyright in the United States-Do- mestic Legislation) , 28 items in Class U (Copyright Infringement and Remedies) , and 25 items in Class W (Copyright and the American Library) . While realizing the listing of articles in more than one class would nearly double the size of the book (and the price) , an analytic subject index would have helped to eliminate much of this problem. A spot check in the Index to Legal Peri- odicals and a few other bibliographies in- dicated that only very few articles have been overlooked by the author. I did find omitted such mticles as "Revision of the Copyright Law: Statement of the Ameri- can Council of Learned Secretaries on the Copyright Revision Bill" [American Coun- cil of Learned See1·etaries N.ewsletter 16: 1- 15 (Dec. 1965) ]; and Ernest Bruncken, "The Philosophy of Copyright" [Musical Quarterly 2:477- 96 ( 1916) ]. Admittedly, these are from obscure publications and no J +· • bibliographer should ever be held to total perfection. This publication, along with Henriette Mertz, "Copyright Bibliography for Check- ing Purposes" (Copyright Office, Library of Congress, 1950, 213p.) should be in ev- ery library. With them, adequate access to the literature of copyright and literary property will be assured. Finally, it must be noted that although this work carries a 1971 copyright date, its cut-off date is 1968. It is to be hoped that the author is planning a supplement.- /. Myron ]acobstein, Law Librarian and Professor of Law, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Harris, Jessica Lee. Subject Analysis: Computer Implications of Rigorous Definition. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1970. 279p. $7.50. In order to comprehend and assess this volume as a unit, its subtitle must be taken seriously. Many who have read other works in the field of "subject analysis" will find Harris' book to be quite different from what they have come to expect. The work is not philosophical or expository in the tra- dition of Cutter, Mann, Pettee, Haykin, or Metcalfe. On a superficial level it could be "put down" (both literally and figurative- ly) as being stylistically a technical report rather than a treatise. Despite the parapher- nalia of statistical analysis, however, and the formal hypothetical research terminolo- gy, Harris' work cannot be dismissed as just another library science dissertation. Jessica Harris has already established something of a reputation in librarian-ship on the basis of her work with Theodore Hines, resulting in their 1966 publication, Computer Filing of Index, Bibliographic, and Catalog Entries, and as teacher at Co- lumbia University's School of Library Ser- vice. Thus the appearance of her disserta- tion occasions perhaps more notice than would be accorded an unknown writer. Further, Americans have not in recent years written many entire books on subject analy- sis; thus, greater attention must be paid to the few that do emerge. "Subject analysis" in Harris' work refers primarily to subject headings, and in par- ticular, to those found in the Suh;ect Head- ings Used in the Dictionary Catalogs of the Recent Publications I 151 Library of Congress, 7th edition. After re- viewing some of the history of the develop- ment of subject headings in the United States under the aegis of Charles Cutter, Harris delineates four analyses of Library of Congress headings: ( 1 ) use of aspect subdivisions, (2) use of adjective-noun phrases, ( 3) relative scope of headings for use in different types of collections, and ( 4) use of form headings. For each of these, she designed a specific process of in- vestigation, generally making use of sam- pling techniques and logical analysis to test a number of hypotheses. On the basis of her findings, she has projected certain ad- justments in the form of Library of Con- gress subject headings which will enable them to be arranged by computer in a filing sequence acceptable for library use. Cer- tain of the modifications are sufficiently formal in nature to be accomplished in a strictly mechanical fashion; others are more subtle, requiring complex judgments which must be implemented manually. Harris could be charged with rewriting the Library of Congress headings in many cases. She believes, however, on the basis of her four studies, that the recommended adjustments are legitimate and express more accurately and consistently the intent of the headings. It might be noted that John C. Rather, in his "provisional version" (March 1971) of Filing Arrangement in the Library of Congress Catalogs, advocates making no such modifications, arguing, "It is illogical to construct a heading one way and then to file it as if it were constructed another way" (p.v). Whether or not Harris' thesis is convinc- ing, her reworking of the headings could produce a list which-especially in ma- chine-readable form-would lend itself to a more intelligent analysis of the meaning and value of the various types of headings. For example, when inverted headings are changed to nouns with the adjective as a subdivision preceded by a dash, the re- sultant interfiling of "comma" and "dash" headings raises pertinent questions about the need for both punctuation patterns. From the standpoint of stimulating further research, Harris' suggestions have consid- erable merit, even though both theoreti- cians and practitioners may wish to quarrel with her about a number of points.