Two conceptual frameworks in descriptive cataloging (i.e., conceptual models in bibliographic database designing) have been proposed to conceptualize the bibliographic universe and to represent it as a structure: the three-layered model bar the author and the model proposed by the IFLA Study Group in "Functional Requirements for Bibliograpltic Records. Final Report."In this paper, the difference in the ways to construct a bibliographic entity between these two models is examined, and then the feasibility of integrating entitles shown in the two models is explored. Consequently, the following points are observed:(1) Each layer, which cotresponds to a bibliographic entity, of the three-layered model is constructed in a mutually exclusivze (i.e., parallel) manner. On the other hand, the IFLA model establishes a bibliographic entity in a hierarchical manner. (2) The two models are different in the ways for assigning attributes to the entities/layers. This difference should be considered to be restulted from the above difference, as well as the difference in the entity/layer regarded to be principal for cataloging. An integrated scheme for allocating attributes to the entities / layers and for mapping bibliograplaic elements to those attributes is proposed in leaving aside the latter difference.
According to the survey of the ALA in 1926, academic 1ibraray-use-instruction was generally done by following three types; (1) library-use orientation, (2) library-use-instrucion in relation with regular courses, e.g. English courses, (3) independent courses in regular curriculm, with lectures andpractice works. Library handbook, textbook and even motion pictures were used as instruction tools. These types of instruction in 1920's and 193O's seemed to be a root of those in present day's.
As the problem of entries in a catalogue of books, we examined about how to handle Tibetan names written in Chinese characters. At first we analyzed the present situation of transcribing Tibetan names into Chinese characters in Chinese books, and pointed out that this is transliterating the voices of Tibetan names, in which Tibetan letters cannot be reconstructed from Chinese charactersis. Next we considered problems of transcribing Tibetan language into romans, and were able to point out the following. The transliteration in letters is better than in voices. In transliterating Tibetan letters into romans, Wylie method and LC method are used by many people in the world. The former is more popular than the latter. And we considered the entries of Tibetan names in Japanese libraries. As the result, we foumd out the cases not considering the actual situation of Tibetan names, though they follow the data of NAC-SIS. Considering the circumstances mentioned above, we suggested that the lettres of Tibetan language should be transliterated into romans, which should be also considered in the data of NACSIS, and that being impossible of it, entries of Tibetan names should be expressed by Chinese characters and Pinyins. We thought it necessary to make the file of proper sources for these operations.