The authors analyze the contribution of Yury Nikolaevich Stolyarov, an outstanding librarian, documentary scholar, historian of book culture, to the development of the Moscow State Institute of Culture (MGIK). The conceptual and organizational solutions developed and implemented by Y. N. Stolyarov during his work for MGIK are discussed. The article is dedicated to the memory of  Yury N. Stolyarov.

Yury Nikolaevich Stolyarov is an outstanding classic of the Russian library and information science who made an invaluable contribution into the studies of its diverse aspects. He investigated into the library theory and methodology and efficiently applied the range of research approaches, with the focus on system and multidisciplinary methodology. Y. Stolyarov has developed the scholarly discipline of library collection studies. He introduced this vector as a valid, relevant and systemic scientific knowledge, and as a scientific activities of result-oriented, self-correcting, dynamic and continuing character. In his works, Y. Stolyarov provided in-depth characteristics of library collection, criteria, and principles of selection for various document types and formats with account of user information needs. He explored the library collection development cycle in the aggregate of its basic processes, namely modelling, acquiring, organizing, and managing.  

The author retraces the story of his friendship and scholarly interaction with Yury N. Stolyarov, from the encounter to the last meeting, and recollects the closest cooperation periods. Y. L. Shrayberg emphasizes the role of Y. N. Stloyarov in his academic career. He mentions the points of their disagreement, namely the number of elements of the library basic formula, definition of “electronic library”. The author also appreciates Stolyarov’s contribution to his three-volume book project “My friend Katya Genieva”.  

The article is devoted to Yury Nikolaevich Stolyarov, a prominent Russian scholar in the field of library science, documentation, book and computer studies. The author makes emphasis on Stolyarov’s widest expertise, from the library collection studies at the outset of his academic career, to the library science, etc. The author accentuates Stolyarov’s unique approaches and sharp polemics of his publications. In his articles, Stolyarov discussed the hottest problems in the librarianship, bibliology, documentology, informatics, and cultural studies. The author also refers to his literary research works, namely the articles “Why Pushkin didn’t become a librarian”, “What is Eugene Onegin about?”, “Taras Bulba by N. Gogol”, ‘Infernal Lermontov”, etc. He was also interested in the book theme in the religious literature. The author touches on the theme of his personal relations with Yury Stolyarov at different periods of their co-working.

The article is dedicated to the memory of Yury N. Stolyarov, an outstanding Russian library scholar. Through personal memories, the image is drawn of an enthusiastic scientist, a man of extensive knowledge, true culture and modesty.  

The impact of Stolyarov’s scientific ideas of Yury N. Stolyarov is demonstrated through the analysis of citations of his works using the RSCI information retrieval tools. 

The article is dedicated to the memory of Yury Nikolaevich Stolyarov, an outstanding Soviet and Russian scientist and pedagogue, facilitator of science and higher education, the largest specialist in the field of library science, documentology, book science and computer science, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Honored Worker of the Higher School of the Russian Federation, President of the Library Science Department of the International Academy of Informatization, full member of the Russian Academy of Humanities, Honorary Professor of Moscow State Institute of Culture and Chelyabinsk State Institute of Culture. The memoirs and reflections on Yury N. Stolyarov as a mentor and a friend are presented, and the authors' personal impressions of this in many ways amazing personality are given. 

The author discusses the contribution of Yury N. Stolyarov as the head of Library Collections and Catalogs Chair of the Moscow State Institute of Culture (MGIK). Lyubov Zuparova as MGIK chair professor and secretary memorizes the period of August, 1991-August, 2007, when Yury N, Stolyarov headed the MGIK Chair of Library Collections and Catalogs. The author lists the members of subject commissions “Library Collection” and “Library Catalogs”, characterizes their research and pedagogical potential. The efforts of the faculty to save the chair in the tough times of perestroika and to introduce the new, for the Institute, specialty “Documentology and Administration Document Support” are characterized. The author emphasizes the influence of the specialty on the subject scope of Y. Stolyarov’s studies. She discusses the professional development, initiatives, and faculty relationship, as well as the personal qualities of Yury Stolyarov, as the head and organizer of learning process, his role in support of the chair members’ professional development.  

The author focuses on the enormous contribution made by Yury N. Stolyarov to the development of the methodology of modern bibliology, discusses the basic provisions of Stolyarov’s document theory as applied to the studies of special bibliological problems.

The author substantiates the priority of documentological approach to the study of the concept of the book, based on the method “from the abstract to the concrete”, which was used by Yu. N. Stolyarov to study the document. The author also argues that this approach enables to consider the book as a component of the comprehensive documentive system and to identify the trends in its development in the digital environment. She also defines the terms of “substantial document” and “functional document”, introduced by Stolyarov to develop the book typology. The contribution of Yu. N. Stolyarov’s works to the system characterization of the book as an object of communication, as well as to the development of problems of book culture and the culture of the book, is emphasized.  

The author concludes that the fundamental studies in documentology by  Yu. N. Stolyarov have laid the foundation for modern bibliology and are highly relevant, in particular for training future librarians and publishers, as they provide the comprehensive understanding of the book and its status in the structure of the document.

The author summarizes the outstanding contribution made by  Yury N. Stolyarov to the library and information science. She characterizes theoretical, methodological and organizational aspects of the library collection studies as presented in Stolarov’s monographs, textbooks and manuals, and their applications in the practice of public libraries.

Building the database “The library of Varvara Pavlovna Adrianova-Peretz” in the IRBIS64 library automation system revealed a number of problems related to books bibliographical records. This distributed book collection is preserved in the Rare Books and Manuscripts Department of the State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS SB) and in the library of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the RAS Institute of Russian Literature (The Pushkin House). The database seeding based on the study of “The Adrianova” book collection de visu, enables to eliminate invalid information in the SPSTL SB RAS e-catalogue and to provide the more convenient and faster access to the books in the unique memorial library of the outstanding Russian scientist. The database is of interest to the scholars of the humanities and readers interested in the literary studies, history, culture and folklore.  

The author characterizes the database as the comprehensive bibliographical descriptions of the collection copies. He lists the main special reference sources used in the process. The findings of the study of Novosibirsk part of Adrianova collection are characterized. The author discusses the prospects for the studies of the two collection parts to build the aggregated database of the distributed book collection with the following publishing of V. P. Adrianova-Peretz’ library catalog.  

The author describes the bibliographic reconstruction of the library collection of Orenburg Theological Seminary suppressed in 1919 after the October Revolution. The problems of library collection reconstruction has been studied since the early 20-th century; however, with mainly the personal libraries of individual historical figures or families in the focus. Many methods of reconstruction have been developed. Their analysis examination demonstrates that the reconstruction in these cases is based on continuous looking through the collection in search of bookplates (ex libris), covers, book marks or other tags, or on searching and examining old inventories, library syllabi, and catalogs. However, when the major part of the collection is not preserved within other institutions, and the catalogs, syllabi and inventories do not exist anymore, these methods do not work. To reconstruct the library collection of Orenburg Theological Seminary with the lion’s share lost, the archival documents became almost exclusively the source of information on the library collection, namely teaching and educational reports, administration’s logbooks, bills, etc.  

Based on the communicative and structural approaches, the author discusses the status of the term “visual sources in rare books of science” and related terms, as well as the visual sources classification and role in the rare books of science. The analysis, synthesis, systemic, structural, axiomatic, modelling and typology methods, as well as generalization and classification are applied.  The visual sources make the subject of the study. Presenting visual sources in research works is a research method: the images are “to reveal” the textual component. The originality and value of the article lies in the author’s intent to define the place of visual sources and contained visual information within the terminological space of the rare science books. For this purpose, the author examines the definitions of visual sources in scientific literature and attempts herself to construct the term. The focus is made on the term “documentary visual source” that virtually is not used in scientific literature. In this context, the author discusses the terms “documentology” and “document”. Based on the related literature analysis, she concludes that no precise definition of visual sources classes and types exists. The author suggests sample classification of visual sources in science books and presents it in two tables. Further development of the definition would improve the terminological foundation of the visual sources. The goal of the article is to demonstrate the significance of the visual sources in the rare science books and their potential relevance for modern studies.