Jim,
I recognise that you disagree with the report (and me!) that consistency in "metadata of judgement" is feasible. I would say that whatever consistency has been achieved in the past (and I'm not convinced it is as consistent as you suggest here - if it was, then issues such as FRBRisation, deduping etc. would not be half the problem they are today) has been achieved by trying to create a 'controlled environment' with partial success - I believe that the advent of the web fundamentally changed our ability to control our environment. However, all this aside (which we could I'm sure discuss for sometime preferably over a glass or several of something nice), what I think we should be clear on is that the report under discussion does not make an argument of automatic creation of "metadata of judgement" - such as subject headings. The report says explicitly about deep/broad records relating to "metadata of judgement" that "computer technology is not yet at a stage to replace human effort in this regard". The report also is doubtful that automatic creation of 'brief' records of "metadata of judgement" is possible at the current time saying "brief judgemental records are the domain of humans (and maybe computers)" Owen Owen Stephens Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources Central Library Imperial College London South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: 14 November 2008 12:56 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA Owen Stephens wrote: > The question of 'feasibility' takes us beyond a question of whether it > is 'worth it' to whether it can be done. What the report says is that > the authors do not believe it is possible to achieve consistency with > metadata of judgement except within "a tightly controlled, narrow and > consistent environment" - and the repository environment is not any of > these things. This is not just about cost, but about people and their > behaviour. No argument here. I was being generous in my original message, but I went on to say that it is possible to achieve consistency in "metadata of judgement." I will go on to say that people have relied precisely on this "consistency" for over a hundred years, if not far longer, and for someone to say that it isn't feasible is an unjustified conclusion, in my opinion. Certainly, this consistency is not 100%, and people must be trained to do it correctly (I fear that current training in subject analysis and heading assignment is not improving). For many years, studies have shown that two different, highly-trained people will assign different subjects to the same item. My reply is: so what? This ignores the power of the syndetic structure of the catalog, where users can find related terms and therefore find everything. Perhaps one cataloger assigns "Despotism" while another assigns "Authoritarianism," users can still use the syndetic structure to find the works. Humans may not "hit the bull's-eye" each time, but they will come close, and with the use of the structures, things should be found. Compare this to computer systems automatically assigning terms that are completely off the mark. Instead of either of the headings above, a computer may come up with "Military art and science" or "x-ray photography." I realize that general understanding of the use and importance of the syndetic structure is not appreciated, and this is probably because it is so poorly implemented in our current catalogs. Before concluding that something that has been relied upon for such a long time is not "feasible," a little more work should take place and the alternatives need to be explored in depth. I will be the first to agree that deep and profound changes are needed and that automated subject assignment is improving and may actually work someday. But not today. Jim Weinheimer
