>James Weinheimer wrote: "Of course, no library is going to advertise >something like that..."
Libraries do advertise their practices every time they enter metadata into a shared database. My original email was intended to communicate that what we have seen so far contradicts your concern that catalogers will not, for the most part, go beyond the minimum for transcribing/tracing creators. The reason we took personal and institutional responsibility to be part of the test was specifically to move beyond sweeping hypotheticals, or fears of the potentially nefarious, and instead inform our opinions by applying the standard, building a base of evidence, and contributing constructive feedback to make the content standard better. Call it a crazy vested interest! My response was intended to offer what we have learned so far through that process of directly creating or triaging upwards of 7,000 RDA bibliographic records (I haven't even counted the authority records). If one chooses to discount this real-life experience in favor of a hypothetical, I suppose that's one's prerogative. >"they shouldn't be allowed to muck everything up for everybody" We'll have to chalk this up to different philosophical standpoints, I guess. I don't consider a brief/minimal record "muck" unless it's factually wrong, or coded incorrectly. I see it as an opportunity -- an opportunity to take what one institution felt met its needs or abilities or budget and make it more robust, and contribute that work to the collaborative for use and re-use. I have no expectation that RDA, Dublin Core, EAD, DACS, TEI, FGDC, MARC, or any other content or encoding standard will ever result in a single iteration of a universally-perfect record that meets 100% of the needs of 100% of the population. If that utopian vision were attainable, the only people we would need to employ are original catalogers. All copy catalogers would be unnecessary because all available copy would be universally perfect, right? If that's what you thought RDA was trying to accomplish, or should accomplish, then you're absolutely correct -- you shouldn't implement it, it won't get you there. >"RDA has determined that a single author is good enough." No it hasn't. It has defined a floor, and given the cataloging agency the power and flexibility to define "good enough" for itself beyond that floor. >"I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that >co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other >contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all." Exactly, couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why we have CHOSEN not to apply the minimum at OUR institution for the vast majority of what we do. Eight months and seven thousand records later, I can say with some confidence that RDA has presented no barrier or hindrance for Chicago to accomplish exactly what you are arguing for, James. But that doesn't mean that a different institution will make, what is for them, an equally-valid but different treatment decision for the same resource; the contribution they make to the collective is no less valuable. If a resource is peripheral to their collection and they don't need to invest in creating as robust metadata as we need for the same resource, which may be central to our collection, then we will add what we need. That's why we are here. --Chris. ___________________________________________ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? On 05/20/2011 04:20 PM, Christopher Cronin wrote: <snip> >> James Weinheimer wrote: "It is simply unrealistic to think people will do >> more than the minimum." > Is is? I have yet to hear of a single library in the test, or that > subsequently implemented RDA, that has made a policy to limit description and > access to the first named creators just because RDA says we can. In fact, I > have heard and seen evidence demonstrating exactly the opposite. RDA's > elimination of the ceiling that was the 'Rule of Three' has freed catalogers > to transcribe full statements of responsibility, and as a BIBCO institution, > we are providing access points and authority control with the same mindset as > we always have -- if it is important for discovery and access, we do the > work. But even if another library did do just the minimum, perhaps because > that's truly all they could afford, or all they required to meet their > particular needs, or all they felt was warranted by the resource for their > purposes, I'm certainly not going to malign it. I say great -- contribute > your minimum to the collective and we'll add to it. That's why we have a > collective. > > I simply do not understand this impetus to underestimate the ability of > catalogers to put what they do into a larger context. I don't employ any > robots here at Chicago, I employ professional catalogers with the capacity to > use their best, experienced, reasoned, and well-informed judgment. And I > certainly don't equate the application of professional cataloger's judgment > with "Do whatever you feel like!" nor have I have seen evidence that the > catalogers do either. If bosses need to be subverted because they don't > understand what catalogers do, why they do it, and for whom, that's the > boss's problem, not RDA's. Communities don't write content standards to > subvert ill-informed bosses. Implementing RDA, and understanding the FRBR > model behind it, has only heightened, not diminished, Chicago's catalogers' > focus on the needs of the user -- even if meeting those needs is at the > expense of the cataloger's (i.e., taking time to spell things out rather than > abbreviate, and transcribe full statements of responsibility, etc.). > > We are arguing for the same thing -- providing the best possible level of > access for our users. But "minimum" and "best possible" is relative to the > resource, the institution, and the user -- the RDA instructions for minimally > providing the first-named creator simply recognizes that relativity and > allows an institution to make choices to go beyond it. With the ceiling > removed, the sky is the limit. In the 2,000 or so RDA copy cataloging > records we have imported since October 2010, we have not seen evidence of a > problem with this instruction. Metadata has been very robust so far in our > exeprience. But again, if you think it isn't working, then it would be > helpful not just to read the complaint, but also a proposed solution or > alternative to the instructions in question. </snip> Of course, no library is going to advertise something like that, just as the food industry is not advertising how they are shrinking their packages and raising prices at the same time (lots of articles out there, here is a recent one http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/04/food_prices_costs_packages_con.html). People do these things quietly so that they don't have to hear a lot of howling. Also, although a catalog division or individual cataloger may start out having every intention of being ethical, doing it "right", etc. these intentions change over time as everyone feels the increasing pressure for more productivity, and catalogers will most probably be pushed hard in the future. These sorts of pressures happen all the time in all fields--and that is precisely why the government established minimums for the business world, to guarantee specific levels of quality, so that when times are tough, the quality doesn't go down too far. This is only being realistic. The standards are based on what people need, not on what resources a company has available at the moment, and if a company cannot produce a minimal quality product, they shouldn't be allowed to muck everything up for everybody. Perhaps this is not very nice, but critical in society. RDA has determined that a single author is good enough. I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all. And although you may not want to equate cataloger's judgment with "Do whatever you feel like!" it nevertheless remains true, because it will follow the standards. (I wrote a post on this to Autocat http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/12/re-author-added-entries-under-rda_29.html) -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
