Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
On 23/08/2011 17:25, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: When discussing practical issues, it's not out of place to mention that latest research reveals that user knowledge and abilities are very low. This article was just announced What Students Don't Know http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/22/erial_study_of_student _research_habits_at_illinois_university_libraries_reveals_alarmingly_poor_i nformation_literacy_and_skills (referred to on another list, but there have been other similar research projects with very similar results), catalogs are already overly complex, and therefore, the display of the $e will be *only within the individual record*, and the records do that now more accurately with the 245$c. James, I'm having a hard time following this argument. I can't figure out how the therefore connects connects the phrases before and after it. I don't see anything in the article cited that has anything to do with the matter of including relator terms in subfield $e--not the mention the idea that the relator terms will be displayed only in the individual records (where did that last argument come from?). /snip Sorry for this poor writing. Essentially what I was trying to say is that research has shown that people find our catalogs very complex already (which indeed, they are) and people have little comprehension of what they are looking at. Increasing the complexity of the displays will only make it more complicated for the searchers. snip Have you ever used IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is often mentioned in discussions on this list? I would be *extremely* surprised (shocked, even) if I were to find that the relator terms were not used in that resource. For instance, search for the name Clint Eastwood and under Filmography you get a list of his credits, arranged in categories: Actor | Director | Producer | Soundtrack | Composer | Miscellaneous Crew | Camera and Electrical Department | Writer | Thanks | Self | Archive Footage. This is exactly the kind of function that relator terms make possible. I find it rather curious that you complain about people not using catalogs because they are not providing the kind of functionality that other internet resources provide, yet if we argue for doing something to include that functionality it's something that people don't want or need. /snip I understand how relator terms can function, and I had already mentioned that people in graphic arts say that this is important to them. My statement is: somebody must show that a substantial majority of people want and need these capabilities so badly instead of just taking it all for granted. We only have so many catalogers with only so much time, and numbers are not going to increase any time soon. We'll probably be lucky to keep numbers relatively stable. Any additional work we undertake will necessarily be at the expense of something else, therefore, there must be some kind of prioritization, otherwise we risk overreaching ourselves and inevitable collapse. It is obvious that even maintaining the current levels of cataloging standards has been too much for many libraries, so it only makes sense to question what would happen in reality if we take on additional responsibilities. If we do not consider practical issues everything remains safely locked away in the fairy land of theory and conjecture, while real people--both patrons and librarians--will have to suffer the consequences in the real world. Perhaps in some areas, this information is more important, perhaps in films, but it still remains to be shown that it is so vital that we must devote the additional resources to adding that information at the obvious expense of productivity. Be that as it may, I cannot imagine that very many people would need to search texts by editors vs. authors. In the case of the IMDB, if it is determined that people need relators so desperately, we can look at it in another, more modern, way: do we really have to redo all of their work, or would it make more sense to cooperate by inter-operating with their database in some way? As I keep trying to point out: we have what we have. Catalogers stopped adding relator codes and maybe they shouldn't have but we don't have a time machine to travel back and convince them otherwise. Too bad in lots of ways, but that's the breaks. The first, very practical, task should be to make what we have *now* more useful to people. Then, once we have helped people substantially, to figure out what is missing or what needs to be changed. There is plenty of time to figure out eventual changes, but little time to demonstrate how we can really make a difference in people's lives. -- James weinheimerweinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus:http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules:http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Regarding the extra time argument, I will just say this succinctly. At Stanford, we did not use relator codes/terms under AACR2. We do under RDA (though, as previously stated, we have the option to leave them out if choosing one leads to agonizing). After our initial training period, in which the burden to add relator terms was only one among the suite of new/different practices, my productivity has returned to previous levels. Several of my colleagues have reported the same. Put another way: in performing the intellectual work to decide whether to trace a person, body, work, etc., the cataloger already has a solid idea, in the preponderance of cases, about the nature of the relationship. Typing a few extra characters at the end of the field to encode this relatinoship does not constitute an appreciable amount of extra time, any more than spelling out abbreviations (another straw man argument often proffered on this list) does. Put yet another way: it's not a question of taking extra time, it's a question of encoding the fruits of our intellectual work in way that is friendly to humans AND machines, and thereby making better use of the precious time we have. Cheers, Casey On 8/24/2011 1:39 AM, James Weinheimer wrote: On 23/08/2011 17:25, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: When discussing practical issues, it's not out of place to mention that latest research reveals that user knowledge and abilities are very low. This article was just announced What Students Don't Know http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/22/erial_study_of_student _research_habits_at_illinois_university_libraries_reveals_alarmingly_poor_i nformation_literacy_and_skills (referred to on another list, but there have been other similar research projects with very similar results), catalogs are already overly complex, and therefore, the display of the $e will be *only within the individual record*, and the records do that now more accurately with the 245$c. James, I'm having a hard time following this argument. I can't figure out how the therefore connects connects the phrases before and after it. I don't see anything in the article cited that has anything to do with the matter of including relator terms in subfield $e--not the mention the idea that the relator terms will be displayed only in the individual records (where did that last argument come from?). /snip Sorry for this poor writing. Essentially what I was trying to say is that research has shown that people find our catalogs very complex already (which indeed, they are) and people have little comprehension of what they are looking at. Increasing the complexity of the displays will only make it more complicated for the searchers. snip Have you ever used IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is often mentioned in discussions on this list? I would be *extremely* surprised (shocked, even) if I were to find that the relator terms were not used in that resource. For instance, search for the name Clint Eastwood and under Filmography you get a list of his credits, arranged in categories: Actor | Director | Producer | Soundtrack | Composer | Miscellaneous Crew | Camera and Electrical Department | Writer | Thanks | Self | Archive Footage. This is exactly the kind of function that relator terms make possible. I find it rather curious that you complain about people not using catalogs because they are not providing the kind of functionality that other internet resources provide, yet if we argue for doing something to include that functionality it's something that people don't want or need. /snip I understand how relator terms can function, and I had already mentioned that people in graphic arts say that this is important to them. My statement is: somebody must show that a substantial majority of people want and need these capabilities so badly instead of just taking it all for granted. We only have so many catalogers with only so much time, and numbers are not going to increase any time soon. We'll probably be lucky to keep numbers relatively stable. Any additional work we undertake will necessarily be at the expense of something else, therefore, there must be some kind of prioritization, otherwise we risk overreaching ourselves and inevitable collapse. It is obvious that even maintaining the current levels of cataloging standards has been too much for many libraries, so it only makes sense to question what would happen in reality if we take on additional responsibilities. If we do not consider practical issues everything remains safely locked away in the fairy land of theory and conjecture, while real people--both patrons and librarians--will have to suffer the consequences in the real world. Perhaps in some areas, this information is more important, perhaps in films, but it still remains to be shown that it is so vital that we must devote the additional resources to adding that
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu: Regarding the extra time argument, I will just say this succinctly. At Stanford, we did not use relator codes/terms under AACR2. We do under RDA (though, as previously stated, we have the option to leave them out if choosing one leads to agonizing). After our initial training period, in which the burden to add relator terms was only one among the suite of new/different practices, my productivity has returned to previous levels. Several of my colleagues have reported the same. snip Put yet another way: it's not a question of taking extra time, it's a question of encoding the fruits of our intellectual work in way that is friendly to humans AND machines, and thereby making better use of the precious time we have. And IMO the time, even if significant, is worthwhile. In music, the roles of vocalist, instrumental performer, conductor, composer and editor are all significant, and one person may well occupy several of those roles in a lifetime. In textual works, the roles of author, editor, translator are likewise significant. It should be easy to search for a person's name, then specify whether one wants to select resources where that name figures as author, or in another specified intellectual role, or even as subject. Save the reader's timer, anyone? Once we've got away from the minimalist mindset which led to abandonment of relator terms at the implementation of AACR2, we can recognize their value, and begin to insist that public catalogues provide ways of making use of them. It's all very well to say that catalogues are too complicated; but that's because of the nature of the resources, reflected in the data. We need to begin to insist on plain, straightforward features to help users get the best out of our intellectual effort. Relationships need to be easier to follow; simply leaving them out is no benefit. Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
