Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
To continue this line of dissention, I can't help but notice that that bastion of the fabled web 2.0, Wikipedia, also shows references using such terribly terribly outmoded terms such as et al. ed. etc.. I went to a cataloguing meeting recently where the removal of such terms was celebrated in favour of cluttering up records by unnecessary avoidance of any abbreviation, on the rather patronising basis that most people are too thick or ignorant to figure out what these widely used terms refer to! Actually, technical terms like DVD and CD were still allowed - da kids will know bout dem. Disney has dem, and der Backstreet boys! Coool Has anyone told anybody else who deals with bibliographic reference? Thrilling though it may seem to try and get down with the kids by not expecting them to have to deal with widely used and popular terms invented before 1985, RDA really is beginning to look to me like an amazing way to show the rest of the information world that us library cataloguers are highly skilled at barking up the wrong tree... While I'm on this little soapbox, it might also be worth pointing out that RDA is a highly overused abbreviation. try it on google - other than what most people recognise it as, recommended daily allowance, there are also a whole host of other terms and companies using those initials AACR at least only really shared with the American Association for Cancer Research! Martin Kelleher Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool At 04:37 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: Stephen Hearn wrote: If searchers are much happier sorting through multiple results than finding one, happier in an environment of competing claims than of one governed by some form of authority, offended by any attempt to redirect their search from their preferred term to the one used in a resource, and would rather see personal links to my favorite sites than clear, authoritative indications of available information on related topics--all long-standing features of the way library catalogs serve searchers needs--then why is Wikipedia so popular? Wait, who said they were happier with those things? Nobody I've seen on this list, or really anywhere else. I think this is a straw man. But of course you are right, users are not happier with those things, the various kinds of collocation and relationship assigning that both catalogers, wikipedia, and many other information organization projects, perform in varying ways, are of course useful services, when done effectively. Who is it that says otherwise? Jonathan Wikipedia's acceptance of community input is obviously also very important to its success, and in that regard it's an instructive model for us, too. But would people like our catalogs better if they were really modeled on Google searches on the open web? Wikipedia's success in just that environment suggests not. Stephen At 12:48 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It should be considered a Good Thing if these independent booksellers use WorldCat or LoC data (and what's in Amazon looks very much like the LoC record http://lccn.loc.gov/2007277697). Those who don't often present very incomplete records. kc Mike Tribby wrote: My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
Mr. Kelleher wrote: To continue this line of dissention, I can't help but notice that that bastion of the fabled web 2.0, Wikipedia, also shows references using such terribly terribly outmoded terms such as et al. ed. etc.. I went to a cataloguing meeting recently where the removal of such terms was celebrated in favour of cluttering up records by unnecessary avoidance of any abbreviation, on the rather patronising basis that most people are too thick or ignorant to figure out what these widely used terms refer to! Actually, technical terms like DVD and CD were still allowed - da kids will know bout dem. Disney has dem, and der Backstreet boys! Coool Has anyone told anybody else who deals with bibliographic reference? Thrilling though it may seem to try and get down with the kids by not expecting them to have to deal with widely used and popular terms invented before 1985, RDA really is beginning to look to me like an amazing way to show the rest of the information world that us library cataloguers are highly skilled at barking up the wrong tree... While I'm on this little soapbox, it might also be worth pointing out that RDA is a highly overused abbreviation. try it on google - other than what most people recognise it as, recommended daily allowance, there are also a whole host of other terms and companies using those initials AACR at least only really shared with the American Association for Cancer Research! Martin Kelleher Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool To which I reply: Amen! Well said. ** Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D. Assistant Professor School of Library and Information Sciences University of North Texas email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101 **
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:22 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all? Wise and witty Hal Cain of Australia writes on Autocat: While browsing in the Mount Horeb, [Wis.], Mustard Museum, I discovered that a person I used to know well has written a cookbook. Today I looked it and him up on Amazon and much to my surprise the publisher of the book was listed as S.N. (January 2006). Now I'm fine with Amazon listing things any old way they choose to, but haven't we heard repeatedly in this august forum that Latin abbreviations like s.n. or s.l., let alone op. cit. or ca. are just too oblique for the Internet-savvy library patron of today to understand? What's wrong with Amazon? Have they been taken over by stick in the mud book catalogers? Or is it possible that Latin abbreviations still have a place in commerce-- and perhaps the literary marketplace? But certainly not in library catalogs. I'm so confused. Again. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This certainly belongs in the Archives of RDA discussions. Mac Mike added later: I saw the same thing on a couple of other entries in Amazon. As one might reasonably expect, I was browsing small press materials, but I think the point remains that Amazon apparently does not find Latin abbreviations to be too much for their customers to deal with. The book in question, BTW, was published in 2006, so if the [S.N.] is an artifact, it's not a very old artifact.
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It should be considered a Good Thing if these independent booksellers use WorldCat or LoC data (and what's in Amazon looks very much like the LoC record http://lccn.loc.gov/2007277697). Those who don't often present very incomplete records. kc Mike Tribby wrote: My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
The presence of s.n. in an Amazon record is a small, weak hook to hang anything on; but looking at people's use of other tools can be informative. The one that's on my mind lately is Wikipedia. Among the principles that Wikipedia has adopted are: Unique entry--there's one article on Capital punishment, found under that heading--not multiple takes on this topic, as one would find by sifting through multiple web pages after searching the term in Google (and skipping over the Wikipedia link, which of course came up first). Authority--Wikipedia editors are ever ready to determine what the preferred term of entry should be, to correct errors, provide cross references, etc. SEE references--search Death penalty in Wikipedia, and you get referred to Capital punishment. SEE ALSO references--articles on complex topics have lots of information in sidebars showing relationships with other topics and aspects. Even brief articles include hot-linked terms to related Wikipedia articles, which serve the same purpose. If searchers are much happier sorting through multiple results than finding one, happier in an environment of competing claims than of one governed by some form of authority, offended by any attempt to redirect their search from their preferred term to the one used in a resource, and would rather see personal links to my favorite sites than clear, authoritative indications of available information on related topics--all long-standing features of the way library catalogs serve searchers needs--then why is Wikipedia so popular? Wikipedia's acceptance of community input is obviously also very important to its success, and in that regard it's an instructive model for us, too. But would people like our catalogs better if they were really modeled on Google searches on the open web? Wikipedia's success in just that environment suggests not. Stephen At 12:48 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It should be considered a Good Thing if these independent booksellers use WorldCat or LoC data (and what's in Amazon looks very much like the LoC record http://lccn.loc.gov/2007277697). Those who don't often present very incomplete records. kc Mike Tribby wrote: My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head Technical Services Dept. University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library Voice: 612-625-2328 309 19th Avenue South Fax: 612-625-3428 Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
Stephen Hearn wrote: If searchers are much happier sorting through multiple results than finding one, happier in an environment of competing claims than of one governed by some form of authority, offended by any attempt to redirect their search from their preferred term to the one used in a resource, and would rather see personal links to my favorite sites than clear, authoritative indications of available information on related topics--all long-standing features of the way library catalogs serve searchers needs--then why is Wikipedia so popular? Wait, who said they were happier with those things? Nobody I've seen on this list, or really anywhere else. I think this is a straw man. But of course you are right, users are not happier with those things, the various kinds of collocation and relationship assigning that both catalogers, wikipedia, and many other information organization projects, perform in varying ways, are of course useful services, when done effectively. Who is it that says otherwise? Jonathan Wikipedia's acceptance of community input is obviously also very important to its success, and in that regard it's an instructive model for us, too. But would people like our catalogs better if they were really modeled on Google searches on the open web? Wikipedia's success in just that environment suggests not. Stephen At 12:48 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It should be considered a Good Thing if these independent booksellers use WorldCat or LoC data (and what's in Amazon looks very much like the LoC record http://lccn.loc.gov/2007277697). Those who don't often present very incomplete records. kc Mike Tribby wrote: My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head Technical Services Dept. University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library Voice: 612-625-2328 309 19th Avenue South Fax: 612-625-3428 Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
I read several lists, and I may have gotten this one crossed with another; but I have seen it argued in the last few weeks and without counter that preferred headings and cross references are evidence of librarians' arrogance, and offensive to users who prefer their own terms. And of course, there have been countless calls for library catalogs to be more like Google. So it's interesting to me that evidently, people's first choice when searching Google is Wikipedia, which is so unlike Google in the ways that it organizes information access. Stephen At 04:37 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: Stephen Hearn wrote: If searchers are much happier sorting through multiple results than finding one, happier in an environment of competing claims than of one governed by some form of authority, offended by any attempt to redirect their search from their preferred term to the one used in a resource, and would rather see personal links to my favorite sites than clear, authoritative indications of available information on related topics--all long-standing features of the way library catalogs serve searchers needs--then why is Wikipedia so popular? Wait, who said they were happier with those things? Nobody I've seen on this list, or really anywhere else. I think this is a straw man. But of course you are right, users are not happier with those things, the various kinds of collocation and relationship assigning that both catalogers, wikipedia, and many other information organization projects, perform in varying ways, are of course useful services, when done effectively. Who is it that says otherwise? Jonathan Wikipedia's acceptance of community input is obviously also very important to its success, and in that regard it's an instructive model for us, too. But would people like our catalogs better if they were really modeled on Google searches on the open web? Wikipedia's success in just that environment suggests not. Stephen At 12:48 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It should be considered a Good Thing if these independent booksellers use WorldCat or LoC data (and what's in Amazon looks very much like the LoC record http://lccn.loc.gov/2007277697). Those who don't often present very incomplete records. kc Mike Tribby wrote: My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head Technical Services Dept. University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library Voice: 612-625-2328 309 19th Avenue South Fax: 612-625-3428 Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head Technical Services Dept. University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library Voice: 612-625-2328 309 19th Avenue South Fax: 612-625-3428 Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
