Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Hal The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. I didn't know that. What was done about the errors? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Neither was I - although any large database (as we know) is likely to contain errors. You may like to draw Anthony's attention to Hal's message, in case LC wish to rebut, or explain further. Alan -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 11 August 2011 09:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records Hal The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. I didn't know that. What was done about the errors? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
[RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Apologies for sharing this with the list. It was intended to be a reply to Richard Moore only. Alan -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Danskin, Alan Sent: 11 August 2011 09:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records Neither was I - although any large database (as we know) is likely to contain errors. You may like to draw Anthony's attention to Hal's message, in case LC wish to rebut, or explain further. Alan -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 11 August 2011 09:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records Hal The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. I didn't know that. What was done about the errors? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Quoting Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk: Hal The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. I didn't know that. What was done about the errors? My information is from a presentation by OCLC's Ed O'Neill, at the ACOC (Australian Committee on Cataloguing) seminar What's in a Name? held in Sydney (N.S.W.) in January 2005. The formal presentation is available (Powerpoint) on the ACOC website www.nla.gov.au/lis/stndrds/grps/acoc/viaf2005.ppt and of course relates to the early stages of the project. I've just reviewed that, but the observations I referred to are not part of it, so they must have been delivered off the cuff; since my notes seem not to be findable, I have only recollection to guide me, and cannot be more precise. I was struck by the figures Ed presented, as they confirmed impressions I had formed over the previous several years about lurking errors in the LC/NAF anthe LC catalog, and the OCLC database. Anyway, my recollection is that Ed told us that these apparent errors had been reported to (then) CPSO at LC and were to be reviewed and, where found justifed, corrected. IIRC at this time LC had still not completely refined the tools they use today for bulk changes of headings in their bib records to match authority changes (including reported BFM changes), so the task could have proved very laborious and may never have been carried through. I guess one might inquire of the Policy and Standards Division at LC, the chief of which is Dr. Barbara Tillett, herself a member of the VIAF project team and heavily involved, of course, in RDA. VIAF relies for identifying matches between separate authority files not only on the information in the authority records but (at least in the initial work, matching DB and LC/NAF names) also on the bibliographic (resource) records in the DB and LC catalogues respectively -- Ed O'Neill's presentation gives a fascinating account of this. I haven't paid enough attention recently to understand how far this technique has been continued in the expanded VIAF. At the time I attended Ed O'Neill's presentation, I was more concerned with ideas of applying similar techniques (I suppose I might call them data mining?) to help identify and consolidate duplicate bibliographic records in the ANBD (Australian National Bibliographic Database) which supports the Libraries Australia service. Therefore perhaps I didn't pay as much attention as I might have to the authority-resolving details. But it seems clear to me from what we were given that by taking broad categories of data (names in headings but also in text fields (245 $c, 505, 508; publisher names in 260 $b and corporates/conferences in 11x/71X); titles in 245 $a, 505, 440/490, 7XX/8XX $t, 830), that machine grouping can go a long way towards record matching, and do a lot to identify bad matches or distinguish falsely-matched entities, even when working across different data formats (DB data was not in MARC 21, and BNF data isn't MARC 21). And therefore I'm left with doubts about whether very fine granularity in our data, as codified in RDA, is really worth the trouble it seems to be causing. Fuzzy logic may even do the job better than too-scarce skilled humans. Hal Cain, whose involvement is now minimal Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Hal Fuzzy logic may even do the job better than too-scarce skilled humans. It can also throw up false equivalences of its own, and create compound problems when datasets are matches against each other. You do have to set the barrier for matching very high. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Dear Hal and others: It is true that every time you see your data in a new environment, the anomalies jump out-- the addition of LC/NAF records to VIAF is no exception. With regard to VIAF, it is true that OCLC Research has sent numerous lists of errors, possible errors, or even just things that might benefit from a second look. Ana Cristan, in the Policy Standards Division here at LC, is kept mighty busy analyzing these reports, fixing errors, explaining practices, deleting duplicates, etc. Fuzzy matches is one type of report that comes from OCLC research. Ana is currently working through 1,736 such fuzzy matches (out of 3 million personal names from LC/NAF in VIAF, if that helps to put it in perspective). These reports sometimes result in changes to authority records and/or bibliographic records, thus improving the matching and clustering in VIAF. The users of VIAF, and those that make daily use of the improved LC/NAF benefit from the cooperation of the data magicians at OCLC and the human review/correction at LC and elsewhere. In a typical month PSD revises in excess of 3,000 Name authority records, revises over 25,000 related bibliographic records, and we delete about 500 duplicate name authority records. In addition to the reports related to VIAF, LC processes regular error reports on the daily distribution file that goes to the other NACO nodes, reports of duplicates from a variety of sources, as well as regular reports from our friends and colleagues around the world (special kudos to Tom Gilbert (Library Technologies, Inc) and Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) as the most frequent correspondents). Since 2005 LC's programmatic ability to check for duplicates has greatly improved and we have had several projects to clean up older authority records. OCLC also undertakes many batch changes, under the watchful eye of Robert Bremer. PSD also collaborates with OCLC to eliminate exact NAR duplicates every month and OCLC sends LC a list of changed 1XXs for bibliographic file maintenace to keep bibliographic headings in sync with the authority file. It goes without saying, as long as humans are involved in the cataloging process, errors will sneak in, particularly to a file as large as the LC/NAF with contributors around the world. Given multiple contributing nodes, duplicates are also an inevitable cost of doing business. LC, like the other LC/NAF partners big and small, believes that maintenance of the file is a critical activity, and appreciates all of the contributions to that end. Thanks, Dave Reser LC Policy Standards Division -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of hec...@dml.vic.edu.au Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records Quoting Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk: Hal The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. I didn't know that. What was done about the errors? My information is from a presentation by OCLC's Ed O'Neill, at the ACOC (Australian Committee on Cataloguing) seminar What's in a Name? held in Sydney (N.S.W.) in January 2005. The formal presentation is available (Powerpoint) on the ACOC website www.nla.gov.au/lis/stndrds/grps/acoc/viaf2005.ppt and of course relates to the early stages of the project. I've just reviewed that, but the observations I referred to are not part of it, so they must have been delivered off the cuff; since my notes seem not to be findable, I have only recollection to guide me, and cannot be more precise. I was struck by the figures Ed presented, as they confirmed impressions I had formed over the previous several years about lurking errors in the LC/NAF anthe LC catalog, and the OCLC database. Anyway, my recollection is that Ed told us that these apparent errors had been reported to (then) CPSO at LC and were to be reviewed and, where found justifed, corrected. IIRC at this time LC had still not completely refined the tools they use today for bulk changes of headings in their bib records to match authority changes (including reported BFM changes), so the task could have proved very laborious and may never have been carried through. I guess one might inquire of the Policy and Standards Division at LC, the chief of which is Dr. Barbara Tillett, herself a member of the VIAF project team and heavily involved, of course, in RDA. VIAF relies for identifying matches between separate authority files not only on the information in the authority records but (at least in the initial work, matching DB and LC/NAF names) also on the bibliographic (resource
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 09/08/2011 15:23, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip Perhaps the problem stems from the words you use, such as allow WEMI. FRBR is based on an entity-relationship analysis tool that first appeared in about the 1970s, not the 19th century. Catalogs don't allow entities-- the FRBR modelling exercise shows what entities have been the basis behind the conventions and mechanisms in traditional catalogs. Part II of AACR2 is very heavy on the concept of work, but related data about the work is scattered all over the place in Part I of AACR2. FRBR says here's what we have always intended-- let's present it in a way that can be sufficiently abstracted so we can do it differently, do it better, do it in a machine-friendly way, do it in a way that is consistent with other, more modern technical standards, do it in a way that can be extended and modified, and, to boot, do it in a way that is compatible with the existing record structure. /snip Well, I have studied databases as well and created a number of them. I personally don't care one whit whether we do something that is friendly to machines. They can scream for all I care, so long as the job is done. I would much rather do something in a librarian- or cataloger-friendly way and let the machines do more work. This includes being able to achieve some notable successes now, not putting our faith in vague promises of the future, and using the machines to their fullest potential, whether it happens to be friendly or not. snip So, no, it is not moot. I ran into the FRBR issue in the late 1990s when customizing my first web-based version of the catalog. I couldn't do things, not because of the limits of the technology (of which there were and still are many), but because of the limitations in the underlying data structure in traditional AACR/MARC records. It was one of those the emperor has no clothes moments. FRBR made more sense than the traditional catalog, because it was written in the modern language of databases. And in studying database design in courses, it was quite embarrassing to compare the comfort level students had with concept such as primary keys and relationships between tables. In describing the traditional catalog-- well, we have relationship designators, but they mess up our displays, so we have traditionally made decisions since the 19th century, not based upon efficient database design, but on the vagaries of a medley of display conventions and encoding conventions that are overly contingent and conditional on extraneous factors. /snip Relational databases are not the only choice today, and we must keep our options open and limit our concerns of this is not the way it is supposed to be done. Designing an RDBMS has a certain sense of what I call computer aesthetics which I believe should be irrelevant. There is now the very efficient and powerful option of the Lucene search engine indexing (with its variants), which forgoes a relational database altogether and indexes flat files. I have read quite a bit on it although much of it is highly technical and beyond my capabilities, but the proof is in the pudding. I have already mentioned that this must be how Worldcat is indexed. But here is an even better implementation (I believe) by our Australian colleagues: http://ll01.nla.gov.au/index.jsp. (They have some links to papers and one is broken although I found it here http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/nlasp/article/viewArticle/1047) This works on a database of 16 million records. It is very fast and provides the extracted headings for further refinements, a major step forward in catalog technology. Even doing a ridiculous search for of the a and limiting it to online resources took less than 20 seconds! (It's so fast, you don't need a stopword list) It's important to note that with Lucene indexing, it does not use a database at all! This Australian project says that it also uses Lucene to store the data and from what I have read, a melding of the two is best: and RDBMS for storage and maintenance, and the full-text search engine for the public, just as Koha is designed. As an added bonus, Lucene-type technologies are open source! Relevance ranking is a part of these technologies, and this is why (I think!) that Eric Hellman in his talk Library Data, why bother? http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FipVVoHh=4AQDVSolC says that libraries should be trying to tweak relevance ranking (i.e. search engine optimization) and adding microdata as more important than anything else. This was discussed in Autocat (I disagreed in part), but Eric Hellman got involved too. It was a very enlightening exchange of ideas. A lot of this reminds me of my researches into the library catalog of the future built under Ernest Richardson when he was at Princeton University back in the 1920s. It was built using the latest technology at the time (linotype slugs). I finally
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
James Weinheimer wrote: So we shouldn't make our data *fit* into the tool and then go on to explain why this is the way it must be done (as Richardson and his researchers did with the 180 characters), but instead, fashion tools to fit your data. Lucene allows this. But a tool can only use what is there for it to use. Data that aren't sufficiently atomized are not going to be able to work as well as data that *are* sufficiently atomized. If the data structure does not allow for determining unambiguous relationships between the pieces of data, that places limits on *any* kind of search engine. As wonderful as Lucene may be, it cannot possibly determine the relationships between pieces of data in a document if that document's structure does not label those relationships. A computer cannot work with something that simply isn't there. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Kevin said:
But a tool can only use what is there for it to use. Data that
aren't sufficiently atomized are not going to be able to work as well
...
Our present tools don't *begin* to use the atomization our present
date contains. Perhaps it is the tools which need our attention?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Mac Elrod wrote: Our present tools don't *begin* to use the atomization our present date contains. Perhaps it is the tools which need our attention? Attention is needed on *both* fronts. We need to be able to work with the detail already in our current records, but we also need more detail than our current records provide us. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: August 10, 2011 12:34 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records Mac Elrod wrote: Our present tools don't *begin* to use the atomization our present date contains. Perhaps it is the tools which need our attention? Attention is needed on *both* fronts. We need to be able to work with the detail already in our current records, but we also need more detail than our current records provide us. And the pile of new MARC proposals http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/list-p.html moves more of the data into atomic and granular placeholders. I particular like the fix to the not-so-atomic (large print) placement from http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-08.html : 300 $a ix, 253 p. (large print) becomes in RDA Extent: ix, 253 pages Font size: large print and would be coded in MARC as 300 $a ix, 253 pages 340 $n large print What's needed is greater connections to normalized forms of the data, such as 008/23=d for Large print. The RDA element set at http://metadataregistry.org/ also moves us into a more granular and atomic future, with these defined elements: Extent of text: http://rdvocab.info/Elements/extentOfText (subproperty of Extent: http://rdvocab.info/Elements/extent ) and Font size: http://rdvocab.info/Elements/fontSize with vocabulary also registered, such as for Font size the value Large print registered as: http://rdvocab.info/termList/fontSize/1002 Linking registered vocabulary with parallel vocabulary (such as in other languages) into registered elements, which in turn can be linked hierarchically with other elements, which collectively can be linked to entities and registered access points looks like a good example of appropriate machine-actionable atomic data. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Quoting Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu (in part): If the data structure does not allow for determining unambiguous relationships between the pieces of data, that places limits on *any* kind of search engine. As wonderful as Lucene may be, it cannot possibly determine the relationships between pieces of data in a document if that document's structure does not label those relationships. A computer cannot work with something that simply isn't there. It is however possible for data encoded in somewhat different systems to be cross-correlated. For an example, see VIAF http://viaf.org/ and try the name of a favorite author. The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. There are limits, of course. It's not always necessary to bring existing data exactly into line. For the future, of course, a standard format consistently applied is clearly the way to go; and reprocessing existing data to achieve a closer match to the new standard may be worthwhile -- but at whose cost? Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 08/08/2011 23:42, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: On 08/08/2011 19:00, Kevin M Randall wrote: I was really hoping for something that could become part of the conversation *here*. I'm sure there are others who would appreciate it too. /snip That means redoing an awful lot which I really don't feel like doing or have time for. I specifically stated that just one example would do. If you don't feel like contributing something to explain an argument that you have been making for a long time, what choice have I but to question your commitment to serious involvement in the conversation /snip That is really unfair. I have spent many hours discussing my opinions of FRBR, on this list and several others, plus doing a number of podcasts, each of which takes some time. Therefore, to conclude that because you don't want to look at those things and I am supposed to redo it, means that I am not serious, is unfair and I must protest. So far as I know, I was the first one to attack the FRBR sacred cows and for some time, I was alone. Many out there don't agree with me and that is fine. We can agree to disagree. One thing I want to point out (again!) is that I am *absolutely not* claiming that no one, ever, wants works, expressions, manifestations, and items because they do. I have said this over and over and over again, so many times I am thinking about making a macro for it. You mentioned that you have wanted WEMI, and I have said I have wanted it too. So what? We are both library-types. Knowing how the public searches is what is of the highest importance. In any case, I consider that the argument is moot since our catalogs allow WEMI *right now* and they have for almost two centuries (if not much longer). The problem is that the structures for this type of access worked much better in a printed environment where people were forced to browse pre-arranged individual records (of varying types). In several ways this structure simply fell apart with the transfer to computers because of keyword access, the weird alphabetization of the computer and the problem of adding cross-references to the headings in a keyword environment. The catalog became even less comprehensible to the average person. Add the fact that people now search library catalogs like they do Google (very understandable) and they necessarily get inferior results. It is no wonder that things have broken down. Finally, these problems with the online catalogs have begun to be recognized and they must be corrected. So how do we go about it? Do we recreate the original ideas from the 1840s as FRBR envisions? While that would satisfy my historical sensibility, does it make sense to create something like that for our users? It does only *if* you claim that our users want the FRBR user tasks. If you claim otherwise, it makes no sense. Creating a tool *for the public* is of primary importance to the future of the catalog, and I believe, to the future of the library itself. Therefore, such a vital question should be researched and answered very seriously whether people really want the FRBR user tasks so badly, and such a statement should *not* be taken as a sacred commandment handed down from our forefathers that can not be questioned. The future of the profession is at stake. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that we could make the FRBR user tasks operable in today's environment *right now* by systems people who can create the correct queries and views, and is *not* a matter of reworking our rules and formats. I personally think it would be a highly positive achievement to claim victory and then move on. I will skip to a major point in your message: snip That's an awfully self-centered way of looking at the bibliographic universe. So the only information that should be in there is the information you want to have in this one particular instance? How in the world is a cataloger right now in Library X going to know what exactly it is (and nothing more, apparently) that you want to know five years from now when you do a search? *ALL* metadata has meaning depending on the context. The FRBR report acknowledges this, and that's the whole point of the tables in chapters 6 and 7 of FRBR. The elements are analyzed in terms of their general value (high, moderate, low) in meeting the user tasks. If you're interested in research on FRBR, an excellent first step is the FRBR Bibliography at http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881 /snip That is *precisely the point* of the new information environment: it is a personal one. This must be understood and accepted, whether we like it or not, and it is an environment where the library has sharply decreasing control over anything at all. I personally do not care for this environment and explain why in my podcast on search, but I realize--and say as much--that my feelings are 100% irrelevant. This is where many say that the one size fits all
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
08.08.2011 23:42, Kevin M Randall: I know the validity of the FRBR user tasks from my own personal experience over a lifetime, plus interactions with other people who have apparently had the same kinds of experiences over their respective lifetimes. The FRBR user tasks are: FIND - ... IDENTIFY - ... SELECT - ... OBTAIN - ... In all of my life, through primary and secondary school, college, and graduate school, and in my general day-to-day life, whenever I approach a library catalog (or any catalog or web site for that matter), I have been doing these things. Yes, whenever seeking out books or, more generally, recorded knowledge, these steps - as by our experience - are what it takes to get there: let's call it the FISO technique. Now, for information seeking on the web, those 4 steps many times happen all in one fell swoop, or so is the experience, and certainly the expectation, of search engine users. That means those steps are not, as such, perceived as separate stages of a search activity. Ask anyone entering a library what tasks they are hoping to get done there. Will FISO be their reply? Most often, I'm fairly sure, they have questions and need answers. How and from whence these come is secondary. Only after it turns out the answer will be somewhat complex and maybe only in this or that book, or any book, do they go about aforementioned tasks in one way or other, stepwise, as guided by a clever system or intermediate. While their expectation, based on experience, makes them believe it ought to be lots easier, quicker, directer. How large is the subset of questions that should end up in a catalog search as the best or only way of searching? Esp. if the FRBR entities of class 1 and 2 is all we are dealing with in a catalog - and it is all RDA is up to right now - this fraction of questions is presumably not very big. And fewer still are those that could use a WEMI model. There was a time when it was necessary for most any question to first ponder in what book or category of literature the answer might be hidden. And then of course, i.e. almost always, the procedure was FISO. Today, it is what one has to follow less and less frequently. The practical relevance of catalogs, and their rules, with regard to the body of questions people are out to solve is going down ever further, I'm afraid. The decline may possibly be protracted but not reversed, if we enrich catalogs and endow them with new functions and features, most of which not figuring in the current RDA or FRBR. B.Eversberg As an aside: To insist on FISO and FRBR reminds of a scene in Goethe's Faust I, where Mephisto tells the student about what to expect from Collegium logicum: ... Then many a day they'll teach you how The mind's spontaneous acts, till now As eating and as drinking free, Require a process;---one! two! three! In truth the subtle web of thought Is like the weaver's fabric wrought: ... http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3023/pg3023.html
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 08/08/2011 01:49, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip There's a difference when data is controlled by identifiers or control numbers vs text strings. I've gone through several library and library systems, and currently I am able to do a lot of authority updating and maintenance based upon control numbers that I couldn't do before with earlier, less capable systems. However, once I move closer to cleaning up the bibliographic records I have to switch to more manual operations, manual checking, crude global updates methods and deduping algorithms, etc. (such as all that annoying checking of changed headings in name-title forms, and with added subject subdivisions). It's like the last mile in broadband connectivity. Fast fibre optic everywhere except when one gets closer to home where antiquated technology slows things done. It would be wonderful if everything works perfectly *right now* but it emphatically does not work as simply as you suggest. It's only when data is modelled out thoroughly and correctly that we can start talking about new functionality. /snip Once again, I point out that the primary objective, going beyond textual strings or identifiers is that first, the information is *entered*, and second, *entered consistently*. When the information actually exists and can be reliably found, then it is possible to do all kinds of things with it, including converting to identifiers or whatever else you want, if it is desired. If it is either not entered, or entered in unpredictable ways, while you can still work with it, it becomes far more difficult and the results will be far less satisfactory. But ultimately, it doesn't matter if this consistency consists of a number or text because it makes absolutely no difference to the computer. snip It would be wonderful if the functionality could be extended more deeply, showing the user for example, related works that are actually available in the library based upon the relationship clustering inherent in FRBR. /snip Would it be wonderful? I believe very little will change in library cataloging until the metadata creators divorce themselves from this official, traditional dogma that what our users want is the FRBR user tasks, something the new information tools by the information companies don't talk about and are not weighed down by such preconceived ideas. Therefore, they are free to discover what their users really want; how their organizations can build new tools that approximate what they have discovered about their users, then do more research based on what they have discovered users like and dislike about the new tools, discover new needs of their users, continuing this process on and on, and concentrate on providing those things. snip Good data input up front saves everyone time down the road. Some library users don't really care about the format details for what they're after. Other library users are very particular, and can be quite canny in figuring things out, and be quite vocal about system functionality. And other library users are quite pleased when they discover new things while searching for something else-- such as different formats, and different expressions (we recently got in some wonderful new Shakespeare play expressions and adaptations, based upon different vocabulary levels, graphic novel versions, side-by-side renderings with modern English, etc.). Staff are always requesting that at-a-glance kind of functionality in the catalog, rather than having to examine each record in detail. The more element-based the data is, and the more tabular it is, and the more groupings and relationships are shown clearly (and we have a quasi-FRBR-like breakdown already in the title browse index), the happier everyone is. And with most popular items checked out at any point in time, such as DVDs and bestsellers (there's lots of great stuff not in e-book format), the catalog is the ONLY mechanism endusers have to find, identify, select and obtain what they want, so the more functionality based upon cleanly delineated data, the better. Even with e-books, holds are often still necessary, and that can only be done in a discovery layer of some sort. /snip I agree about the good data input, but that is only another way of saying that standards are important. If standards are not enforced, it doesn't matter if the standards themselves are great or lousy--anybody can do whatever they want anyway. It's so very sad that there seems to be in the library world the idea that: If only *those others* had done things differently before, *then* I could do all these wonderful things, therefore, *those others* have to change everything they do before I can really begin to start on my wonderful things as opposed to: We are facing a serious problem. We have *these resources* at our disposal right now. Perhaps it's true that different decisions should have been made in the past so that we have
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
08.08.2011 10:01, James Weinheimer: The Worldcat example that I gave before for searching the work of Cicero's Pro Archia http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Acicero+ti%3Apro+archia, allowing the searcher to limit by format, by other authors (editors), by date of publication, language, etc. overfulfills those 19th century FRBR user tasks without the need for redoing, retraining, reconceptualizing, re-everything. It can be done today, right now for *no extra money*--just let your systems people devise some queries. ... If this bit of reality could be accepted, perhaps we could claim success: FRBR is now implemented! And at no real costs! Wouldn't THAT be nice to claim?!. Then we could move on to other discussions that would be more relevant to the genuine needs of the vast majority of our patrons. Right, AND don't we forget we need consistent data, esp. with the uniform titles. Add to this the AACR2 updates done by M. Gorman and Mac, and there is indeed, and I think this bears repeating, no urgent need to venture on a big migration of both code and format. The results of that herculean act would just not go far enough beyond what can already be done without it. (Furthermore, cataloging codes that are not under open access cannot succeed anyway.) I think VIAF could be extended to include uniform titles. Better integration of VIAF into cataloging interfaces would then go a long way towards improved consistency. For countries, such as Germany, hitherto not under the star-spangled banner of AACR2, the need for migration can also be obviated by intensified and clever use of VIAF. [Though this is not an open access tool either, but there's nothing to replace it, whatever code and format we use.] B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 07/08/2011 17:32, Karen Coyle wrote: snip In the Open Library, where they decided to gather manifestations under works (as usual, expression was harder to do), all it took was one record for the manifestation to have a uniform title. I'll illustrate: Mann, Thomas [Der zauberberg] Magic Mountain Mann, Thomas [Der zauberberg] Montagna incantata Mann, Thomas Magic Mountain Mann, Thomas Montagna incantata These give you the information you need to bring them together into a single work even though some records don't have a direct link to the work. I could imagine a kind of switching file with links between original and translated titles that would remove the need for uniform titles in the process of work-ifying a set of bib records. (Not unlike OCLC's xISBN service, BTW, only based on titles not identifiers.) /snip So, the links to the individual records are gathered in the collective record for the work? e.g. http://openlibrary.org/works/OL14866824W.rdf I see: rdf:Description rdf:about=http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14227095M/;rdrel:workManifested http://openlibrary.org/works/OL14866824W/; /rdrel:workManifesteddcterms:titleThe magic mountain =: der Zauberberg/dcterms:titledcterms:date1939/dcterms:date/rdf:Description with the link to the manifestation in the rdf:about. I don't see a reciprocal link from the single item (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14227095M/) to the work record but that would be overkill. Why did you choose that structure? Is it a more efficient use of computer resources? It seems to work as well as making the links the other way. The only problem I could see with this type of structure is that if someone took a copy of the individual record, there would be no link back to the work record. But within the database, everything seems fine. Still, if they did as you mentioned, turning it into a switching file (or whatever it is called), making that openly available, it may work even then. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
You _can_ do things this way, out of neccesity, but it's definitely not preferable from a data mangement point of view, right? We're talking about the difference between a a single 'foreign key' in each record stating that it's part of a certain work (preferable from data management point of view), compared to basically heuristics for guessing from as-written-on-title-page (or as entered by a user) title/author combinations (less preferable from data management point of view, but possibly neccesary to avoid the expense of human data control), compared to this idea of a switching file that is sort of just a human-controlled enhancement to the heuristics (but if you're going to spend human time doing that, why not just spend human time doing it right, the foreign key approach? The switching file approach is to my mind a less efficient encoding, not a more efficient one.) On 8/7/2011 11:32 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com: if the purpose is to get the FRBR-type results to show what works, expressions, manifestations and items exist. For those records that do not have the uniform title entered, they fall outside, and there is nothing to do except to add the uniform titles (or URIs or whatever), In the Open Library, where they decided to gather manifestations under works (as usual, expression was harder to do), all it took was one record for the manifestation to have a uniform title. I'll illustrate: Mann, Thomas [Der zauberberg] Magic Mountain Mann, Thomas [Der zauberberg] Montagna incantata Mann, Thomas Magic Mountain Mann, Thomas Montagna incantata These give you the information you need to bring them together into a single work even though some records don't have a direct link to the work. I could imagine a kind of switching file with links between original and translated titles that would remove the need for uniform titles in the process of work-ifying a set of bib records. (Not unlike OCLC's xISBN service, BTW, only based on titles not identifiers.) Not every bit of information has to be in every record. We can have information outside of individual bib records that helps us make decisions or do things with the records. One of the benefits given for FRBR is that it makes it easier for us to share this common knowledge, and to make use of it. I think that even without a formal adoption of FRBR we could gain efficiencies in bib record creation and system functionality by having a place (undoubtedly on the web) where we share this knowledge. If you look at what DBPedia is doing with general information from Wikipedia and other resources, then you get the idea. DBPedia is messy and rather ad hoc, but a LIBPedia could be made up of authoritative sources only. kc
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Quoting James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com: Why did you choose that structure? Is it a more efficient use of computer resources? To begin with, I'm just an observer of the Open Library development, not a designer, so I can't give any detail on the WHY of things. You can, however, see the guts by going to http://openlibrary.org/type/ This is a list of all of the structures and data elements. The two most relevant here are: http://openlibrary.org/type/edition -- the manifestation/expression http://openlibrary.org/type/work -- the work There are links in each to the other, as you can see there. Obviously, how you handle the links will depend on your database management system and your record structure and the flow of search and display. The use of uniform titles that I demonstrated is part of the application that merges editions into works. That is buried somewhere in the github repo: https://github.com/openlibrary Finding particular areas of the code isn't easy, but if you want that kind of thing, it's all there. My guess is that it's somewhere in this path: https://github.com/openlibrary/openlibrary/tree/master/openlibrary/catalog/works Enjoy! kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Karen said:
We have a lot of information, collectively, that shouldn't have to be
re-done by every cataloger.
This was one of the objectives of the UK PRECIS. It was a disaster.
The mismatches some put down to the ambiguities of language, others to
the complexity of the bibliographic universe, including moving images.
(The Canadian National Film Board tried PRECIS.)
It's interesting to see the same ideas recycle in differing forms over
the decades,
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
James Weinheimer wrote: Would it be wonderful? I believe very little will change in library cataloging until the metadata creators divorce themselves from this official, traditional dogma that what our users want is the FRBR user tasks, [...] James, you have continually made the assertion that users are not interested in the FRBR user tasks, that what they want is something else. In order that we may be able to communicate more clearly about FRBR, I respectfully request a simple example of something the users want that does not fit into one of the FRBR user tasks. Just one will do. Thanks! Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 08/08/2011 18:30, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James, you have continually made the assertion that users are not interested in the FRBR user tasks, that what they want is something else. In order that we may be able to communicate more clearly about FRBR, I respectfully request a simple example of something the users want that does not fit into one of the FRBR user tasks. Just one will do. /snip I suggest you listen to my podcast on Search. http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html, and my latest podcast http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/08/cataloging-matters-podcast-12.html for a more humorous view. Concerning the latter one, lots of people have sent messages saying that this is how they feel about library catalogs. I also suggest the writings of John Battelle, who wrote the book Search. Here is one article http://searchengineland.com/john-battelle-on-the-future-of-search-38382, and there are a lot of his talks online too. Determining what the public wants and expects from searching is a major topic now, potentially with lots of money riding on the outcome. My point is: for better or worse, that is the future and there is little we can do about it. Therefore, how can we fit into that scenario using the resources available now? What do we have to offer that no one else does? -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
I'll briefly give you my objections to the FRBR tasks, which are summed up by: they start when the user approaches the library, and they stop once the user *obtains* a library resource. They don't include, for example, linking catalog entries to wikipedia articles so that users discover library resources while in a non-library environment, and they also don't include things like formulating citations, downloading citations into writings or databases, organizing bibliographic data, comparing items in the catalog, sharing with colleagues, using retrieved items to find more information on the web, etc etc. It *may* be possible to shoe-horn those activities into the FRBR-4, but I think that would be artificial. The catalog should be part of a whole range of services outside of a catalog search. That requirement *could* require changes to *cataloging*, that is, the creation of the catalog entry. kc Quoting James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com: On 08/08/2011 18:30, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James, you have continually made the assertion that users are not interested in the FRBR user tasks, that what they want is something else. In order that we may be able to communicate more clearly about FRBR, I respectfully request a simple example of something the users want that does not fit into one of the FRBR user tasks. Just one will do. /snip I suggest you listen to my podcast on Search. http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html, and my latest podcast http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/08/cataloging-matters-podcast-12.html for a more humorous view. Concerning the latter one, lots of people have sent messages saying that this is how they feel about library catalogs. I also suggest the writings of John Battelle, who wrote the book Search. Here is one article http://searchengineland.com/john-battelle-on-the-future-of-search-38382, and there are a lot of his talks online too. Determining what the public wants and expects from searching is a major topic now, potentially with lots of money riding on the outcome. My point is: for better or worse, that is the future and there is little we can do about it. Therefore, how can we fit into that scenario using the resources available now? What do we have to offer that no one else does? -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
James Weinheimer wrote: I suggest you listen to my podcast on Search. I was really hoping for something that could become part of the conversation *here*. I'm sure there are others who would appreciate it too. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: Changes to the ILS seem more to the point to me. Of course the ILS will also change accordingly. However, cataloging provides the data. As I've said here before, systems have to work with the data they have. Those examples I gave? Many of them cannot be done with the data we have today, and others are made difficult by our data structure. It's not just whether the data is there, but whether it can be used efficiently. An ILS cannot read the mind of either the cataloger nor the user. It's just a dumb computer. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: August 8, 2011 1:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records I'll briefly give you my objections to the FRBR tasks, which are summed up by: they start when the user approaches the library, and they stop once the user *obtains* a library resource. They don't include, for example, linking catalog entries to wikipedia articles so that users discover library resources while in a non-library environment, and they also don't include things like formulating citations, downloading citations into writings or databases, organizing bibliographic data, comparing items in the catalog, sharing with colleagues, using retrieved items to find more information on the web, etc etc. It *may* be possible to shoe-horn those activities into the FRBR-4, but I think that would be artificial. The catalog should be part of a whole range of services outside of a catalog search. That requirement *could* require changes to *cataloging*, that is, the creation of the catalog entry. kc That makes a lot of sense, as there are multiple things we can do or should be able to do with catalog data. There are some distinctions I think. The user tasks also presuppose a granular element set, as specific elements are assigned values based upon the relative importance for the user tasks. The organizing and retrieving of data can be enhanced by simply better and more specific data, without necessarily anticipating their ultimate use by users (although, logically, we would still want the user to actually work with the data in some way). As Mac says, we need to improve our ILS's. The ILS's look like they will be improved with all the RDA-based MARC tags that exist and are being proposed, since they tackle the poor organization and lack of granularity in MARC. I already make use of the new RDA authority record 3XX fields in quickly identifying a Person (I think all of these RDA-based 3XX fields in authority records are not dependent on RDA implementation decisions - from what I understand they're good to go today, and are now part of the ever-changing and ever-expanding family of MARC fields). There's also a say what you mean, mean what you say aspect to FRBR that is often missed. For example, are users comparing items in a particular instance, or do they really mean works? A site like LibraryThing has been built up around the work concept, and ties in user-generated and social networking content around that work entity level, to great effect and with all the efficiencies that effort represents. Also, the full range of user tasks hasn't really been looked at. The consolidation of the three FR models (FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD) is, I believe, underway or being planned. In FRSAD, there's the user task of Explore (to explore any relationships between entities (thema or nomen), correlations to other subject vocabularies and structure of a subject domain). That looks a massive undertaking, but it does reflect the purposes to which a lot of catalog effort is already directed, in all the work in controlled vocabulary for subjects that is done today. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 08/08/2011 19:00, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: I suggest you listen to my podcast on Search. I was really hoping for something that could become part of the conversation *here*. I'm sure there are others who would appreciate it too. /snip That means redoing an awful lot which I really don't feel like doing or have time for. May I suggest the opposite: would you point out why people do want the FRBR user tasks? Where is the evidence? Where is the research? Especially, why do we assume that they want works, expressions, manifestations, and items? How often have you yourself (not as a cataloger) needed a specific printing or needed to know the number of pages of a book? I have seen no evidence that very many people want this, but they definitely want other capabilities. As I had in my Dialog between a patron and the library catalog, the patron says: Well, I'm a user too and I need something else [i.e. besides the FRBR user tasks]. In full-text databases, I can do all kinds of searches and analyze the texts themselves and make decisions. I guess I can understand that if you don't have any full text and that you cannot examine the items immediately, somebody will need to make a choice among similar resources. But if I am to make a meaningful choice, I need meaningful information. Giving me publication dates and page numbers doesn't help me make a decent decision. If I can look at a thing directly, I can decide which one I want, so if I am able to examine the versions, I can decide that one is easier to read or one has pages falling out, or I just choose any one I want. Otherwise, I am being forced to choose texts based on information that means nothing to me at all. How am I supposed to decide I want something published in 1923 or another from 1962 without knowing what the differences are? Why is this information supposed to have meaning for me? Exactly the same arguments (other than the references to full text!) were made by several people, using different words of course, in the famous Royal Commission report discussing Panizzi's catalog, so the complaint is nothing new. In addition, the information universe is growing very far away from our traditional tools, concentrating on different aspects of search. Since I personally am interested in the history of bibliography, I actually want to know different printings and page numbers--once in awhile. In fact, now that I have an ebook, I have discovered that scan/print size has become important to me, and even margin width because I can see some pdfs more comfortably on my reader. Should we start putting in the width of the printed text on the page? Of course not, but it would come in handy for me now. It has become clear to me that even in Panizzi's time, the task of the catalog as *inventory tool* for librarians was absolutely critical and because of the ways the Library of the British Museum functioned in the 1840s, it was more important still. Today, the catalog as inventory tool is still vital and I don't question its importance for librarians for a single moment. But that same function of inventory control is *NOT* important to the vast majority of users. So, why do we have this strange situation? I think it is because *everybody* has always had to use the same tool: the library catalog where the needs of the librarians and the collection necessarily and *correctly* trumped those of the users (in spite of what everyone has said). For instance, who are these users? A huge group with so many different needs they cannot be lumped together at all. That is completely obvious. This is one aspect that the information companies understand *very well* and are exploiting to the full, I think, at our expense. And we have to confess that they are right. Expecting all to use a one size fits all catalog has never made much sense, and makes even less today. Formerly, there was no choice though since making separate catalogs for the people (i.e. various types of printed catalogs) became impossible both financially and practically. Today, we do NOT all have to use the same tools. We librarians can retain our tools to maintain management of the collection and go on to improve those tools in whatever ways we want, without caring about the impact on the public, because the records themselves can be ported out into Drupal or Moodle or all sorts of other systems, so that people and developers can go crazy with them. *That* will be when we can begin to discover what people really and truly want and need from the information in our catalog records. I hope to write an article on the historical aspects of this somewhere along the way, but it is still in development. Still, I've pointed to several things discussing search, etc. Can you point me to modern evidence done among the public (i.e. *not* asking library students or librarians!) that the *public* wants WEMI? -- James
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
On 06/08/2011 19:00, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip But it's not true FRBR, and it doesn't do translations well, and so it requires extra effort to answer patron queries about titles in our small language collections. And part of the problem with translations stems from removing fields like 240 for display purposes when that destroys the only mechanism left to relate those resources. It's that tangling of display and user task functionality in fields that causes so much grief. That's why those aspects of catalog design need to be separated. Fortunately, FRBR absolutely does NOT depend upon those antiquated methods, such as collocation by uniform titles, to specify relationships. As the FRBR report (http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr2.htm#5) indicates, the current methods of creating relationships in catalog records are haphazard. /snip FRBR does need the uniform title in some form, that is, some bit of data that brings the different records together. How that data is to be encoded, using a 130/240/etc. textual string, or some kind of URI, URJ, URK, L M N O or P, the final product will be to bring the metadata records together in some way, just as the heading did in the card catalog. The primary task is to ensure that it is consistently entered and then many things can happen. If the information is inconsistent, or does not exist in textual or some kind of form, there is not enough information to bring everything together. As I demonstrated with searching Worldcat, for those records that have the uniform title entered, collocation of those records can be done *right now* and there is no reason to change any of our current records or procedures if the purpose is to get the FRBR-type results to show what works, expressions, manifestations and items exist. For those records that do not have the uniform title entered, they fall outside, and there is nothing to do except to add the uniform titles (or URIs or whatever), that is, *if* it can be demonstrated that this provides the public with what they really want (which should not be accepted on faith) and it is judged worthwhile to edit those records at the cost of doing other things that our patrons would prefer, such as cataloging more items, or perhaps cataloging more deeply, with better and more useful subjects and/or analysing more collections. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer [weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com] Sent: August-07-11 6:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records On 06/08/2011 19:00, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip But it's not true FRBR, and it doesn't do translations well, and so it requires extra effort to answer patron queries about titles in our small language collections. And part of the problem with translations stems from removing fields like 240 for display purposes when that destroys the only mechanism left to relate those resources. It's that tangling of display and user task functionality in fields that causes so much grief. That's why those aspects of catalog design need to be separated. Fortunately, FRBR absolutely does NOT depend upon those antiquated methods, such as collocation by uniform titles, to specify relationships. As the FRBR report (http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr2.htm#5) indicates, the current methods of creating relationships in catalog records are haphazard. /snip FRBR does need the uniform title in some form, that is, some bit of data that brings the different records together. There's a difference when data is controlled by identifiers or control numbers vs text strings. I've gone through several library and library systems, and currently I am able to do a lot of authority updating and maintenance based upon control numbers that I couldn't do before with earlier, less capable systems. However, once I move closer to cleaning up the bibliographic records I have to switch to more manual operations, manual checking, crude global updates methods and deduping algorithms, etc. (such as all that annoying checking of changed headings in name-title forms, and with added subject subdivisions). It's like the last mile in broadband connectivity. Fast fibre optic everywhere except when one gets closer to home where antiquated technology slows things done. It would be wonderful if everything works perfectly *right now* but it emphatically does not work as simply as you suggest. It's only when data is modelled out thoroughly and correctly that we can start talking about new functionality. An example is the Item-level functionality in the latest library systems I've worked with. Holdings displays can be finetuned based upon user location and item availability attributes. This saves the user time by showing the user holdings with priority ranking based upon library branch location and item availability. This functional requirement based upon user tasks is done first by data modelling (quite likely, based upon the database fields involved, by asking for instance: what entities do I need (item, branch, workstation), what attributes do I need (item availability status), and what relationships do I need). And this is popular, and would be emphasized on any RFP for a system. It would be wonderful if the functionality could be extended more deeply, showing the user for example, related works that are actually available in the library based upon the relationship clustering inherent in FRBR. We see something similar with the integration of the NoveList readers' advisory service in the catalog. The linking is done by manifestation identifier (ISBN), but this is crude, because different manifestations (U.S., Canada, UK publishers), and different expressions (e-book, audiobook) can be missed. We see similar issues with the new ebook interfaces with the various new ebook services we're promoting. The ebook services are not that great for searching-- as the collection gets larger, the weaker the tool becomes. The MARC records having the highest quality data, but the catalog records are missing the item-level attributes found only in the ebook service interface. In addition, changes to manifestation level details such as DRM changes and format changes (MP3 vs WMA) are better handled in the ebook service. The bulk of the staff time nowadays in helping people with e-books goes to manifestation selection details with the all different confusing formats, and well as assistance with the system requirements of the different intermediary devices. The more explicit and better arranged the data, the easier it is on staff and endusers. But even outside of all the new technology like e-books, library users can still be very insistent on specific aspects that relate to the different FRBR bibliographic levels. Last week, a library user I dealt with was absolutely insistent on getting a book-on-tape version of a title (our collection is dwindling and being replaced by books-on-CD, e-audiobooks, and Playaways). But there's no harm in promoting the other formats-- the library is there to help in getting people set up with the different formats. I recall the library user who absolutely wanted Seamus Heaney's
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records (was: Browse and search BNB open data)
Karen said:
It is easy to find records for translations that do not have a uniform
title for the original.
Our smaller clients strongly object to a 240 for translations,
particularly if the foreign language text is not on the title page;
they say it confuses patrons. We change the 240 to to 246 3
$iTranslation of:$a. They accept 240 for classical music and
Shakespeare, but little else.
There is also the case in Canada of simultaneous publications in English
and French. There is no way of know which is a translation of the other.
Don't assume failure on the part of the cataloguer; it may be patron
desire. Patron convenience seems to be the forgotten factor in much
or our discussions.
My preference would be address the problem though systems, rather than
changing records, e.g., to have 240s suppressed in display and
hitlists, but that would remove 240s from classical music and
Shakespeare as well.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records (was: Browse and search BNB open data) (fwd)
I said:
Our smaller clients strongly object to a 240 for translations ...
I should have added they are not very fond of 130s either,
particularly when the 130 says (motion picture) and the 245 says
[videorecording]. They say patrons see it as a contradiction.
They will accept 130s for Bible, and we've had no complaints about
Arabian nights.
There seems to be a gap between those who make these decisions, and
the resulting experience of many library users. RDA seems even further
removed than AACR2, since it does not address display.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records (was: Browse and search BNB open data)
Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: Don't assume failure on the part of the cataloguer; it may be patron desire. Patron convenience seems to be the forgotten factor in much or our discussions. Not only do I not assume failure on the part of the cataloguer, I don't assume failure at all. But the fact is that we can only work with the data we have in our bibliographic records regardless of what data *possibilities* there are in the MARC record. I believe this is indisputable. My preference would be address the problem though systems, rather than changing records, e.g., to have 240s suppressed in display and hitlists, but that would remove 240s from classical music and Shakespeare as well. It's not rocket science to keep 240's in music records, as long as they are coded as music records, and drop them from text records. It's not even rocket science to display uniform titles for items with multiple Expressions. There are a lot of possibilities, but for these possibilities to become realities we have to get the data out of MARC in into a more manipulable format. These things are a pain to do with our current data, but I think they become much more plausible with a format that is less based on the structure of the display and more on the meaning of the data. In fact, the RDA elements, as defined, are closer to this concept of manipulable data elements than MARC is. That's not to say that RDA is perfect as a cataloging code, but it is based on more modern data concepts than AACR/MARC was. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records (was: Browse and search BNB open data)
On 8/5/11 at 2:16 PM, Karen Coyle wrote in part: But the fact is that we can only work with the data we have in our bibliographic records regardless of what data *possibilities* there are in the MARC record. I believe this is indisputable. I like this. I just hope that this indisputable fact begins to register with the admin folk who make budget and staffing decisions - - often, it seems to me, they ignore the simple fact that if no one creates metadata, then the shiny discovery interface only appears to be aiding our patrons because it's built over a shallow/poor resource. We should talk much less (in other professional areas) about baseline/standard records and more about enriched and quality records. Daniel -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA We offer solid services that people need, and we do so wearing sensible shoes. -- MT
