Unless something has changed recently, it seems to be the trend in
several of the more recent projects. For example, VuFind, Koha,
Evergreen, at least by default or in their demo configurations, use
the
1xx heading rather than 245$c statement of responsibility, like
Worldcat.org as described
Bryan:
You bring up some good points here, but my amazement wasn't prompted by
the dumbing-down part, but the subsequent re-creation of statements of
responsibility by algorithmic means. This suggests to me less a
direction than a deep ambivalence about the functionality desired for
WorldCat.
Three years or so ago I thought, finally the significance of what
authority data can do for improving data management is understood but
more
recently it seems to have been lost in the dust. I would add to
Bernhard and
Jim's comments that the rules governing the construction of authority
data
Owen Stephens wrote:
The question of 'feasibility' takes us beyond a question of whether it
is 'worth it' to whether it can be done. What the report says is that
the authors do not believe it is possible to achieve consistency with
metadata of judgement except within a tightly controlled,
Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: 14 November 2008 12:56
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Owen Stephens wrote:
The question of 'feasibility' takes us beyond a question of whether it
is 'worth
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I think the child/title authority record is needed rather than just using
the works information to allow for name/title headings in bib record
displays. It might be determined that the Works field in the parent record
should only have the control number of the child name
A weakness of MARC21 is that it doesn't make use of the reference to
the Authority record into the metadata record - we rely on
'literals' too
much - making it more difficult to ensure consistency, make changes,
or draw into our indexing information not held directly in the MARC
record.
Owen Stephen:
I think that in this case I am talking about a weakness in MARC21 rather
than AACR2. Possibly it is the implementation - but isn't MARC21 an
implementation of MARC?
MM: At one level MARC21 is an implementation of MARC but what I am thinking
of is the library systems
OS:As an example, I cannot see how MARC could support a linked data
approach to information stored in fixed fields - one of the places
where
it would benefit from it.
MM: Systems already use MARC fixed fields information to display icons
related to format and to refine searches and there
Diane:
I actually think that OCLC hasdone a very goodjobintegrating and making copy-specific information accessible on the Web. We wereworried about making the transition from RLIN, with its individual records for each institution's copy of an item, to WorldCat, with its master record
On Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:13 PM, Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
This seems so counterintuitive--libraries have been complaining for years that
their vendors have made so little use of the richness of MARC records, and
here's OCLC building systems that use even less.
Unless something has
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
MARC handles multiple subject thesauri for our multiple clients quite
handily, with 2nd indicators and $2, allowing us to provide LCSH, RVM,
MeSH, etc. as wished. The same applies to 050 LCC, 055 FCPS or Moys,
060 NLMC, 080 UDC, and 082 DDC.
While I basically
In displays such as above, the designers of WorldCat decided (god
knows why!) to remove any and all additions to names such as fuller
well-known author Henry Miller is the same as the medical writer or
composer of The saucy little widow are left to figure that out some
other way. Those
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen said:
As for managing multiple vocabularies, there shouldn't be a big
difference between managing one or two or a dozen vocabularies ...
By vocabularies do you mean thesauri? If so, why not use that
more precise term? If there is a difference, what is that
Adam:
Thanks for pointing this out--I've had little experience using WorldCat,
and wasn't really aware of these particular problems. This seems so
counterintuitive--libraries have been complaining for years that their
vendors have made so little use of the richness of MARC records, and
here's
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
I'm absolutely with you where you say We have to quit thinking that
catalog = library, of course. But it is the catalog that this forum
is about.
No, this forum is about Resource Description and Access. And my argument
is that we should see resource description and
Karen Coyle wrote:
I interpret this statement differently than you do. Nowhere does the
report say that consistency is not worthwhile -- this is a study of
consistency, not the value of subject headings. Their conclusion, as you
quote above, is that consistency is unlikely across a broad
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Just one more thing: To achieve what you envision, it will I think have
to be a top priority that authority data (names and subject headings)
become openly and freely available for easy inclusion and swift use in
metadata.
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
I think another
Karen,
Thank you for the references. I do not expect or particularly want a
one-to-one replacement for AACR2 and MARC. What I think we must have is
something that incorporates or rolls over the data we have that use
those standards without losing what they have contributed to
bibliographic
Karen Coyle wrote:
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
improvement via RDA and FRBR.
Bernard, I feel like you're advocating an answer to a question that
hasn't been clarified.
In the
I think the report and this discussion about consistency is really
important for us all to think about. One of the ideas we'll need to
get used to as we contemplate changes to come is that data will come
from a variety of sources, and not all of those sources will be have the
same view of
D. Brooking wrote:
OCLC does not yet have a way to make institutional bib records (i.e.,
the locally customized versions of master records) available for
search and discovery. Though they are pursuing ways of making some
kinds of local data available in local holdings records, this solution
will
Shawne Miksa wrote:
You write: Bibliographic data available freely on the web can be combined
and presented in different ways, available to those who might want to try new
aggregations and methods of discovery and presentation.
In your view, where does that bibliographic data originate? Who
I have read the FA (and some of the report referred to) and could not find
evidence of what you say. Could you please be more specific about what
you mean?
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
Shawne:
You're right, when I hear cataloging I think traditional
cataloging--one reason why I always use the later term when I mean
traditional cataloging, and something else, say, metadata creation
when I mean something else. I'm glad you're not just teaching
traditional cataloging, but maybe
John, you've absolutely gotten it, and I like your metaphors, too.
:-)
Diane
Myers, John F. wrote:
The issue is that we hide our catalog records in our catalogs. While the public face of
those catalogs is a WebOPAC, this is only an html based interface to the catalog data, an
interface that
On 11/11/08 4:04 AM, Weinheimer Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(snip)
For example, the fact that Google stopped development of OAI-PMH (using only
DC!) in favor of XML Topic Maps is a huge development. Imagine that you are a
publisher, or any other producer of non-MARC records (i.e. anybody who
As I have followed the posts on this thread over the last few days and,
indeed, as I have read posts over the past several months, I find there is
a relatively small group of individuals who have moved the discussion away
from RDA to the future of libraries and cataloging. Some of this is
Laurence S. Creider wrote:
First, there is the question of specifics. I hear words like imagine or
references to current experiments. Those of us who have lived with
computers for a while know how big the gap between vision and reality can
be. The devil is indeed in the details. So, I would
Stephen Hearn wrote:
I just did a Google Books search on Gone with the wind. I clicked on
the first hit, and was given a brief bibliographic display and a link at
the right to Find this book in a library. I clicked that and was taken
to WorldCat, which provided a list of copies in libraries
Stephen Hearn wrote:
To me the hard part is ensuring consistency, first of terminology, but
more fundamentally of granularity and categorization. The great virtue
of MARC/AACR/LSCH cataloging is that it is as consistent as it is across
many catalogs and institutions and disciplines.
There is
Karen quoted:
This study has been briefed to investigate ...
A difficulty I have in reading the new writing on metadata is
formulations like the above, which makes it difficult to focus on the
substance of what is being said. I assume what is meant is that:
Those conducting this study have been
John Myers has done an excellent job of summarizing why we need to pay
attention to developments beyond MARC and XML and why we need to worry
about getting our records out for others to use. In the long run, this is
a matter of survival. Karen Coyle refreshingly admits how far there is to
go
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen quoted:
This study has been briefed to investigate ...
A difficulty I have in reading the new writing on metadata is
formulations like the above, which makes it difficult to focus on the
substance of what is being said.
I think that's more of an issue of
: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Shawne:
You're right, when I hear cataloging I think traditional
cataloging--one reason why I always use the later term when I mean
traditional cataloging, and something else, say, metadata creation
when I mean something else. I'm glad you're not just teaching
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating
their
improvement via RDA and FRBR.
Another consideration that we should not overlook is that catalogs
Karen wrote: We have to quit thinking that catalog = library, and start
looking at a wider range of services that we can (and do) provide.
Whoa! Stop!
This would imply that 'we' have all been thinking this--as if we all have
tunnel vision. I don't think that is true at all. Obviously the
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Weinheimer Jim
Sent: 10 noiembrie 2008 10:25
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Dear Jim
takes time
Karen Coyle wrote:
I think we have made a mistake in focusing on the catalog as the main
user tool. Our model for user service should instead be the reference
service. The catalog is inherently about the library's holdings, already
a narrow scope. In reference service, the user comes in with
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:00 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description
Miksa, Shawne wrote:
Karen wrote: We have to quit thinking that catalog = library, and start looking at
a wider range of services that we can (and do) provide.
Whoa! Stop!
This would imply that 'we' have all been thinking this--as if we all have tunnel vision.
I don't think that is true at
and Access [EMAIL
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:08 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Miksa, Shawne wrote:
Karen wrote: We have to quit thinking that catalog = library, and start
looking at a wider
**
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [EMAIL
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:08 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Miksa, Shawne wrote:
Karen wrote
I like fussing.
This idea of hoarding and hiding is difficult to understand as it makes it
sound as if librarians, and especially those who catalog, are cave dwellers who
can't speak. I would also ask you to not generalize all cataloging courses as
traditional. We've been incorporating
To me the hard part is ensuring consistency, first of terminology, but
more fundamentally of granularity and categorization. The great virtue
of MARC/AACR/LSCH cataloging is that it is as consistent as it is across
many catalogs and institutions and disciplines. That's not a natural
development.
Stephen Hearn said:
To me the hard part is ensuring consistency ...
The natural tendency of thinking communities is to divide
and redivide and to use language, categories ...
Amen. I've just taken over as Archivist for an institution in which
this happened. The institutiona's administrative
The issue is that we hide our catalog records in our catalogs. While the
public face of those catalogs is a WebOPAC, this is only an html based
interface to the catalog data, an interface that is inherently self contained.
The actual records are not searchable via a search originating on the
Myers, John F. wrote:
(With apologies if I've wandered somewhat from the initial premise or if I've
misrepresented Diane.)
From my point of view, you are spot on as the Brits say.
I think a lot of what flusters people is that there isn't a way today to
lay out a perfectly formed plan with
It seems to me that there's another elephant in the room where we're
talking about making catalog records available to the public, and that's
the fact that most libraries depend on services from which they buy
their metadata, most notably at this point one such as OCLC although
there are a lot of
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
improvement via RDA and FRBR.
Here's an attempt:
http
Mike Tribby wrote:
a report from Educause that says that students think they already
know how to search,
... _we_ felt like that, too, when there were far fewer information resources
to search. This may just indicate a truism of youth,
Yes, but then there's also the more general
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
Why can't we say what RDA and FRBR are a solution to, and how their
introduction will make this huge difference to our users?
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
When we did some user interviews lately, we found that not all young
users act like the stereotype young users act, and some older users,
even faculty researchers, DO act like the stereotype of young users.
I think the goals people are claiming under the mantle of young users
really are
That everyone talks as if the only group of users are young people or young
students really angers me. I would agree they are the most predominant,
evaluated group of users, but why do we constantly talk as if they are the only
group? Last year I attended a two-day visioning task force
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
improvement via RDA and FRBR.
Bernard, I feel like you're advocating an answer to a question that
hasn't been clarified. In your
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quality does matter. So does efficiency and a consciousness that we
can't possibly afford to give full attention to every item. Some choices
have to be made, and, as the LC Future of Bib Control report pointed
out, we have no measurements of usefulness or success that would
@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Shawne:
It wasn't too long ago that I was told that I couldn't catalog web
resources because we didn't own them. I have to say that redefining
the catalog yet again isn't something I'm all that interested in
doing--particularly
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Diane I. Hillmann
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:37 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Shawne:
Thanks for your note. I'm not sure I was aiming for eloquence, just
hoping to shift the conversation a bit, away from the tendency
On 4 November 2008, Miksa, Shawne wrote:
Have library, have catalog. Have Web, catalog part of it--a doorway or
alcove or hallway to another room. Libraries still have
'collections'--this has not changed. Call it a digital
library--whatever---that is a guide to it what it contains,
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
In defense of the Chicken Littles of the World
I really enjoyed reading this post. A few comments...
I guess I'm worried about something similar happening today. If we
focus primarily on speed, throughput and bean counting at the expense
of quality, I think we
Casey Mullin wrote:
I am encouraged at where this thread has turned this evening...
Shawne's comments about continuing to create catalogs are apt. What I've
come to realize in the past few years is that it's not the fundamental
intellectual activity of catalogers which is in danger of
Ed Jones wrote:
[snip]
My main concern at present is that in the current economic environment
there will be increasing pressure at all levels to abandon RDA—or at
best to postpone its implementation—if it entails any substantial
investment by those who would otherwise implement it. With state
Shawne:
Thanks for your note. I'm not sure I was aiming for eloquence, just
hoping to shift the conversation a bit, away from the tendency to a
Chicken Little-style response ...
Your last question worries me--are we still creating catalogs, or are we
trying (finally) to participate, as the
One of the questions I often get in class from my cataloging students is What
are the parameters of a library catalog? in this day and age when we are
expected to provide access not only to a library's particular collection but,
seemingly, everything else out there. Are we still creating
Shawne:
It wasn't too long ago that I was told that I couldn't catalog web
resources because we didn't own them. I have to say that redefining
the catalog yet again isn't something I'm all that interested in
doing--particularly since that definition isn't likely to ever be as
close to consensus
sleepy Sunday night rant. Thanks for reading.
Casey Alan MullinMLS CandidateSchool of Library and Information ScienceMetadata
Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music LibraryIndiana University Date: Sun, 2
Nov 2008 19:27:09 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RDA-L]
libraries, society and RDA
66 matches
Mail list logo
