Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity
Jonathan, I think we are in agreement on this. Certainly, MARC needs to change substantially from its origins in the 1960s as a way to produce and maintain catalog cards more efficiently, which then turned into a way for libraries to share cards more efficiently using tools such as OCLC, RLIN and WLN, morphing into online computer displays. During that almost 50 years of development now, it has picked up a lot of baggage, while retaining its fundamental purpose of making physical cards for physical catalogs. The catalog cards are just virtual now. While I don't know precisely what practicing catalogers need to know about all of this, one thing they should realize is that the records they take by Z39.50 today are most probably reformatted significantly within their own local catalogs, and that the way they are stored and how they function most probably is different from one catalog to another. One catalog may be in native ISO2709 format (e.g. CDS-ISIS databases), they may be in relational database structures, or they may be in XML. They may not even be in a database at all if they are handled using tools such as Lucene. The record they see on the computer screen may include information from the local catalog, but also from other services on the web over which the cataloger has little or no control, e.g. delicious tags, amazon reviews, citations from OCLC, and so on. There is no reason to think that any formats that librarians agree upon as standard will necessarily become the format used within any local catalog. We must assume that they will always be reformatted, and when a new catalog is acquired, the information will be reformatted yet again. Much of this is technical work and is of little interest for the practicing cataloger. The task for the cataloger is to ensure that information from one format is transferred as reliably as possible to another format, e.g. dc.title goes into 245$a, and vice versa (if necessary). We must also assume that there will always be information that is lost in this process because any conversion implies some sort of loss somewhere. If there is none, that is wonderful, but it has never been my own experience. Summed up in this way, trying to devise a new standardized format that lots of people will agree upon will take a long, long, long time, probably beyond many of our working careers, and during this time of development, the library community will find itself farther and farther behind, and less and less relevant to the information environment rapidly taking shape. Nobody out there will wait for us for 15 years, or even 15 months, maybe not even 15 weeks. In any case, people out there will do exactly the same thing as libraries: they will reformat anything they take from us for their purposes. I will say that MARC has an element vocabulary but I agree it was never designed to be that way. 245$a is both very specific and extremely complex. Yesterday, I was cataloging something and it took me a long time to decide exactly what should go in there. For people who have never done this sort of work before, they may ask, How can you have troubles deciding the title of a book? They don't even realize the naivete of their question. Also, anything with as much history as MARC records, with thousands of people entering data over almost 50 years will have inconsistencies, anything else would come as a shock, but I don't think that it makes it unique. Other databases I have seen have many inconsistencies as well. So, what's so bad about MODS? Why not start with it? Did you see that message from Adrian Pohl how people are already using the CERN data in unique ways? See: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=NGC4LIB;O8uypw;20100203143904%2B0100 So it looks as if some in the general public can deal with MARCXML! James L. Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome Rome, Italy From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:56 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity Ah, but MARC already IS an exchange format, isn't it? Isn't that what we claim it is? Well, I'm kind of being unfair, because we all know it's no longer just that. What I've been suggesting for a while is that MARC has in fact become our technical element vocabulary. (By vocabulary here I do NOT mean words that humans use when communicating in human languages, I use the term in a more technical sense). But yes, there is no _theoretical_ reason we could not continue to use MARC as an internal format, and simply share data in other formats transformed from and to MARC (in both directions). However, there are practical reasons that I argue make MARC unsuitable for
Re: [RDA-L] Google Exposes Book Metadata Privates at ALA Forum
Weinheimer Jim schrieb: This is a description of a very interesting meeting over metadata, with many groups involved. http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/google-exposes-book-metadata-privates.html Most edifying as well as sobering indeed. Do we conclude that ONIX should replace MARC? Karen Coyle said in that meeting: ... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'. Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects etc. can safely be considered dead? We've long suspicioned that non-librarians neither want them nor understand them in the first place. Decisions to abolish them should, however, not be based on suspicion but evidence. Do we have it? Is that team's conclusion evidence? If so, to the dustheap with non-sort markers and indicators! B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Google Exposes Book Metadata Privates at ALA Forum
Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects etc. can safely be considered dead? I, for one, happen to like them. As a user, I always find it frustrating whenever I can't sort a list according to some transparent logic, be it alphabetical or chronological or by another scalable measure. - Dr. Christoph Schmidt-Supprian Assistant Librarian Bibliographic Data Management Trinity College Library Dublin On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: Weinheimer Jim schrieb: This is a description of a very interesting meeting over metadata, with many groups involved. http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/google-exposes-book-metadata-privates.html Most edifying as well as sobering indeed. Do we conclude that ONIX should replace MARC? Karen Coyle said in that meeting: ... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'. Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects etc. can safely be considered dead? We've long suspicioned that non-librarians neither want them nor understand them in the first place. Decisions to abolish them should, however, not be based on suspicion but evidence. Do we have it? Is that team's conclusion evidence? If so, to the dustheap with non-sort markers and indicators! B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Google Exposes Book Metadata Privates at ALA Forum
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip Karen Coyle said in that meeting: ... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'. Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects etc. can safely be considered dead? We've long suspicioned that non-librarians neither want them nor understand them in the first place. Decisions to abolish them should, however, not be based on suspicion but evidence. Do we have it? Is that team's conclusion evidence? If so, to the dustheap with non-sort markers and indicators! /snip This would demand some research. I would say that LCSH, i.e. subject heading strings, lose most of their coherence when they are not browsed alphabetically (and even then they are difficult). With personal names, I would think that people would find it very helpful to arrange all of the Robert Johnsons by surname instead of by first name (Bob, Rob, Robbie, etc.), but I think we could learn a lot from Wikipedia on this. I just cannot agree that surname-forename Johnson, Robert is so foreign for people's understanding. I think alphabetical arrangement is highly useful for finding sub-bodies of corporate bodies. (Of course, all of this assumes cross-references) As far as book titles go, my research has shown that alphabetical arrangement is rather recent. In several card catalogs, there were no title added entry cards made, only for title main entry. And in earlier times, in manuscript catalogs, I often found that even title main entry was not used. If there was no clear author, these items got placed into the section Anonymous, Pseudonymous, etc. Works by order of acquisition(!). That was really bad. Browsing by title may not be that important today with keyword retrieval since people should be able to sort in other ways. I believe that is the only place for non-filing indicators (other than series titles), but I may be wrong? James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] Google Exposes Book Metadata Privates at ALA Forum
Browsing by title may not be that important today with keyword retrieval since people should be able to sort in other ways. I believe that is the only place for non-filing indicators (other than series titles), but I may be wrong? They were only talking about books at that meeting, weren't they? (After all, there was a clear book industry bias) Requirements for series' and periodicals' titles may be a different story in this aspect. Try finding periodicals in GBS. But they'll be getting to that, no doubt... In large catalogs, an alphabetized title index can be helpful when you know only the beginning of the title and when it is unspecific so you are not sure what precise keywords to use to find it. Or so is my old-fashioned view. B.Eversberg
[RDA-L] RDA in Europe: making it happen! Seminar in Copenhagen 8th of August 2010
RDA in Europe: making it happen! EURIG - JSC Seminar on RDA Copenhagen, Denmark, 8th of August 2010, 09.00-17.00 First notification! On the 8th of August 2010 the European RDA Interest Group (EURIG) and the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) are planning a seminar on the new cataloguing rules RDA (Resource Description and Access) and their implications for libraries in Europe and in particular its non-English speaking cataloguing communities. The seminar will take place the day before the IFLA World Library Information Congress starts in Gothenburg, but is not a part of the congress. The day, however, has been chosen to make it possible for people attending the IFLA Congress to also go to this seminar on their way to Gothenburg. Topics to be covered during the seminar will include: * RDA: Background and context * RDA: A demonstration of the online toolkit * RDA: A non-Anglo-American perspective * Translation issues * Implementation plans * Future development of the rules * Reports from European countries considering a move to RDA * Time for discussion The venue of the seminar is Dronningesalen at the Royal Library in Copenhagen, kindly offered to us by the Royal Library. After the meeting there are trains connecting directly to Gothenburg from Copenhagen Central Station (http://www.sj.se http://www.sj.se ), approx. 3,5 hours travel time. There are also flights to Gothenburg from Copenhagen Airport, approx. 45 minutes travel time. An official invitation will be sent out at the end of February with further information on price and how to register. See also the website of EURIG: http://www.slainte.org.uk/eurig/index.htm http://www.slainte.org.uk/eurig/index.htm On behalf of EURIG, Anders Cato Anders Cato Head of Cataloguing Kungl. biblioteket - National Library of Sweden Box 5039 SE-102 41 Stockholm Sweden Tel.: +46-8-463 44 29 Mobil: +46-73-917 24 74 e-mail: anders.c...@kb.se
Re: [RDA-L] Utlility of ISBD/MARC vs. URIs (Was: Systems ...)
Bernhard Eversberg said:
For everyday use, URIs are much too cumbersome.
Absolutely true! Try a verbal tag for the difference between MARC 130
and 240 for example. MARC's language neutral number tags were a
stroke of genius.
imposes structure where it isn't helpful (e.g., where it was based on
obsolete card design).
Every word of your post rang true, until I reached that last sentence.
Insofar as the old unit card structure is reflected in the choice and
order of elements of the ISBD, it is *very* helpful. This is a choice
and order of elements based on over a century of experiment and
history, now tried and tested by international success in helping
create universal bibliographic control (IFLA's UBC). To quote Michael
Gorman, it is the most successful international library standard in
history. It works equally well with books, realia, audio visual
materials, or electronic resources; and I suspect will work as well
with any new media which appears, We are reinventing the wheel, and
an octagonal one at that. It's going t be a bumpy ride.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of MARC (Was: Systems ,,,)
James Wwinheimer said:
I think we are in agreement on this. Certainly, MARC needs to change
substantially from its origins in the 1960s ...
I can think of some changes needed: restore ISBD order, e.g., ISBD
Area 0 as opposed to fields 336-338; clean up the messy order of
numbering in 5XX; reduce and standardize fixed fields across genres;
etc. BUT the basic idea of languge neutral tags which become a
language themseles has not been improved upon.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] RDA Webinar - RDA Toolkit: A Guided Tour!
ALA publishing is giving the same presentation we did at ALA midwinter as a Webinar for anyone interested to see a demo of the RDA Toolkit beta site. We will give the same presentation twice at different times of day in hopes of covering as may people as possible. These are the first of what we hope to be many RDA related webinars. RDA Toolkit: A Guided Tour! Join Troy Linker from ALA Publishing for an introductory guided tour of the RDA Toolkit website. If you were at ALA Midwinter in Boston, you may already have taken this tour at the RDA Update Forum, the CC:DA meeting, or on the exhibit floor--but please feel free to join us again. The webinar will be recorded and posted for anyone that is unable to participate live. Details for accessing the recorded webinar video will be emailed to registries and posted widely. The tour includes: * Description of the RDA Toolkit * Overview of the RDA Toolkit contents at launch and beyond * Tour of the RDA Toolkit interface including Search, Browse, Bookmarks, Workflows, Maps, and more * Launch timeline * Details of the Complimentary Open Access period * RDA Toolkit pricing for the US * Linking from external products to the RDA Toolkit Join us on February 8, - 21:00-22:00 GMT | 4:00pm-5pm EST | 3:00pm-4pm CST | 1:00pm-2pm PST https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/639494355 OR Join us on February 9, - 16:00-17:00 GMT | 11:00am-12pm EST | 10:00am-11am CST | 8:00am-9am PST https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/991492442 Kind regards, Troy Linker Publisher, ALA Digital Reference American Library Association (312) 280-5101
Re: [RDA-L] Filing order (Was: Google ...)
Well, we recently put a quick search box on the library homepage (i.e. keyword
only, with no other initial other options), and slightly obscured the link to
the main catalogue options for left-anchored searches, and although there was
an increase in keyword searching, left anchored title searching still trumped
in our statistics, so now there's a possibility of switching the default on the
main library page to left anchored title search instead...
..so left-anchored searching is alive, indexing is afoot... The unilateral
preference amongst actual users of the all singing, all dancing keyword search
may well be the biggest myth of the modern library.
Martin Kelleher
Bibliographic Services/Electronic Resources Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 04 February 2010 15:51
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Filing order (Was: Google ...)
Bernhard Eversberg said:
Karen Coyle said in that meeting:
... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really
required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'.
Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects
etc. can safely be considered dead?
Experimenting with filing order in a card catalogue established that inverse
date order of cards behind subject guide cards produced patron satisfaction,
and spread circulation across the alphabet (as opposed to authors A-M
circulating more heavily than N-Z). But author and title OPAC browse lists
(replicating card catalogue alphabetical
filing) assists patrons to find known items where their spelling is a tad off.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] NETSL Award 2010: Deadline Extended!
Good news! The New England Technical Services Librarians (NETSL) Executive Board has extended the nomination deadline for its annual NETSL Award for Excellence in Library Technical Services. We know you've got someone in mind. They've inspired you by meeting challenges head on; they're innovative practitioners that keep the technical services department ahead of the curve; the library as a whole flourishes because of their efforts; they put the service in technical services! Eligible librarians include those who live outside of New England but whose service to the profession has impacted New England libraries, and those who reside in New England and have made contributions on a national level through publications, service, or innovations in practice. Nominations will be accepted until February 17th. The award will be presented on April 15, 2010 at the NETSL Annual Spring Conference: Crosswalks to the Future at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA. Go to http://www.nelib.org/netsl/conference/2010/index.htm for additional details. Eligibility for nomination is as follows: * Nominees may be NETSL/NELA members, but membership in the Association is not required. * A nomination must be accompanied by a written statement that includes the reasons for nomination and a narrative summary of the nominee's career and achievements. The person's resume or CV may be used to meet this requirement. * You do not have to be a NETSL member to make a nomination. * Please send your nominations and the above documentation to the NETSL Vice-President no later than Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Contact information for Amira Aaron, NETSL Vice President, appears below. * Current members of the NETSL Executive Board are not eligible for consideration Past Recipients include: Martha Rice Sanders, David Miller, Lisa Palmer, Catherine Willis, Matthew Beacom, Robert L. Cunningham, Dr. Sheila Intner, Birdie MacLennan, and Lynda Kresge. Additional details are available on the NETSL section of the NELA Web site: http://nelib.org/netsl/award2010call.htm If you have further questions or would like to nominate someone, please contact: Amira Aaron NETSL Vice-President/President-Elect libconsul...@gmail.com 781-248-1806 (cell) NETSL is a section of the New England Library Association and is affiliated with the ALCTS Council of Regional Groups. For more information on NETSL, visit our website at: http://www.netsl.org
