Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Christopher Cronin said:
statistically, it is probably close to impossible for any one person
to even find themselves in a position of browsing through jumbled
records in any given list of search results in our catalog.
This is an important difference between a major academic library, and
public, school, or specialized libraries, which tend to have mainly
current material. I know one public ;obrary which will not accept
items more than five years old - a mistake in my view - I would
prefer to read an older hardback Jane Austin or Dick Frances than a
current paperback. Some libraries will have that 'jumble' sooner than
others.
When it comes to the integration of RDA records with AACR2 ones, the
lack of GMDs in RDA seems to get a lot of attention on this list.
... we are generally undergoing a process of assessing how we want
data to be delivered to and used by patrons.
Are you considering icons to inform patrons of carrier? I assume it
would be possible to have icons to represent at least the major
carriers. It would seem to me more difficult to have enough
recognizable icons to represent all RDA media type, carrier, and
content terms.
What would you do if RDA is not implemented? Unlikely I know. Do you
have inside information? The Canadian Cataloguing Committee is
saying early 2012 for implementation.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On 05/20/2011 04:20 PM, Christopher Cronin wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: It is simply unrealistic to think people will do more than the minimum. Is is? I have yet to hear of a single library in the test, or that subsequently implemented RDA, that has made a policy to limit description and access to the first named creators just because RDA says we can. In fact, I have heard and seen evidence demonstrating exactly the opposite. RDA's elimination of the ceiling that was the 'Rule of Three' has freed catalogers to transcribe full statements of responsibility, and as a BIBCO institution, we are providing access points and authority control with the same mindset as we always have -- if it is important for discovery and access, we do the work. But even if another library did do just the minimum, perhaps because that's truly all they could afford, or all they required to meet their particular needs, or all they felt was warranted by the resource for their purposes, I'm certainly not going to malign it. I say great -- contribute your minimum to the collective and we'll add to it. That's why we have a collective. I simply do not understand this impetus to underestimate the ability of catalogers to put what they do into a larger context. I don't employ any robots here at Chicago, I employ professional catalogers with the capacity to use their best, experienced, reasoned, and well-informed judgment. And I certainly don't equate the application of professional cataloger's judgment with Do whatever you feel like! nor have I have seen evidence that the catalogers do either. If bosses need to be subverted because they don't understand what catalogers do, why they do it, and for whom, that's the boss's problem, not RDA's. Communities don't write content standards to subvert ill-informed bosses. Implementing RDA, and understanding the FRBR model behind it, has only heightened, not diminished, Chicago's catalogers' focus on the needs of the user -- even if meeting those needs is at the expense of the cataloger's (i.e., taking time to spell things out rather than abbreviate, and transcribe full statements of responsibility, etc.). We are arguing for the same thing -- providing the best possible level of access for our users. But minimum and best possible is relative to the resource, the institution, and the user -- the RDA instructions for minimally providing the first-named creator simply recognizes that relativity and allows an institution to make choices to go beyond it. With the ceiling removed, the sky is the limit. In the 2,000 or so RDA copy cataloging records we have imported since October 2010, we have not seen evidence of a problem with this instruction. Metadata has been very robust so far in our exeprience. But again, if you think it isn't working, then it would be helpful not just to read the complaint, but also a proposed solution or alternative to the instructions in question. /snip Of course, no library is going to advertise something like that, just as the food industry is not advertising how they are shrinking their packages and raising prices at the same time (lots of articles out there, here is a recent one http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/04/food_prices_costs_packages_con.html). People do these things quietly so that they don't have to hear a lot of howling. Also, although a catalog division or individual cataloger may start out having every intention of being ethical, doing it right, etc. these intentions change over time as everyone feels the increasing pressure for more productivity, and catalogers will most probably be pushed hard in the future. These sorts of pressures happen all the time in all fields--and that is precisely why the government established minimums for the business world, to guarantee specific levels of quality, so that when times are tough, the quality doesn't go down too far. This is only being realistic. The standards are based on what people need, not on what resources a company has available at the moment, and if a company cannot produce a minimal quality product, they shouldn't be allowed to muck everything up for everybody. Perhaps this is not very nice, but critical in society. RDA has determined that a single author is good enough. I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all. And although you may not want to equate cataloger's judgment with Do whatever you feel like! it nevertheless remains true, because it will follow the standards. (I wrote a post on this to Autocat http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/12/re-author-added-entries-under-rda_29.html) -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is good enough when there are more than three, it is OK. However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its application to numbers of authors less than three) or to break with the pattern of arbitrary determinations (by allowing all authors regardless of number), that is now a problem? On a local basis, I routinely disregarded the Rule of Three in order to incorporate descriptive elements and access points for college faculty. In the future, regardless of whether the restrictive option allowed in RDA is initially employed, the agencies where such access is important will improve the record to meet their constituents' needs and expectations. Those agencies that use the record as is, in its pre-improved state, will do so because it meets the needs of their own constituents and hence needn't worry about the subsequent changes. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- James Weinheimer wrote: RDA has determined that a single author is good enough. I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors?
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: May 20, 2011 11:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? . RDA has determined that a single author is good enough. I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all. But they could also have been left out in the 3 person rule, which was a ceiling, not a floor as in RDA. Deciding what's legitimate should be up to the agency. We need a single creator for minimum functionality (receipt printouts, reports, cutters, etc.). We create bare minimum bibliographic records for some cases (ephemeral material, romance paperbacks) where it's our judgment call to ignore AACR2 and create the catalog records that suit our purposes. We prefer to acquire fuller, richer records for the bulk of our resources, and will augment them as necessary. It's the agency's relationship to the user base that dictates what policies and guidelines for catalog records will be followed. In terms of what's available via technology, there has been nothing but steady increases in the richness and fullness of the bibliographic data we present to our users. Whether it's enriched content (cover art, reviews), or more web links, or incorporating summaries of the content, the shift we're seeing is a focus on incrementally adding data from a focus on creating the picture perfect, compact, well-punctuated all-in-one record. That's the reality I see RDA acknowledging, and RDA should be part of the ecosystem of our information systems for that reason alone going forward. Plus it's a lot more fun working with an element set. As an example, our system no longer uses the GMD (it uses fixed fields to create labels and icons), and having to maintain the GMD and worry about punctuation and filing and display issues is not something I would wish about any library. But segregating and atomizing the components for this information (which is the direction RDA is going with its element set and entity-relationship approach) is such a night and day improvement in terms of maintenance and flexibility over AACR2 cataloging, that more of the same is the only logical decision to make. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On 05/20/2011 05:34 PM, Myers, John F. wrote: snip So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is good enough when there are more than three, it is OK. However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its application to numbers of authors less than three) or to break with the pattern of arbitrary determinations (by allowing all authors regardless of number), that is now a problem? On a local basis, I routinely disregarded the Rule of Three in order to incorporate descriptive elements and access points for college faculty. In the future, regardless of whether the restrictive option allowed in RDA is initially employed, the agencies where such access is important will improve the record to meet their constituents' needs and expectations. Those agencies that use the record as is, in its pre-improved state, will do so because it meets the needs of their own constituents and hence needn't worry about the subsequent changes. /snip That was what AACR2 determined: that a single author was good enough when there were more than three. Do I agree? No, and I never did. So what? There are lots of people who don't agree with what is mandated in the standards, but it doesn't matter: they are still the standards and must be followed. Otherwise, they are not standards. In normal standards, they mandate minimums and you can do more. When cataloging, lots of catalogers made additional access points. I have too. Unfortunately, according to AACR2, that goes outside the standard because AACR2 is not so much a standard as much as it creates a template, as RDA does in a lot of ways as well. The rule of three could be improved and turned into a real rule of three by turning it into a minimal standard: trace at least the first three authors. This is simple, easy to teach and even adds access because we would trace three authors when there are four or more, while if somebody added the fourth, *it would still follow the standard*. This is the concern that I have, here is an item with 3 authors and 2 editors, and all I have to do is trace the first one and *still be in the standard*. That is going the wrong way! I keep quoting myself, but I hate to repeat everything. I talk about the same issues in my last podcast: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Good afternoon, Thomas said, It's the agency's relationship to the user base that dictates what policies and guidelines for catalog records will be followed. then James said, ... that a single author was good enough when there were more than three. Do I agree? No, and I never did. So what? There are lots of people who don't agree with what is mandated in the standards, but it doesn't matter: they are still the standards and must be followed. Otherwise, they are not standards. Sometimes an agency requires something that the rules can not provide. There are instances whereby tracing ALL names are important to the said agency. I have had to create a work-around so that I comply to rules, but give them what they want. Example: a technical report with four authors. Title main entry: [title] / $c by [author no. one] ... [et al.]. Note: Statement of responsibility on t.p. reads, [all four authors]. Trace all four authors as added entries. That way, the tracings are justified from the descriptive cataloging note. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- -Original Message- From: James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:54:55 +0200 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? On 05/20/2011 05:34 PM, Myers, John F. wrote: snip So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is good enough when there are more than three, it is OK. However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its application to numbers of authors less than three) or to break with the pattern of arbitrary determinations (by allowing all authors regardless of number), that is now a problem? On a local basis, I routinely disregarded the Rule of Three in order to incorporate descriptive elements and access points for college faculty. In the future, regardless of whether the restrictive option allowed in RDA is initially employed, the agencies where such access is important will improve the record to meet their constituents' needs and expectations. Those agencies that use the record as is, in its pre-improved state, will do so because it meets the needs of their own constituents and hence needn't worry about the subsequent changes. /snip That was what AACR2 determined: that a single author was good enough when there were more than three. Do I agree? No, and I never did. So what? There are lots of people who don't agree with what is mandated in the standards, but it doesn't matter: they are still the standards and must be followed. Otherwise, they are not standards. In normal standards, they mandate minimums and you can do more. When cataloging, lots of catalogers made additional access points. I have too. Unfortunately, according to AACR2, that goes outside the standard because AACR2 is not so much a standard as much as it creates a template, as RDA does in a lot of ways as well. The rule of three could be improved and turned into a real rule of three by turning it into a minimal standard: trace at least the first three authors. This is simple, easy to teach and even adds access because we would trace three authors when there are four or more, while if somebody added the fourth, *it would still follow the standard*. This is the concern that I have, here is an item with 3 authors and 2 editors, and all I have to do is trace the first one and *still be in the standard*. That is going the wrong way! I keep quoting myself, but I hate to repeat everything. I talk about the same issues in my last podcast: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html [http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html] -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ [http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/] Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ [http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/]
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
John Myers said:
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is
good enough when there are more than three, it is OK.
With RDA, a single author is good enough even if there are only two
or three authors. A major reduction in access.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Mac wrote: Are you considering icons to inform patrons of carrier? Yes. Iconography and facets are open options. Aquabrowser already does this by using fixed field coding (not using GMDs). We will be engaging in research to learn whether the 33X data can either refine or extend icons and facets. What would you do if RDA is not implemented? Ask me is six weeks. Probably continue cataloging in RDA, if only to give people on this list something to talk about. Do you have inside information? No. But if I did, I wouldn't spill it on a listserv. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Chris, You're so considerate! Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head of Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library 1121 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 p-mc...@uchicago.edu 773-702-9620 (office) 773-702-2885 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Christopher Cronin Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? [Material deleted} What would you do if RDA is not implemented? Ask me is six weeks. Probably continue cataloging in RDA, if only to give people on this list something to talk about. ___
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
James Weinheimer wrote: Of course, no library is going to advertise something like that... Libraries do advertise their practices every time they enter metadata into a shared database. My original email was intended to communicate that what we have seen so far contradicts your concern that catalogers will not, for the most part, go beyond the minimum for transcribing/tracing creators. The reason we took personal and institutional responsibility to be part of the test was specifically to move beyond sweeping hypotheticals, or fears of the potentially nefarious, and instead inform our opinions by applying the standard, building a base of evidence, and contributing constructive feedback to make the content standard better. Call it a crazy vested interest! My response was intended to offer what we have learned so far through that process of directly creating or triaging upwards of 7,000 RDA bibliographic records (I haven't even counted the authority records). If one chooses to discount this real-life experience in favor of a hypothetical, I suppose that's one's prerogative. they shouldn't be allowed to muck everything up for everybody We'll have to chalk this up to different philosophical standpoints, I guess. I don't consider a brief/minimal record muck unless it's factually wrong, or coded incorrectly. I see it as an opportunity -- an opportunity to take what one institution felt met its needs or abilities or budget and make it more robust, and contribute that work to the collaborative for use and re-use. I have no expectation that RDA, Dublin Core, EAD, DACS, TEI, FGDC, MARC, or any other content or encoding standard will ever result in a single iteration of a universally-perfect record that meets 100% of the needs of 100% of the population. If that utopian vision were attainable, the only people we would need to employ are original catalogers. All copy catalogers would be unnecessary because all available copy would be universally perfect, right? If that's what you thought RDA was trying to accomplish, or should accomplish, then you're absolutely correct -- you shouldn't implement it, it won't get you there. RDA has determined that a single author is good enough. No it hasn't. It has defined a floor, and given the cataloging agency the power and flexibility to define good enough for itself beyond that floor. I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all. Exactly, couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why we have CHOSEN not to apply the minimum at OUR institution for the vast majority of what we do. Eight months and seven thousand records later, I can say with some confidence that RDA has presented no barrier or hindrance for Chicago to accomplish exactly what you are arguing for, James. But that doesn't mean that a different institution will make, what is for them, an equally-valid but different treatment decision for the same resource; the contribution they make to the collective is no less valuable. If a resource is peripheral to their collection and they don't need to invest in creating as robust metadata as we need for the same resource, which may be central to our collection, then we will add what we need. That's why we are here. --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? On 05/20/2011 04:20 PM, Christopher Cronin wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: It is simply unrealistic to think people will do more than the minimum. Is is? I have yet to hear of a single library in the test, or that subsequently implemented RDA, that has made a policy to limit description and access to the first named creators just because RDA says we can. In fact, I have heard and seen evidence demonstrating exactly the opposite. RDA's elimination of the ceiling that was the 'Rule of Three' has freed catalogers to transcribe full statements of responsibility, and as a BIBCO institution, we are providing access points and authority control with the same mindset as we always have -- if it is important for discovery and access, we do the work. But even if another library did do just the minimum, perhaps because that's truly all they could afford, or all they required to meet their particular needs, or all
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all. Exactly, couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why we have CHOSEN not to apply the minimum at OUR institution for the vast majority of what we do. Eight months and seven thousand records later, I can say with some confidence that RDA has presented no barrier or hindrance for Chicago to accomplish exactly what you are arguing for, James. But that doesn't mean that a different institution will make, what is for them, an equally-valid but different treatment decision for the same resource; the contribution they make to the collective is no less valuable. If a resource is peripheral to their collection and they don't need to invest in creating as robust metadata as we need for the same resource, which may be central to our collection, then we will add what we need. That's why we are here. --Chris. I basically agree with everything the Chris has said in his posts. Where I do have some fears however, is that many libraries, including mine, which will very likely choose to provide full access to all creators named in a resource when we are doing original cataloging, will, because of staffing and efficiency needs, have to accept copy from institutions that chose not to go above the floor. I asked our head of acquisitions what percentage of materials we buy goes through cataloging in her unit without ever seeing a copy cataloger. For print monographs, she estimated 90% or higher of our purchased books. Many of these are books with just one author or editor, but for the rest of them, I don't think we we be able to shift the processing of them to higher level staff to add missing access points that we would have included had we done the original cataloging. So I do hope that as a community we do generally provide more than the floor, and Chris' comments that this is what he is seeing at Chicago is very encouraging. Luckily we are using WorldCat Local as our primary online discovery tool, and so any library that enhances a record that we have accepted with a lower level of access/completeness will be helping us out greatly. This is a powerful argument for network level cataloging. And I would hope that OCLC would be able to develop a more robust notification/record delivery system as well for users that would like to be able to get upgrades to records in their local systems. Right now as I understand it, if a record coded full level is enhanced by some other library, that type of change does not fall into the notification system, because there is no change in encoding level. Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On Fri, 20 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote: I guess we have probably exhausted our respective points. I will only discuss one here: Again, RDA's standard was made arbitrarily--unless somebody out there can point to some kind of research done that showed our patrons wanted only a single author, plus a translator, plus an illustrator only of childrens' books, although I have never heard anybody suggest this--and then dropped it all into the lap of the cataloger. Just a couple of years ago--even right now, that is considered to be *not good enough* and can only be considered a huge step backward from what it has been. What will you do when massive numbers of records come in--all following the RDA standard--that only have a single author? Or do you really think this won't happen because catalogers are too professional to allow standards to fall? Why not fault the standard itself? Why even allow it to happen and then have to clean up afterwards? I go back to John Myers comment earlier. We ALREADY have had a standard for 30+ years that says that all our users can look under is the first author/editor/illustrator/producer etc. when there are more than three entities responsible doing the same function. I have always considered that to be a massive disservice to users and a violation of longstanding cherished cataloging principles. Have patrons only wanted the first of four authors or editors in our current cataloging environment? Have faculty understood why they were left off of statements of responsibility and not provided with an access point simply because they came last in alphabetical order and that was the order decided on by them or the publisher of their book? I don't recall a lot of criticism of AACR2 for the decision to only give one name and one access point in this situation (yes, catalogers have always had workarounds, but we never bothered to change the standard in 30 years). Given what we've already been providing for large numbers of multi-creator resources, I really don't see RDA as being that different. Any number other than providing access points for ALL creators and contributors is really an arbitrary one that doesn't serve users very well and doesn't fulfill the objectives of the catalog that we've cherished for over a 100 years. ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Can we really compare our product (metadata/bibliographic records) to a can of corn? One is simple--I want a can of corn. Supermarkets are organized with the canned vegetables together (usually) and for those who cannot read English, there is a picture of corn on the can. One could confuse corn and creamed corn, but that's about as far as it goes. Catalog users want a book/video/CD that they learned about somehow, through a book review, a radio program or in conversation. They remember part of what they need to identify the book--maybe the author or title or part of the title, and they remember the item was published/issued recently. It was about corn. Will they really be happy to browse corn in our catalogs or will they want to combine the author name (or part of the name) they remember and the part of the title they remember and then limit that to the more recent materials the library has concerning corn. Oh yes, it was in English. Never mind the Spanish stuff. Another limit. And then they find that the thing they were looking for is a book and see it's charged out but there's an electronic copy they can view. After reading a bit, they decide that this isn't what they wanted, but something else that turned up in the search list is. Back to the list to look at the next title. And the next, and the next,...until they find one they want. They might also discover by looking at other records with the author's name that the author of the book on corn they found is also the author of a book on beans, or was somehow involved in a documentary about corn. Not quite the same as picking a can off the shelf. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head of Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library 1121 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 p-mc...@uchicago.edu 773-702-9620 (office) 773-702-2885 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA [text deleted] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? This shows a completely different attitude toward standards than what is in the other professions. For one thing, newer versions of standards should seek to provide improvements from what they were before, not something worse. Allowing a worse product actually says a lot. Companies whose business is storing and canning corn cannot decide on their own, without any research or discussion from the communities, to declare that the older standards were too high, that now lower standards will be allowed, say which standards they want to follow, and which standards they won't follow. But never fear, the community can trust whatever this specific organization makes because based on the expertise and professionalism of their own employees, nothing bad will happen. This is not how standards work. Any company who tried that with corn or wheat or automobile maintenance or electrical connections would be shut down, no matter how much they might proclaim that their own employees will decide to do even more than is required. Yeah, sure. I don't know how many outside would believe that. --
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
In my local supermarket in Urbana there is one aisle for canned vegetables, and another that has canned beans. And then another, which has canned tomatoes. It may be that explaining RDA is a lot simpler than explaining *that*. If only those supermarket folks had studied thesaurus construction :-) Just a thought for Friday afternoon... John John Wagstaff Head, Music Performing Arts Library Interim Head, Slavic and East European Library University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of Music 1114 W. Nevada Street Urbana IL61801 Tel. 217-244-4070 e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Pat Sayre McCoy [p...@uchicago.edu] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:51 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? Can we really compare our product (metadata/bibliographic records) to a can of corn? One is simple--I want a can of corn. Supermarkets are organized with the canned vegetables together (usually) and for those who cannot read English, there is a picture of corn on the can. One could confuse corn and creamed corn, but that's about as far as it goes. Catalog users want a book/video/CD that they learned about somehow, through a book review, a radio program or in conversation. They remember part of what they need to identify the book--maybe the author or title or part of the title, and they remember the item was published/issued recently. It was about corn. Will they really be happy to browse corn in our catalogs or will they want to combine the author name (or part of the name) they remember and the part of the title they remember and then limit that to the more recent materials the library has concerning corn. Oh yes, it was in English. Never mind the Spanish stuff. Another limit. And then they find that the thing they were looking for is a book and see it's charged out but there's an electronic copy they can view. After reading a bit, they decide that this isn't what they wanted, but something else that turned up in the search list is. Back to the list to look at the next title. And the next, and the next,...until they find one they want. They might also discover by looking at other records with the author's name that the author of the book on corn they found is also the author of a book on beans, or was somehow involved in a documentary about corn. Not quite the same as picking a can off the shelf. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head of Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library 1121 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 p-mc...@uchicago.edu 773-702-9620 (office) 773-702-2885 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA [text deleted] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? This shows a completely different attitude toward standards than what is in the other professions. For one thing, newer versions of standards should seek to provide improvements from what they were before, not something worse. Allowing a worse product actually says a lot. Companies whose business is storing and canning corn cannot decide on their own, without any research or discussion from the communities, to declare that the older standards were too high, that now lower standards will be allowed, say which standards they want to follow, and which standards they won't follow. But never fear, the community can trust whatever this specific organization makes because based on the expertise and professionalism of their own employees, nothing bad will happen. This is not how standards work. Any company who tried that with corn or wheat or automobile maintenance or electrical connections would be shut down, no matter how much they might proclaim that their own employees will decide to do even more than is required. Yeah, sure. I don't know how many outside would believe that. --
[RDA-L] Rule of three (was RE: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?)
As anyone who has read David Weinberger's Everything is miscellaneous knows, the physical arrangement of grocery and department stores, while perhaps not standardized in quite the same way a catalog is, is nonetheless the result of extensive empirical testing. While I don't believe RDA has quite that much laboratory testing behind it (and, to be realistic, there is a huge difference in the amount of money that is available to libraries and to places like Staples to figure these things out), with respect to the Rule of Three, I think the JSC got it right. The Rule of Three is certainly too restrictive; moreover it reflects a technological context (the card catalog) that has largely been rendered obsolete by bibliographic databases. But there has to be wiggle room: a standard that demands access points for ALL creators and contributors leads to a practice that is theoretically satisfying but not always feasible. We have materials with over 100 named contributors, and I'm sure other science and technology-focused collections have encountered the same. If we were forced by RDA (or any other standard) to transcribe and provide authority-controlled headings for every contributor to every work in our catalog, our cataloging would slow us down to a crawl, which results in an even greater disservice to our users because the materials they need are sitting the back room (or in the ERM), not in the stacks or discoverable in the OPAC. At some point it really does make more sense to say, [and others], and I think we probably need to remain somewhat vague about what that point is because not every library has the same users, or the same needs. One of the things I think is important about RDA is that it is nudging the profession to look at cataloging rules differently. I am tempted to say that the AACR2 approach was all that is not permitted is forbidden, while the RDA approach is all that is not forbidden is permitted; though I readily concede this is a bit of an oversimplification. In any case, to return to the question tracing authors and other contributors, any fixed cutoff number is going to be justifiably labeled arbitrary, and will be subject to the slings and arrows of those who think it's too high, or those who thinks it's too low. Identifying an absolute minimum, then encouraging catalogers to catalog wisely, and identifying best practices for specific types of libraries and collections strikes me as more flexible and realistic. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 4:36 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? On Fri, 20 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote: I guess we have probably exhausted our respective points. I will only discuss one here: Again, RDA's standard was made arbitrarily--unless somebody out there can point to some kind of research done that showed our patrons wanted only a single author, plus a translator, plus an illustrator only of childrens' books, although I have never heard anybody suggest this--and then dropped it all into the lap of the cataloger. Just a couple of years ago--even right now, that is considered to be *not good enough* and can only be considered a huge step backward from what it has been. What will you do when massive numbers of records come in--all following the RDA standard--that only have a single author? Or do you really think this won't happen because catalogers are too professional to allow standards to fall? Why not fault the standard itself? Why even allow it to happen and then have to clean up afterwards? I go back to John Myers comment earlier. We ALREADY have had a standard for 30+ years that says that all our users can look under is the first author/editor/illustrator/producer etc. when there are more than three entities responsible doing the same function. I have always considered that to be a massive disservice to users and a violation of longstanding cherished cataloging principles. Have patrons only wanted the first of four authors or editors in our current cataloging environment? Have faculty understood why they were left off of statements of responsibility and not provided with an access point simply because they came last in alphabetical order and that was the order decided on by them or the publisher of their book? I don't recall a lot of criticism of AACR2 for the decision to only give one name and one access point in this situation (yes, catalogers have always had workarounds, but we never bothered to change the standard in 30 years). Given what we've already been providing for large numbers of multi-creator resources, I really don't see RDA as
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
I agree with Adam Schiff and Christopher Cronin; the more we view full-level requirements as floors, not ceilings, the better. (I'm speaking for myself with that phrase; not attributing it to their viewpoints exactly.) I've long ignored the rule of three and also the(mostly unwritten) limitations on numbers of subject headings. I share Adam's concern that many libraries, including mine, ...will, because of staffing and efficiency needs, have to accept copy from institutions that chose not to go above the floor. ... This is a powerful argument for network level cataloging. ... The network level cataloging concerns me - - only in that I'm paid by the state, so why must I double my workload and contribute both to my local catalog and the utility - - especially when the utility has some limitations as to what I can contribute (for example, local x-refs in authority records, ones already turned down through the SACO process; or the prohibition from enhancing certain pcc records). And yet, as I've noticed others have done, I do at times retroactively add new/additional access to existing records in WorldCat. I haven't worked out the personal inner-conflict on workload expenditure versus access benefit to our patrons, because our union/consortial catalog is based on WorldCat. So it seems I'm obliged to do this double handling. But the workload increase is large. In closing, I'll just restate: the more we view full-level requirements as floors, not ceilings, the better 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
Re: [RDA-L] Use of standards
Daniel said:
In closing, I'll just restate: the more we view full-level
requirements as floors, not ceilings, the better
AMEN! Particularly the PCC Provider Neutral e-book standard.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA's reduced access allowed
Adam said:
I really don't see RDA as being that different.
As I and others have said, it's different in that one may provide
access by only one author, even though there are two are three of
equal status (given alphabetically on the title page for example),
and there is no required link between statement of responsibility
transcription and added entries.
I assume we can agree that each of two or three authors is more
important than one of a score. While a three minimum is arbitrary, it
does provide consistency with past access, and has historic
justification.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
