On 12/5/2013 9:03 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
<snip>
04.12.2013 21:07, Laurence S. Creider:
I think that the most we can hope for is for other content standards
that
we can make compatible to RDA so that data can be exchanged in the other
format.
We have to realize that schema.org, mentioned by Jim, is not a
content standard but a markup standard. What you put under a microdata
tag is up to you! There are no mentionable content rules for names
or titles or just about anything you can record in microdata.
So, there is actually no choice between RDA and microdata.
Not even, I'd add, between MARC and microdata, for the latter is just
much less granular, and certainly too much so for RDA stuff.
OTOH, Jim's view about what standards we really need seems to be more
radical...
</snip>
This is true, and while Bernhard certainly knows the difference between
a content standard and a markup standard--and how important that
distinction is--and many others on this list understand as well, the
vast majority of non-catalogers either do not understand the difference
(and don't care) or they do not understand why it is important. For
instance, an IT person would very possibly say that all you need to do
is encode your information in schema.org, put it someplace where the
Googles can ingest it, and then the *algorithms* will clear up any
problems with content. The Googles do this all the time. I think there
are lots of problems with that, but it doesn't mean the idea itself is
entirely wrong either.
Laurence's point is also telling: that other content standards can be
made compatible to RDA. I ask: Why shouldn't it be the other way around:
make RDA (or library-created records) compatible with other content
standards? This would be the real change and, I think, is inevitable no
matter what we do.
Whether we like it or whether we don't, libraries are not the main
places where people go to for their information needs. When was the last
time you saw in a movie or TV show that when someone needed information,
they were told: Go to a library and ask a librarian. No--it's always
Google and they always find exactly what they need quickly and easily.
That is the popular mind today.
Even when people do come to a library for information and not just for a
cup of coffee or to watch the latest "internet meme", but when they come
for information, lots of times it is to get access to search the web, or
to get access to proprietary databases (e.g. proquest, ebsco, etc.)
where they search full-text and/or *non-library* created records. Does
Ebsco use RDA? Or AACR2? No. And I don't think there is a chance in h***
that they will--that is, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise to
them, or can (pardon) make the business case.
So, from the user's standpoint--which must take precedence (as we have
always claimed but have rarely lived up to)--the number of places to get
information is going up at an exponential pace, while the
library-created information becomes an ever-diminishing fraction of the
whole of that. Everybody knows this, but yet we are supposed to think
that all of those information providers need and want to become
compatible with *us*? Why? If we wait for that, we wait forever....
So, are there choices? *Of course* there are choices--there are always
choices even though many try to deny that there are choices. The first
step--I think--is to eliminate the mind-numbing fantasy that FRBR is
some kind of ultimate solution. Finally, there seems to be a major push
against it, as shown in this excellent paper I found by Amanda Cossham:
"Bibliographic records in an online environment", given at a conference
in Copenhagen in August.
http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC42.html#.Up8arieKJWF She
also provides an excellent bibliography and has graciously included some
of my thoughts, so this gives me a chance to "pound my own chest".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_nhiYOvICk
The next step for catalogers is to deal seriously with the reality of
keyword searching. Keyword searching was immediately popular with the
users and it just as quickly destroyed the logical structure of the
catalog. (Yes, there was one!) It shouldn't come as a surprise that the
public, which was never enamored of our catalogs anyway, now finds our
catalogs much less useful than ever. That has been the case for--what is
it? Going on for a *quarter of a century* now?! What a librarian
attitude! How much longer can we put it off?
How can we make the traditional logical structures--that are
still!--found in our catalogs but hidden away, useful for the searcher
of today? And while we are at it, how could we make our records useful
with a full-text search? Full-text searches do exist and people like
myself like them. Could those full-text results be improved by using our
records somehow? Wouldn't it be nice if they were improved, and we could
demonstrate how important our work is, or at least, how important our
work could be? Shouldn't we try to find out?
But it seems more important to figure out the new relationships, thereby
making *all the records* we made before a year ago ever more
inconsistent (but let's not talk about that!), adding those incoherent
336-338 fields, typing out cataloging abbreviations and including the
entire alphabet soup after people's names in the statement of
responsibility.
Very strange when there is so much that could be done that could make a
real difference to the public.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Cooperative Cataloging Rules
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
