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
[RDA-L] Wording of RDA
Since one of the conditions set by the US national libraries for
implementation of RDA was rewording in simple English, why are
constituent cataloguing committees still working on rule wording
revisions, revisions which are often not amplifications?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
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
