Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
On 12/20/2013 2:49 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Adger Williams wrote: Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections) Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them that way? Quite. They could be seen as attributes of the work and recorded in RDA elements 7.2 and 7.3 - in addition to the ordinary title of the work for the compilation/collection (RDA element 6.2). If this was consistently applied, it would give us the possibility to find A) all editions of a certain compilation/collection (making use of the title of the work) B) all compilations/collections of a certain type (making use of the attributes of the work) And everybody would be happy :-) /snip But people can do this right now, and they have been to do so for over a hundred and fifty years! As I tried to show, the problem is elsewhere. Something that was designed for a print environment collapsed when transferred into a computer environment and was never fixed. Nobody can find these titles under any of the forms of titles I have seen (who would ever think to search for the words works or selections or even worse: works. selections). So, if any of it is going to be useful, that means these titles must become findable to the general public, otherwise the collective uniform titles just become complex and useless appendages to our records. This is a fundamental problem and to fix it, we must do more than just find other words to use (omnium gatherum?) because this goes beyond specific words, just as our 19th-century predecessors understood. They solved it an a unique and brilliant way for their times: by special filing of the cards and what would have been difficult was suddenly very simple. That is why I suggested something new: the word cloud where those titles become obvious. http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/12/re-rda-l-collective-cities-that-is.html So the titles that are pretty much useless now *could* turn out to be useful (at least I think so), but I very well could be shown to be wrong. If new attempts to make these titles findable by the public are not successful and/or it turns out that the collective uniform titles really are simply obsolete holdovers from the card catalog, as suggested by Mac, then let's get rid of them and good riddance! It would be great to get rid of some work (besides getting rid of the rule of three and similar savings). The worst thing to do would be to continue a practice that is seen to be definitely obsolete--since many people think that is what cataloging is today anyway. That is not what I think of course, but why give ammunition to the budget cutters? -- 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 To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
On 12/20/2013 4:15 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Are you really sure they can? My feeling is that up to now, both aims have been fulfilled only partly. Maybe this is what makes it so unsatisfactory. /snip I honestly don't think that is the real problem. For the public, the collective uniform titles *do not exist* because they are unfindable. Before making our records even more complicated (and committing more and more ever-disappearing resources) it would make sense to find out if collective uniform titles are/could be useful to the public and if not, why not, and then continue from there. Otherwise, we are all working on personal feelings or beliefs. That's what a lot of what RDA is, though On a concrete point: snip The second aim is also difficult to reach, because a CCT is recorded not in addition to but *instead of* the real work title. Compare: If you have a monograph like The live and times of X and you have the English edition and a German translation, then you can collocate them using the title of the work (The live and times of X), formerly called the uniform title. But if you have a compilation like Best of X's short stories in an English and a German edition, you cannot collocate these two in the same way, as the work title hasn't been recorded as Best of X's short stories but instead as Short stories. Selections. The real work title (Best of X's short stories) is identical with the English manifestation title, but not with the German, so you'll get only half of what you're looking for. /snip Not quite correct. According to LCRI 25.11 https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-11-translations-etc, there is the rule: For partial collections containing works in translation, attempt to distinguish between those cases in which the translation is of an existing collection in the original language and cases in which there is no such collection in the original language. 1) If the collection does exist in the original language, use the uniform title of the original or, if no uniform title is appropriate, its title proper, followed by the language of the translation. 2) If the collection does not exist in the original language, use a collective uniform title according to 25.9A or 25.10A regardless of the quality of the title of the translated collection. Follow the collective uniform title with the language of the translation. (By the way, the words quality of the title refers to the concept of adequate title which is both very important and extremely vague) Determining whether a translation of a collection actually exists in the original can be a *lot* of work and demands just too much time from the cataloger. If the information is readily available from the item, it is no problem of course, but otherwise, even if you have a huge collection at your disposal, it is very arguably not worth the effort. My rule was almost always Stay in your chair, try from a cursory glance at the catalog whether anything looks as if it may be suitable and hope you don't find anything(!). Otherwise just assign the collective uniform title and go on to the next item. -- 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 To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
On 12/20/2013 5:13 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Thanks, I wasn't aware of this LCRI (I'm afraid there's still a lot I don't know about Anglo-American cataloging). Indeed this sounds rather complicated and a lot of effort. Also, I'm not sure I've really understood its consequences: So, the original collection might have got Poems. Selections but the translation would have got X's best poetry. German in 240? If so, then that would still seem something of a muddle to me. And would that rule still be valid under RDA? I can't remember seeing something similar in the LC-PCC PS. /snip What this means is *if* a cataloger gets a book titled The Coffin of Count Thrümmel by Otto Bierbaum, finds that it is a translation and contains several other poems, he or she is supposed to look to see if it existed as a separate collection in German. The cataloger then may run across this Die Schatulle des Grafen Thrümmel und andere nachgelassene Gedichte, (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2640962) and then the cataloger is to try to determine if it is the same collection or not. If it is determined that it is a translation of this specific collection, the uniform title would be: 240 10 Schatulle des Grafen Thrümmel und andere nachgelassene Gedichte.$lEnglish otherwise, if it is not the same thing, you would do: 240 10 Poems.$kSelections.$lEnglish and you could throw on a date. The idea of adequate title may also apply here. LCRI 25.10 example 2. https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-10-works-in-a-single-form since this would mean that the original German title was adequate. This seemed to me to be what you were suggesting in your post. As I pointed out, it is really a lot of work for, as I see it, little gain. -- 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 To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
On 16/12/2013 21.09, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Adam Schiff wrote: LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective title must be used instead. What I would really like to see is some kind of justification for this idea. Is there any evidence that catalog users or the general public do NOT know the the title of a compilation by the title that appears on its title page? Can anyone tell me--with a straight face--that the book Everything is nice : collected stories, sketches and plays is not known to anyone by that title, but rather is known by the title Works. Selections. 2012??? /snip Of course, our predecessors understood--probably better then we do--that nobody will ever search for Works or Selections. That was not the purpose of collective uniform titles. It turns out that this is an example of how the transfer from card/print catalogs to online catalogs changed something very fundamental in the workings of the catalog. It is clearest to show this through an example. If we examine the Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum (that is, Panizzi's catalog where only volume 1 came out and because of popular outrage, it was stopped and the Royal Investigation began) the purpose of these collective titles (which didn't really exist as they do today) was used for *arrangement*, and there was no need for anybody to search for them because once you found a person's name, the first things you saw were the Works and Selections etc. As a result, when you found the person, you found their works (if there were any). To see how it worked, we can use the wonders of Google Books to look in Panizzi's catalog under Aristophanes: http://books.google.it/books?id=cE0MAQAAMAAJhl=itpg=PA317#v=onepageqf=false and we immediately see Works (didn't have to search for it) and after browsing we eventually come to Separate Works. If we look under the more complex arrangement under Aristotle http://books.google.it/books?id=cE0MAQAAMAAJhl=itpg=PA321#v=onepageqf=false, we see Works and eventually (much farther along) we come to Two or More Separate Works (or our Selections). This reveals an *incredibly complex* arrangement, with see references everywhere to other places in the catalog, and we can begin to understand the outrage among the people who saw this catalog and why they demanded an investigation. These arrangements were transferred wholesale into the card catalog. This can be seen in the Princeton scanned catalog, where we find the following arrangement for Aristotle: http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/srchguides/sub/1371.50r=1.00. Even more complex is Cicero http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/srchguides/sub/5280.50r=1.00. Complete works and selected works were often interfiled. With the card catalog, at least some very nice notes were possible. All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to *actively search* for Works (or browse to W) although everybody, including our predecessors, have always known that no one will ever do that. So, I agree that collective uniform titles do not work, but it is also true that they haven't worked for a long, long, long time. Does it then follow that these collective uniform titles are useless? That people *do not want* the group of records collocated under Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Selections. English? I think they do want that, but those groups of records are impossible for people to find in our current catalogs. Changing it to Cicero, Marcus Tullius. *Works.* Selections. English is certainly no improvement at all for the user and seems senseless. But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon. -- 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 To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
On 17/12/2013 14.07, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon. I don't think that a complete reconsideration is necessary. It's just a question of changing how the data is presented. No witchcraft would be required to make use of the information in a sensible manner. For a long time, I've suggested presenting our users with reasonable next steps (in the form of links) whenever they view a title record. For example, when a manifestation of a work by author X is displayed in the catalog, reasonable next steps could be (among others): ... /snip I completely agree that a lot *could* be done. For instance, changing how the data is presented can be achieved without changing a single rule; all that needs to be done is change into a more modern format and play around. A lot already has been done with the new methods of indexing records that now allow facets, such as in Worldcat, as I continue to point out. That is not magic or witchcraft. It is XML (even MARCXML) with Lucene-type indexing and incredibly enough, it is available for free! Far more could be done using these tools. But nobody is dancing in the streets. This has been such an incredible technological advance, and it seems that the cataloging world hasn't even noticed. Also, the public has definitely changed their searching behavior and their information expectations in lots of ways but it seems as if catalogers still believe that people browse for information in alphabetical order! I've actually had to argue the case. The collective uniform titles are a case in point. It was more important to change everything from Selections to Works. Selections as if that is going to help anybody at all! Of course, people can't find Selections now, but they can't find Works either I have suggested all kinds of changes in how the data could be presented, and many others have too. All of this explains why I think there needs a complete reconsideration *from the user's point of view* before anybody will begin to see any real differences. -- 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 To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
On 12/7/2013 9:38 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip No, the FRBR model uses the language of entity-relationship models. But that model is being used to illustrate the relationships of the elements. It's a language for understanding the data. But the model isn't talking at all about the structures of data storage. Not one bit. That is not what it's concerned with! FRBR doesn't care if you keep the subject information (name of the subject, etc.) in a single record, not duplicated anywhere else, or copied in full into the records for every work, expression, and manifestation it's related to. That is irrelevant to what FRBR is talking about. FRBR isn't about database efficiency; it's about knowing what the pieces of data are, what they mean, and how they relate. /snip FRBR isn't about database efficiency; it's about knowing what the pieces of data are, what they mean, and how they relate. I cannot agree with that statement since the reason for an entity-relationship model is for building databases and primarily relational databases, but for the moment, let us say that you are right and that FRBR is bigger than that. Therefore, I gather you are focusing on the relationships section in the FRBR data model because our current records show very clearly what each piece of data is and what each means (a uniform title, a series, a personal author, a topical subject, a publisher, etc.) and FRBR changes nothing of that. I have already agreed that adding the FRBR relationships, that is, the specific relationships of adaptation or summarization or complement or supplement and so on, and adding the relator codes, where someone is editor or director or actor would provide something different from what we have today. I have already mentioned this. There are two major hurdles, as I have already noted. The first is practical: the specific relationships are currently not in the legacy data. Please explain how are we supposed to include those relationships in our legacy data because, as I demonstrated, the legacy data amounts to *millions* of instances. That is an absolute fact that cannot be denied. Are catalogers supposed to add that information to those records? If so, please let us know how we are supposed to add the relationship information to those millions of records. Many more people than myself are very interested in how we can change millions of records. How are catalogers supposed to do it manually? Or is someone else going to do it? If so, who will do it and how? Perhaps there is some kind of automated solution available that we do not know about. If so, could you please provide us with details of some projects or of work in progress? Costs are always a consideration. How much will any of this cost? Or, are we simply supposed to ignore the legacy data altogether? What happens then? I suspect that the legacy data is considered to be relatively unimportant to the FRBR/RDA community and that is why nobody wants to discuss it. Unfortunately, it is quite the opposite for the public: the legacy data is 99%+ of what is available to them in the library. If the legacy data is to be ignored, or put off for another day shouldn't the users be a part of such an important decision that would, as I have discussed in my podcast on Consistency, where I mentioned that ...implementing RDA and FRBR will actually /*reduce*/ access to the materials in our collections and then went on to explain how and why. http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/09/cataloging-matters-no-16-catalogs.html If users shouldn't be a part of such a decision, why should catalogers be the only ones to decide? The second hurdle is not so much a hurdle, but a problem: could you demonstrate to us why adding the relationship information will make such a fundamental difference to users so that they will return to our catalogs? Are the relationships really what the public has been missing and needing all this time? Where is the evidence for that? I have never seen anything that suggests anything like that, but I confess I live far away in Italy and have been out of the mainstream in many ways. Nevertheless, I am willing to learn if sufficient evidence warrants it. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
On 12/7/2013 6:24 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip How bibliographic record exchange would work when full manifestation records no longer exist, and collections have differing manifestations of works, I've not seen discussed. /snip Yes, I have not seen this issue discussed either. Just as important, especially in today's rather crazy environment is: who will *own* the work/expression information? If not made clear, a library could lose all of its headings! and be left only with the manifestation (or ISBD areas). Naturally, that would be a complete disaster for any library. It would be highly irresponsible for a library to assume that such vital information would forever be in the public domain. That must be ensured legally by all means available. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
On 12/6/2013 11:12 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: To be fair, the original version of FRBR came out before (or at least not long afterward) the huge abandonment by the public of our OPACs. Google had barely even begun to exist when FRBR appeared. Still, there could have been a chapter on the newest developments back then. But even today, nowhere in it is there the slightest mention of keyword or relevance ranking much less anything about Web2.0 or the semantic web or linked data or full-text or Lucene indexing (like what we see in the Worldcat displays). It's as if those things never happened. There's no mention of that stuff because it is *irrelevant* to what FRBR is about. It has absolutely nothing to do with what technologies or techniques are being used to access the data. It's about the *data itself* that are objects of those keyword searches, or relevance raking, or Lucene indexing, or whatever other as-yet-undeveloped means of discovery there may be. How many times does this have to be said? /snip There is one point where we can agree: it is irrelevant. And that is precisely why FRBR is also irrelevant to how the vast majority of the public searches every single day. It is also irrelevant to implementing the user tasks, since those can be done today. FRBR is irrelevant for linked data. Also (apparently) irrelevant is how much it will cost to change to FRBR structures. But saying that FRBR is about the data itself, I must disagree. We have gobs of data now, and it is already deeply structured. FRBR does not change any of that. There will still be the same data and it will still be as deeply structured. FRBR instead offers an alternative data *model* that is designed for *relational databases*. We currently have another model where all the bibliographic information is put into a single manifestation record and holdings information goes into another record. FRBR proposes to take out data that is now in the manifestation record and put certain parts of it into a work instance, while other data will go into an expression instance. So why did they want to do that? Designers of relational databases want to make their databases as efficient as they can, and one way to do that is by eliminating as much duplication as possible. This is what FRBR proposes. It is clearest to show this with an example: Currently if we have a non-fiction book with multiple manifestations and this book has three subject headings, the subjects will be repeated in each manifestation record. With FRBR, the subjects will all go into the *work* instance, and as a result, each manifestation does not need separate subjects because the manifestation will reference the work instance and get the subjects in that way. What is the advantage? A few. First, the size of the database is reduced (very important with relational databases!), plus if you want to change something, such as add a new subject, you would add that subject only once into the work instance and that extra subject would automatically be referenced in all the manifestations. The same goes for deleting subjects or adding or deleting creators. Nevertheless, the *data itself* remains unchanged and there is not even any additional access with the FRBR data model. It simply posits an alternative data *model* and one that I agree would be *far more* efficient in a relational database. But as I have been at pains to point out, something that may at first seem rather benign such as introducing a new data model, has many serious consequences that should be considered before adopting such a model. Something that makes the database designers happy may be a monster for everyone who uses it: both the people who input into the database and the people who search it. But the designers remain happy. This is what I say we are looking at now with FRBR. Strangely enough, we have different technology today, with Lucene-type indexing such as we see in Google and Worldcat with the facets and everything is flattened out into different indexes, since this is how the indexing works. (The best explanation I have found so far is at http://www.slideshare.net/mcjenkins/the-search-engine-index-presentation but it also becomes pretty dense pretty quickly) Essentially what Lucene does is make an index (much like the index at the back of a book) out of the documents it finds. It indexes text by word, by phrase, and other ways as well. It also adds links to each document where the index term has been used and ranks each term using various methods. The advantage is: when you do a search, it does not have to scan through the entire database (like a relational database does), it just looks up your terms in its index, collates them together and presents the searcher with the result, and it does this blazingly fast as anybody can see when they search Google. The Google index is over 100,000,000 gigabytes! http
Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
On 12/6/2013 7:12 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip FRBR doesn't promise anything. It just describes what was always being done, and shaped into a model to help us better understand what was being done. The newer functionalities we are seeing, such as the faceting in Jim's Hamlet example, are real-world examples of the principles that FRBR describes. I highly suspect that there is a strong link between their development and the FRBR report. Even if FRBR hadn't been written, they very likely would have come about anyway, because FRBR isn't telling us how to, it's telling us what is; the what that is was always there--we just see it more clearly through the FRBR report. And seeing it more clearly facilitates the development. If we don't need what FRBR talks about, then that means we must not need that stuff we find athttp://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22shakespeare+william%22+ti%3Ahamletqt=results_page Might as well just tell OCLC No thanks, take it away, please. If we don't need what FRBR talks about, then we don't need to know who the creator of a resource is, who published it, when it was published, what other resource it is related to, etc. Because that's all that FRBR is about. Please, everyone, stop seeing FRBR as a model for bibliographic records in a user display. That is NOT at all what it is. It is a model of the data underlying the bibliographic records. Those are very, very, very different things. /snip FRBR is not so benign, as I have tried to show and as many library departments are beginning to understand. Accepting FRBR (and RDA) has many implications, some of which are surprisingly huge. I think everybody understands clearly that we are seeing only the very beginnings of the ultimate costs of FRBR. FRBR is actually an entity-relationship model that is used for setting up a relational database. The very first step in making such a model is to determine what people want to do with the database you are going to make (i.e. figure out the user tasks) and from there you can figure out the entities, attributes and relationships in order to fulfill those user tasks. This is fraught with many problems in today's environment, but the very first part is supposed to demand working with the people who will use it to find out what they want. The very simple fact is: there was not any effort to figure out what the public wants to do with information in a bibliographic database. The paper by Amanda Cossham pointed this out clearly. It still hasn't been done! Here was a tool that the public never cared for (the card catalog), then it was transferred with almost no changes into another tool (the OPAC) where in many ways it worked much worse than the original card catalog, and after all of that, should it come as any surprise to discover that the public abandoned the card catalogs/OPACs just as soon as they had a real choice (keyword, full-text relevance ranking)? Does it then make any sense to set out in relational database format what was already being done and *has already been abandoned* by the public? To be fair, the original version of FRBR came out before (or at least not long afterward) the huge abandonment by the public of our OPACs. Google had barely even begun to exist when FRBR appeared. Still, there could have been a chapter on the newest developments back then. But even today, nowhere in it is there the slightest mention of keyword or relevance ranking much less anything about Web2.0 or the semantic web or linked data or full-text or Lucene indexing (like what we see in the Worldcat displays). It's as if those things never happened. So, the purpose of the Worldcat search I demonstrated, where anybody can do the FRBR user tasks for Shakespeare's Hamlet, isn't to conclude No thanks, take it away, please. It is to say that we don't need the entire FRBR structure because what it envisions can be done *today* *right now* with what we have and without the incredibly expensive changes either to the content or to the format that FRBR demands. That is a simple fact and it should be celebrated, with huge kudos going to the programmers. As a rather incredible addition, the technology that allow it is... *FREE*!! Instead it is ignored, to the detriment of the entire cataloging community, with vast resources wasted to build something that has already been done. If some other purpose has replaced the FRBR user tasks, but still demands the FRBR structures, whoever has decided that should let everyone else know--and perhaps it could be debated?! As it stands now, we must assume that huge resources are being used to create something that has already been done, and done far more cheaply and quickly, and perhaps, even better. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
, 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
[RDA-L] The Future of Search
Apologies for cross-posting. I just thought I would share this TEDxMünchen: The future of search by Marcus Tandler (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4jQIW2etI), who calls himself a Compulsive Entrepreneur. He gives a very interesting talk on the latest developments in Search. His takes on what the Googles want are quite perceptive but I personally do not share much of his enthusiasm. Of course, I am not above blatant self-promotion, so if you would like to see(hear) what a librarian/cataloger thinks about this same topic (rather difference from his), you can listen to my podcast Search http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
On 11/23/2013 5:55 PM, Melissa Powell wrote: snip This cataloging consultant/trainer who works with small libraries is piping in. I am grateful for the price reduction for the rest of us--with the new pricing structure I can actually get RDA access to these small and rural libraries. On the other hand: makes it tough for us on the consortial level because the costs have changed for larger places.. As far as the comment early in this discussion about how hard it was to convince administrators, here is where we as catalogers need to be better about communicating what we do. There is no 'choice', the rules have changed. This is the first step to compliance with the rest of the information industry. When I tell directors that, they are shocked. Duh. Then they comply. /snip You tell them that they have no choice and they follow what the consultant says. Do you tell them about Mac's cheat sheets? I wonder what those libraries decide to give up (and will continue to give up) for RDA? Fewer staff hours? Buying fewer materials? Maybe the staff will be expected to pay for it out of their own pockets. Of course, most small libraries do very little original cataloging unless they have local materials or something unique so the utility of actually subscribing may be nominal. The unavoidable costs come from dealing with the changes to the headings, as we have seen with changing the cataloging abbrevations that has already proven to be too much for many, and there is absolutely zero discussion as to any actual advantages to the users for the purposes of access. We only know that there are suddenly two forms of name that the public must search under until the retrospective conversion happens. And that costs even more money. Who is going to pay for that? In the meantime, the only people being hurt are the searchers who are supposed to search under two forms. Either they never find out and make lousy searches, or they discover that their searches miss a lot (most?) and conclude that the library's tools just don't work. Other changes have been with the new 33x fields in MARC format (will they ever be implemented in a coherent way?), and then the really big change that will come from Bibframe, but at least that is still years away. We are seeing only the very beginnings of the costs. There are *always* choices and many choose to cope with RDA however they can. Not everybody is able to squirrel money away and many are stretched as thin as they can now. You just cannot get away from making the business case, sooner or later. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
On 11/24/2013 9:20 PM, Melissa Powell wrote: snip I think the best thing to do in all of this is look at the big picture. Smart discussions occurred when we began automating. What do we give up? The better question is, What does this change? Based on that you start looking at how the staff workflow changes, how the organizational flow changes, what shifts are occurring. By doing this it is no longer 'what are we giving up?' but 'what are we changing/shifting?' Using this method we can often find savings elsewhere rather than giving up staff or cutting the budget. not always but often. This is happening and the sooner we on the ground take the reins the better it is for us. I am working with folks that are researching and creating programs and methods that could loose us from the chains of the ILS and conglomerates like OCLC, which most little libraries can't afford anyway. This time we need to be the ones making the choices and decisions so we aren't in the position of being dictated to by the vendors. We need to be one step ahead and learning, understanding, and creating. /snip These are some very good questions you are asking and I would ask if you would share some of your thoughts. I would add a question that should rank very high in importance: how has it changed for the public? As always, if you don't make something that the public wants, even though all the so-called experts may love what you are doing, it will make absolutely no difference. History is full of such examples. It is what the public wants that overrides everything else. I particularly like your statement: ... so we aren't in the position of being dictated to by the vendors and here I would add: nor by any other groups that are self-interested. Each group must be expected to lay out a good case and not just proclaim: You have no choice--or as was stated by some others, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItHcsIHshhs -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
On 11/23/2013 12:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip James said: Of course, when the time comes for retrospective conversion of the millions of records in that awful, terrible legacy data ... Surely you jest. Most of our library clients prefer the awful terrible 'legacy data' to the strange (to them) RDA records. Our AACR2 compatible export is very popular. Most of our e-publisher and aggregator clients feel they must be with it, and go with the new standard. /snip Yes, I am joking. But if we are to make all of these relators and relationships useful for the public, the simple undeniable fact is: incredible retrospective conversions will have to be done and I have never heard of estimates of how much those will cost. The RDA subscriptions are peanuts by comparison. Was any of that discussed during the decision making for RDA? Maybe it wasn't discussed then, but it sure will be in the future! You can only ignore it for so long. Catalogers, of all people, should know that if you decide to make a new index, e.g. actor or editor, it is not enough to say that all new records will now have that coding because the search *cannot* find it in the earlier records of your database. That is why I keep saying that the misnamed legacy data is so awful and terrible. Nobody wants to talk about it so: it's off the agenda. It's more fun to come up with new relator terms than to figure out if they of any real use and what the consequences will be for that legacy data (that we don't discuss). -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
On 11/22/2013 4:29 PM, Abbas, June M. wrote: snip I would also like to note that LIS schools will now be charged for access to the Toolkit. In my case this will make it very difficult to provide access to the Toolkit for my students. I am not sure why ALA Publishing decided to require LIS schools to purchase access but I know I will have to find alternative ways to provide access for my students. /snip Well, I guess your students will come to understand the term monopoly. Of course, when the time comes for retrospective conversion of the millions of records in that awful, terrible legacy data to update the relators and relationships, *that* is when libraries will see the major costs. And I am sure there will be other sundry costs thrown in along the way. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
On 04/11/2013 22.49, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip If catalogs can't take people to authority records (and some can), Wikipedia doesn't seem to mind. It's just a question of programmers matching the data to the users. Here are some examples of what's possible when one sees the forest of possibilities: Authority data links from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_presley German DNB authority record for Elvis Presley (with all the RDA equivalent elements wonderfully accessible for any catalog user): http://d-nb.info/gnd/118596357/about/html WorldCat Identities (lots of attribute and relationship elements here, nicely meshed together without much thought to restrictions based on what can fit into a catalog based on 5X3 cards): http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n78-79487 LC authority data in id.loc.gov: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78079487.html And more RDA goodness here and ready to be integrated when systems are ready: http://lccn.loc.gov/n78079487 /snip Looks like something only a cataloger could love. :-) Of course, Wikipedia itself is not linked data, but dbpedia is derived from it and the actual linked data is at: http://dbpedia.org/page/Elvis_Presley Whenever I find myself examining those sites you mention (and there are tons more linked data nodes besides these), I am surprised by the amount of duplicated effort. Some appear to be just different views of the same information, e.g. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78079487.html and http://lccn.loc.gov/n78079487, but others seem to be made separately. For instance, do the library authority files simply repeat bits that are in the huge dbpedia page? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me. The most useful of the sites you mention (besides Wikipedia) seems to me to be Worldcat Identities because it appears to create something never seen before. And yet, when I have shown this to people (many times, actually), they are impressed but have never seen how it could be useful for their own needs. I have thought that perhaps the word cloud at the bottom could be useful, but as implemented now, it is not. Perhaps if the links there included Elvis' heading so that when you click on one, you would search Presley, Elvis 1935-1977 and e.g. popular culture it may be more useful. Or not. Plus there are some curious glitches. For instance, I was surprised that Worldcat Identities claims that the most widely held work *by* Elvis Presley is Lilo and Stitch, something I had never heard of. It turns out that it is a cartoon that came out long after his death. I have never seen it, but Elvis apparently does not make an appearance, although some of his songs are in it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilo__Stitch) The purpose of authority files has been to help people search related catalogs more effectively by providing a series of cross-references. That was all they were there for. Authority files are valid only for their own catalogs and do not work in catalogs with other rules. VIAF may change that. Being able to use the cross-references to help you search correctly is a critical function that was lost with the introduction of keyword searching. To expect more of authority files is to take them beyond their function and we should not just assume that bringing it all together will be useful. To determine whether it would be useful or valid, it would make sense to see some practical examples that the public could examine to see if it is useful for them. Otherwise, we may wind up building something that *we* like, but not something the *public* likes. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
Concerning the default procedure for collective titles, the LCRI says: Except as noted in LCRI 25.9 and LCRI 25.10, assign a collective uniform title to an item at the first instance of appropriateness, e.g., do not defer the adding of a collective uniform title until the file under the heading is voluminous. 25.8-25.11. Collective Titles https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-8-25-11-collective-titles There is also LCRI 25.10. Works in a Single Form https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-10-works-in-a-single-form Rule 25.10A applies to collections of three or more works in one form when the author writes (or is assumed to write) in two or more forms. The purpose of the rule is to provide a sensible gathering point in the catalog for items whose titles are more or less inadequate. Thus, if a collection covered by 25.10A has an adequate title, the rule should not be applied. These rules probably explain much of the assignment of collection uniform titles. Assign at first instance, and there can be different opinions concerning whether a title is adequate. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)
On 02/10/2013 12.21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Adam wrote: I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and Cyrillic. Depending on the script of the resource they are cataloging, they will use an authorized access point in that script and the language of cataloging will depend on the language of the resource. They have a unique authority record structure which uses a single record with multiple 1XXs for the authorized form in different scripts. I'm not a specialist for original script cataloging, but I can try and explain (at least roughly) what is being done in Germany. I'll take my own union catalog, the Southwest German Library Network (SWB), as an example. In the title records, the most important fields are duplicated: One version of the field is then used for the transliterated text and the other for the same text in the original script. A code for the script is recorded in a subfield. Note that the format for the title records is not MARC. If you want to see what this looks like in the catalog, try this: http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=336050186INDEXSET=1 /snip Interesting. You can see the National Library of Israel practice in VIAF, e.g. for Leo Tolstoy http://www.viaf.org/viaf/96987389/#Tolstoy,_Leo,_graf,_1828-1910 and Tolstoy has several valid forms of heading. In fact, you can compare to compare the National Library of Israel cyrillic form vs. the Russian form. Of course, both are in cyrillic, but the Russian form does not have (graf, or Count). There are other options however. At the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, they have authorized forms but they vary depending on the language of the item. They publish in 6 languages and when something is in English, they use the English form, in Spanish, the Spanish form and so on. Here is an example: bit.ly/1eZeOrO http://bit.ly/1eZeOrO with a corporate body form of FAO, Rome (Italy). Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Div. If you look toward the bottom of the record, you'll see Rel. lang. versions. Click on French and you'll see FAO, Rome (Italy). Div. des Infrastructures Rurales et des Agro-industries or Spanish, FAO, Rome (Italy). Direccion de Infraestructura Rural y Agroindustrias. There are other practices as well. The reality for our users is changing from single authorized forms to multiple authorized forms, not only as we see in the Israeli library and FAO, or even in VIAF, but probably even more available to the public will be something as we see in dbpedia http://dbpedia.org/page/Leo_Tolstoy. That is, if the public ends up using authorized forms at all or if we expect computers to do everything automatically. If they are going to use these forms, based on URIs or whatever, the real problem will not be technical since that is relatively simple now (and that is an amazing fact!), but the real problem will be practical: how can we take this huge amount of content and make something coherent and comprehensible for people who will refuse to spend 20 hours in a searching workshop? That's a challenge. -- 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
[RDA-L] Linked Data and the US government shutdown
Apologies for cross-posting. With the US government shutdown, it appears as if all sites with .loc.gov (at least) have been shutdown as well. This would seem to mean that if someone were using LC linked services id.loc.gov, anything will fail. Interruption with linked data services have been discussed in the abstract, but now we have a real example to consider. If someone were using the id.loc.gov site extensively for linking name and subjects, what would they do? Using other services, such as Amazon, if it goes down, you may not get some customer comments for awhile, but that is not such a tragedy. Not getting vital information, such as the headings, is a completely different matter and would result in failure in the catalog. There is the IT concept of failing gracefully, so that when something doesn't work, it doesn't just crash, but is much more controlled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceful_exit I don't even know if anyone is yet using the linked data services from LC, but if you were, what would you do now for your patrons? I don't know what I would do. Would it be possible to fail gracefully? This downtime could serve as a time of reflection into some of the realities of linked data that we all know can and will happen (again). -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Dagger symbol
On 9/12/2013 11:06 PM, Patricia Sayre-McCoy wrote: snip Please explain why this is necessary to transcribe? At some point, every author will be dead so what's the point of making note of it now? I really don't see that this is vital information for the identification of the manifestation/expression. /snip Adding the information to an authority record that a person has died on approximately such and such a date could be useful for identifying/distinguishing the author, but I do not see it as practically useful for distinguishing manifestations/expressions. Such information is as useful/useless as adding all of the alphabet soup after the author's name, Ph.D, M.Sc etc. If there is a variation in that alphabet soup, does it follow that there is variation in the actual text? Probably not. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Composite identities/pseudonyms in RDA?
On 11/09/2013 8.20, Moore, Richard wrote: snip Mac, you said I don't agree with LC that it is OK to have one unqualified form of a name (other than undifferentiated ones) if all other forms of that name are qualified I agree that it's really not useful to leave one name unqualified, when that preferred name has been used more than once. Bib records for other identities cluster behind such access points in library catalogues, then acquire erroneous data when someone comes along and adds a qualifier to the access point, so that they can establish yet another unqualified name for a new author. /snip I won't argue with this, but if we look at matters from the viewpoint of the users, they would probably state that 95%+ of all names we do are--in effect--unqualified. For instance, here is something I ran across recently in the NAF: Herrmann, Joachim Herrmann, Joachim, 1913- Herrmann, Joachim, 1928- Herrmann, Joachim, 1928- Gemeinsam fur Sozialismus und Frieden Herrmann, Joachim, 1928- Selections. 1988 Herrmann, Joachim, 1928- Works. Selections. 1988 Herrmann, Joachim, 1931- Herrmann, Joachim, 1931- Laser fur ultrakurze Lichtimpulse. English Herrmann, Joachim, 1931- Lasers for ultrashort light pulses Herrmann, Joachim, 1932- Herrmann, Joachim, 1956- The dates are more or less useless for distinguishing individuals. My guy turned out to be 1932-. Of course, there are far worse examples than this. To add distinguishing terms means trying to come to some kind of general agreement on what that distinguishing term should be for any particular author. That could be very time-consuming as well as unsuccessful. Maybe it works on Wikipedia (and perhaps not, I have no idea) but in a group of very picky catalogers, I have my doubts. Besides, it would still be even more work from catalogers, who seem to be in ever-shorter supply and everybody is overworked. If we could think of this in other ways, could we use the power of the systems to solve these matters? For instance, what if we could do something that would automatically append two or three book titles of the most widely held of an author's works? This works beautifully right now in Worldcat Identities, where you can search my author (Joachim Hermann) http://www.worldcat.org/identities/find?fullName=joachim%20hermann and when you run the mouse over the name, you get the author's most important title. Perhaps adding something from the publication timeline would be useful too. This would be better than what we have now, may be more useful than the Wikipedia solution, and demands no additional work from the catalogers. It seems to me that sooner or later we will have to think about saving catalogers from additional work, instead of adding more and more to their burdens. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in China
On 27/08/2013 21.51, Kai Li wrote: snip Hi everyone, I wrote a new blog post about RDA's developments in China in the past year (http://kaili.us/node/53), which I believe some of you may be interested in. I look forward to hearing your opinions about this post. /snip Thanks for that. It may be interesting to note that in the last year, I have seen a huge increase in the number of viewers of my blog who come from China. Lately, they have been no. 2 to the US, edging out the UK. So, it looks as if people are at least looking for alternative views of RDA. -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
On 05/08/2013 16:46, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip 05.08.2013 16:04, JSC Secretary: You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. This leaves me wondering whether or not the relationship designators are a D aspect or (also) an A aspect. To qualify as the latter, the rules should make that clear AND specify a hierarchy which would, for instance, make it algorithmically clear that writer of supplementary textual content covers Introduction, Preface, Forword, and Afterword. (And wouldn't it be useful indeed to be able to search for Noam Chomsky as a writer of supplementary textual content but specifically not prefaces? ) Alas, zillions of our records exist and will remain without designators, which casts some doubt on the usefulness of this element. If however, the designator is regarded as solely a D aspect, then why bother? Wouldn't the Statement of responsibility do the job nicely enough? /snip I've been waiting for a response to this, but apparently nobody wants to. Lubetzky was well-known for his opposition to the ISBD statement of responsibility since he spent decades trying to get rid of what he considered to be needless repetition, which was (in his opinion) against the interests of the cataloger, who ends up inputting the same information over and over, and the user, who ends up having to look at the same information over and over. Today, we are adding to that repetition by adding the relators in the $e, thereby repeating what is in the statement of responsibility, plus adding the alphabet soup of peoples' degrees after their names in the statement of responsibility, so you get something with a short title, e.g. Mechanical and electrical systems in buildings when the statement of responsibility often takes over the entire record and is similar to reading someone's business card: Richard R. Janis, M. Arch., P.E., AIA, LEED AP, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering and School of Architecture, Washington University, William K.Y. Tao, M.S., D.Sc., P.E., Affiliate Professor, School of Engineering and School of Architecture, Washington University I guess this is useful enough to the public for the cataloger to type it all in. These people say they are in schools of architecture, and not Ufologists or experts in Klingonese or Parapsychology. Of course, on the web, there are some very, very strange job titles. Still, it would be much more efficient to handle this sort of information as links going into sites, e.g. http://www.pearsonconstructionbooks.com/authors/bio.aspx?a=6b9f200a-086c-4859-ae51-5769a2b282ea and http://www.pearsonconstructionbooks.com/authors/bio.aspx?a=5fdd1551-dc6a-4838-b794-435310d6ea5e or even (strangely enough) linking to an authority record where that information exists one time and does not have to be retyped over and over and over again? But as Bernhard pointed out, all of these points of information have to be assigned either to Description or Access or both. And if it is to be Access there will be additional work for catalogers with associated responsibilities and costs. Those costs and responsibilities should be dealt with sooner by the profession rather than later, by individual libraries that are already strapped. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast Problems with Library Catalogs http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title Works came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to W, so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: Twain, Mark,[date] and then scroll dozens of screens to W. *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute that people will do it. Even I refuse to do it although I know how it works. Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. I did an entire podcast on Search http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html. Plus there are all different new types of items that defy what anybody knew of before. To be blown away by new types of searching and new ideas, you can watch Daniel Russell's talk at Princeton University awhile back: What Does It Mean To Be Literate in the Age of Google? https://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/flash/lectures/20120228_publect_russell.shtml This is the reality for those who want to accept it. The FRBR user tasks, although I won't argue that some people may still want to do them occasionally (such as myself), are 19th-century conceptions and comprise the minority of what people want. Let's at least bring these tasks up to late 20th century, if not to really modern times. We can pretend that nothing has changed since Panizzi's days; that what he and the other greats of the 19th century spoke of are immutable and forever. But don't be surprised if libraries end up totally forgotten and remembered as curious remnants of times past. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that---all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) /snip Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples. Please, actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch it!) and demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows the photo of the building, how the question: what is the phone number of the office where that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the FRBR user tasks? [I can provide other examples of such questions] Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table of elements are not really different from anything before, but are just variations of the real elements of fire, water, earth and air. In reality of course, such attitudes shed more insight into those who advance them than into the topics themselves. The table of elements have nothing to do with fire, water, earth and air, while thinking so only retards everything. Automobiles are fundamentally different from horses and buggies. In the same way, I maintain that what is happening now in search is fundamentally different from the 19th-century FRBR user tasks. It is obvious, once you see it. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to find/identify/select/obtain--*works* *expressions* *manifestations* *items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how on the web, you can select something in Google without already obtaining it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones. And then, demonstrate why most people really and truly want to obtain items only after selecting them, and how this fits in with identify and the new ideas of find (as the fellow at Google demonstrates). When you say that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything please note that I didn't mention anything. I explicitly pointed out that *I* actually want to do those tasks occasionally, but I confess that I am an inveterate bookman, while the vast majority of people are not. Perhaps you don't know what world I am living in, but I fear that you are stuck in the 1880s. The refusal to accept that 99% of people do not fit into these little pre-conceived FRBR user tasks is why I think that perhaps librarianship may be destined for extinction. We must free our minds from these pre-conceptions! It makes me very sad, but it may be. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 29/07/2013 15:53, JSC Chair wrote: snip RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. /snip These are the sorts of platitudes that we have heard over and over but everything remains abstract because nothing is ever demonstrated. As a result, everyone can interpret for him- or herself what e.g. user needs means. I think that very few catalogers today would maintain that the FRBR user tasks are what people really and truly want more than other types of tasks. With the introduction of keyword searching, the traditional, logical arrangements in the card catalogs was destroyed in OPACs and was replaced with arrangement by latest date of publication, or now with the term I do not understand (at least in catalogs) of relevance ranking. Only in the last few years has it been possible to do the FRBR user tasks in catalogs with facets, such as Worldcat, it's easier to do the FRBR user tasks than ever before! And yet nobody flies up and announces Mission Accomplished. Why haven't people been happy with this accomplishment? The answer is obvious: the FRBR user tasks are *not* what people really want to do. Therefore, words such as user needs wind up meaningless because nobody has done the work to find out what those user needs are. Additionally, things are changing so fast that it is probable that once someone determines a genuine user need it already will have changed. Once again, cataloging must change--only a blind person couldn't see it--but RDA does not represent any of changes that are needed. The irrelevant RDA changes to the headings are a case in point: those changes are already too expensive for many libraries to undertake, and the changes are just silly. They don't deal with any of the real problems people have with the catalog. (This was discussed on Autocat) At the same time, libraries are closing. What will happen in Detroit and Chicago? We just saw about Miami-Dade county. People are *losing their jobs*. And yet, catalogers are supposed to spend their time typing out abbreviations and inputting relator codes that won't be able to be implemented for years and years and only after enormous cost. We can no longer accept the tired, old mantra of user needs. Unfortunately, RDA is just one more set of cataloging rules that people will not follow. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. (http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? I think that's a pretty important issue to settle. -- *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
[RDA-L] The A in RDA
Apologies for cross-posting Bernhard Eversberg mentioned somewhere along the way that RDA means Resource Description and Access, but on the email lists, we have seen lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about the D (Description) but relatively little about A (Access). The public however, is and has always been, far more concerned about Access over Description. Even the RDA changes for the headings, e.g. Dept. to Department, or fl. to active or getting rid of O.T./N.T. for individual books of the Bible, are not actually increasing or decreasing access over what people had previously, the only change is how the headings display. To me, the D in RDA is the same as old wine in new bottles or in other words, it only seems to be new and different but in essence, it is the same old thing. The only changes to access that I have noticed are: the elimination of the rule of three in favor of the rule of one, which will lead--in some wondrous way I am waiting to see--to the release of pent-up cataloger energy that has been contained over the centuries, so that there will be an *increase* in the number of access points. :-) There is also the addition of the relator codes to the headings, which is supposed to lead to a different search experience from the traditional one, since people will be able to search by the activities of the individuals: as director vs. actor, editor vs. author, stereotyper, transcriber, or any of the roles in the long list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html. (As an aside, I have wondered that if someone were to catalog the result of a Google search, would it be correct to use: 110/710 2_ Google,$ecensor) There are also the newly-expressed FRBR relationships among works/expressions etc. And yet, for the relator codes to *increase* access, it will clearly demand updating the earlier records to include the relator codes on those headings, just as with the recent RDA-mandated updates to the authority files. The level of complexity to do the same for the relator codes however, must increase several times and will make the recent updates look incredibly easy in comparison (and those are already beyond the resources of many libraries). Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that any *increased* access arising from relator codes will have to wait for the far, far future, if ever. (Refer to my podcast http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/09/cataloging-matters-no-16-catalogs.html for more thorough discussion) And yet novel means of *access* is what is driving much of the web: through keyword, through references, through increased metadata on you, your friends, your friends' friends, and those with a similar profile as yours, and so on. So I think that Bernhard is exactly right and that A as in Access is the more important part for the public. Finally, (in my round-about way) I come to my question: what about new methods of access *using the data we already have*? What do people think? Are there ideas percolating in people's minds out there? -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] approzimately in access points
On 04/07/2013 18:07, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote: snip On a somewhat related issue (it was raised in Mac's post), is anyone else bothered by the display when only a death date is known? Smith, John, -1932 /snip I have experienced the same thing. I recently cataloged an item with the subject heading: Agatha, Saint, -approximately 250. I copied and pasted it unthinkingly but when I was editing my record, I couldn't understand what this meant, and it was only when I realized that the earlier heading was: **Agatha,**Saint,**d. ca. 250 and the d. was changed to a hyphen, and the ca. was changed to approximately, did I understand what the heading was supposed to say. But that was only because I know the AACR2 heading. The new heading is incoherent. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] 264 dates
the results sure looks like magic to me!) and can only get better. So, this is how it could work: libraries could help create a really cool tool that would begin to be a *real solution* to a problem that has plagued libraries since they started to cooperate: how can you efficiently and effectively share a record made for a community in e.g. Russia with e.g. an Anglo-American community. Here is the start of a real solution. And we can all see it in action! Also, an improved tool such as this could be implemented *today* (not in 10 years from now when libraries will be even further behind developments than they are today and it will be even harder to catch up) and absolutely everyone could benefit--from user to cataloger. This tool could be improved in all kinds of ways (people today tend to be understanding of weirdness they see, but they expect continuing improvements) plus it would probably be far cheaper to implement than it will cost the library community to implement RDA/FRBR. It could even help iron-out problems with that evil, old legacy data. Use the power of the tools that are now at our fingertips! There is so much more that could be done and could make everyone's job easier! -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files
On 23/05/2013 14:33, Mitchell, Michael wrote: snip I'm looking at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd347.html and the first example under $b is *347* *##$a*text file*$b*PDF*$2*rda so I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say a PDF file is not a text file. What am I missing? /snip I guess I'm confused too. To explain it most simply, a text file is something you can open in Notepad and it will make sense. Other files are called binary files and you need a special program to read it correctly. MARC format (ISO2709) is a binary file. You can see it for yourself. If you take Notepad and open a pdf file with it, you will get very strange gobbledygook. A text file does not mean any file that looks like text when displayed on your machine. For instance, if you had a scanned jpeg image of a book or pdf or gif or png none would be a text file. $a is A general type of data content encoded in a computer file. $b is A schema, standard, etc., used to encode the digital content of a resource. So I also do not understand what $a means. It looks as if in the example, $a and $b are contradictory. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)
On 16/05/2013 14:21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible. Is my interpretation correct that Authorized Version here is not meant in a general sense of some standard version, but rather as a reference to a specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version /snip You may find the Biblical Cataloging Manual at Princeton useful: http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/bible/bibltoc.html Page about versions of the Bible: http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/bible/versions.html -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
On 13/05/2013 20:48, Mitchell, Michael wrote: snip ... as I understand Bibframe there will no longer be records. There will be data points and triplets instead. This will be a critical difference and as Deborah says about RDA thinking will be even more true about Bibframe. This frame shift from records to relational data points (I know, I still don't have the terminology down) is a big reason why I'm so skeptical of anything to do with RDA. I understand that RDA is trying to create rules for more discreet content entry (better data points) but I just think we are spinning our wheels for the most part until Bibframe is closer to development. This is not to take away from the many folks who have been and are working hard on the implementation of RDA but we've designed a cart before we know if we're going to hook it to a horse or a jet. /snip I personally don't know if it is helpful not to think in terms of records. From the public's point of view, and that of the catalogers and anyone other than a systems person, they will experience a totality of the information associated with a specific information resource, and we will interpret that as a record. This is similar to how people refer to a webpage when it is now almost never a single file of information, but a unified whole that brings in many, perhaps hundreds, of associated files, and we relate to all of those files as a single page. This is how browsers work. For instance, look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/. See how it loads, how it brings in information and interacts with all kinds of other sites. 99% of this the public does not need to know, e.g. here is only one of their stylesheets that helps the browser display the page correctly: http://static.guim.co.uk/static/f8df97e0df9f9797bda45deb8c5c707dc4e88eaf/common/styles/network-front-grid.css This Guardian page is far from the most complex page that exists. Behind the scenes, it is impossible to predict how everything is structured because there are zillions of ways to decide to display any webpage, plus systems people change those ways constantly for all kinds of reasons, both internal and external. Opposed to this are the earlier/earliest pages that really were single pages of codes and information, such as Tim Berners-Lee's original web page: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html. The first pages I made were just like his. To see this today is like looking at the stone axes of pre-historic man. The way catalog records are stored today in a relational database is not single records either. The information we experience as a single bibliographic record is broken into all kinds of tables, each interlinked in a variety of ways. Strangely enough, when it comes to the newest methods that I know of, such as with Lucene indexing, it works only with flat files (in other words, single records more or less as they have been traditionally understood, that Lucene calls documents) and there is a completely separate index the computer searches. When someone finds something they want and click on it, they then see the document. One of the reasons I am bringing this up is that for human beings, they will still be experiencing something that displays the information related to a resource. This may be displayed completely or partially. This is exactly what we see today. For instance, if someone searches for the work of Tolstoy's War and Peace by using the uniform title http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22tolstoy%22+ti%3A%22voina+i+mir%22qt=results_page you can see it in a multiple display as here, or you can choose to see an individual record. In most catalogs, the individual record can display in an abbreviated form in various ways or in full. This is no different from the way Google and all other search engines work, where people can see the various hits (equivalent to multiple display) or click into an individual item (equivalent to record display). It's also the way FictionFinder worked, which more or less recreated the old book catalog displays except FictionFinder was interactive. (I discussed this earlier http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2009/11/fw-ngc4lib-frbr-wemi-and-identifiers.html) These views of individual record/multiple records will probably change very little unless or until somebody comes up with something completely 100% different. Of course that has its own problem: if it is too different then people will probably have troubles understanding it. The other reason I am bringing this up is because there is absolutely no way that anybody will be able to predict or determine what the structures will be behind the pages/records that people see. Each information system will be built according to its own parameters and those parameters will change. Therefore, calling them records and thinking about them in that way is fine in my opinion, because that is what everyone will continue to experience. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
On 14/05/2013 15:03, Mitchell, Michael wrote: snip ** The difference I see is that to my mind record implies a database entry with fields and subfields. BibFrame will not entail database records, fields, or subfields. It will be much closer to an XML file which is quite different structurally and semantically from a database record although I realize crosswalks are common. You can call it Frank but it still is a different animal with a different structure and some content rules will fit it better than others. My apologies if I took us off topic on this tangent. I don't mean to belabor the point but I do think the more we can understand where, and where we are not, headed with RDA and BibFrame, the better we can understand what is important to address now (punctuation, capitalization?). I also think the more of us catalogers involved in BibFrame development the better the fit will be in the end. There seem to be precious few practicing catalogers in the mix now. I don't know much about the info sci end of the development but I do know cataloging and can cry foul when I recognize a problem. /snip What I am trying to point out is that the future situation will not be all that much different fundamentally from the way it is now. Our current records in our databases are not now sitting there as database records, comprised of fields and subfields. (Except for CDS-ISIS databases, at least) What we perceive as single records are actually cut-up and scattered hither and yon among all kinds of different tables, sometimes even duplicating the information for internal purposes. If you are able to examine the tables themselves, everything seems to be complete chaos. But when you view information for a specific resource however, the system uses specific internal numbers to bring everything together to provide coherence, so that you can get an OPAC display of a single resource, or another display for a cataloger. In both cases, people perceive these as single bibliographic or authority records but within the system they are not. The new format will be similar, I am sure. This is why I say that it is proper to speak of records since that's the way we speak of them now and essentially the same situation will apply. Stlll, BIBFRAME will be quite different from MARC21, but MARC21 is a *communications* format. True MARC21 records are used only for the split-second when records from one library catalog (stored in relational database format) are transferred into another using Z39.50. Once the record is brought into the second catalog, it is then sliced and diced according to the second relational database, probably in quite different ways than it was in the first catalog. The new type of format should allow other programs to use BIBFRAME records (that is, to communicate with them) much more easily in all kinds of ways. But those other programs will do much the same thing: they will slice and dice the BIBFRAME records in ways they prefer, probably in ways that we would consider to be very strange. It doesn't seem as if the work of the cataloger will change much (except new words for the same things) and catalogs themselves will probably not change all that much either from what they can do now. Lucene-type indexing can improve immensely. Our records already can ingest all kinds of records and they could do a lot more if we wanted, and our catalogs could include many more mashups. Libraries will be able to build APIs much more easily. The biggest difference people will see will be that other sites will be able to use our records (that's the idea of linked data after all) and, if we are lucky and webmasters actually decide to use our records, we will see them in all kinds of places outside of library catalogs. This will be very strange but at least that would show that they are being used. Although I agree with the BIBFRAME project and it should have been done long before RDA was ever begun, to be honest, it is still not completely clear to me who BIBFRAME is aimed at. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment
On 10/05/2013 00:21, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip Festshrift codes, no. I didn't mean ALL of the data, indeed. Format/genre/medium/carrier info? Such as in leader bytes 6-7, field 007, and now the 336/337/338? Absolutely. I am not saying that ALL the info in the MARC record is equally useful. I was, however, responding to the claim that any info is _obviously_ UNuseful (without an RDA Priest to interpret), if the values in the record are not interpretable by end-users without mediation. [at least I think that is the claim or implication several of you are making, it's hard to sort through the double-negative sarcastic as-if tone] The coded values are meant to be transformed by computers, not shown directly to end-users. And there are plenty of them. And always have been, as long as there has been MARC, this is not some new evil RDA introduced. And if you think that the historical MARC elements that require transformation by software instead of being viewed directly have always been useless and were a historical mistake -- you should come out and say so and be precise about what you mean, instead of hiding behind a veil of sarcasm. And the implication that if it's not transparently interpretable by end-users as is, it is useless -- shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how software works. And/or a willful pretense that our cataloging has any destination BUT to be used in computer software. 99.9% of our cataloging 99.9% of the time is only used via software intermediary, it's destiny is data for software interfaces. It's long past time (10-20 years) we stopped refusing to acknowledge that in our metadata control practices. It's probably already too late. And this continued predilection to sarcastically say the opposite of what one means in these discussions does not help communication. /snip One man's humor is another man's sarcasm. Besides, what I wrote was completely true. I cannot recall that I--or anyone--has maintained anything similar to any info is _obviously_ UNuseful (without an RDA Priest to interpret), if the values in the record are not interpretable by end-users without mediation. Anyone with any experience of any MARC coding would see in an instant that is not so, e.g. 245 14 does not display that way to the public but avoids indexing the initial article (second indicator), plus the first indicator provides an obsolete command for printing a title added entry card. At the same time, I think it is worthwhile considering how the RDA 33x can or will be used in a practical environment. Sure, it may be good in theory, but I think we have had our bellies full of theory. Now should be the time for practical concerns. At least there now seems to be a general consensus that the 336/7/8 can't be used as they are, e.g. from the MARC Standards: 336 ##$atwo-dimensional moving image$btdi$2rdacontent the $b must be transformed, we can all agree. Into what? Is two-dimensional moving image understandable to an average user of the catalog? After all, catalogers have already decided users can't handle p. ill. or et al. How can they handle this? So, we transform it into something else, thereby making the $a pretty much redundant, but what do we transform $b into? Are catalogers supposed to say that that kind of question is not their concern? It's a fair question and one that catalogers should be ready to answer because it is a question that anybody can predict will be asked--and asked by administrators who cannot be ignored. If something can't be comprehended by the user, what good is it, especially if catalogers are supposed to be putting their valuable, diminishing resources into coding it. So, my argument is that the coding must be useful, and to be useful it must be understandable *to the user group*. If it is not understandable, it is *not useful*. There are many user groups and some may be librarians or catalogers who have very special needs. So, in the 007/microform/specific material designation fixed fields, those codes are not useful for the general public: a - Aperture card b - Microfilm cartridge c - Microfilm cassette ... but they may be extremely useful for librarians to help them manage the collection efficiently. To summarize my thoughts: who are the 336/7/8 fields designed to serve? If it's the public, those codes must rendered in ways that are understandable to them. Otherwise, they are as useful as the first indicator of the 245. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment
On 09/05/2013 22:17, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip On 5/9/2013 3:56 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: And how are these field going to be displayed in an easily understandable manner to the patron. Will we need a priest of RDA near the shoulder of every patron as she/he searches for that DVD she knows is in the library somewhere, because the AACR2 catalog told her so? Does this question apply to MARC leader, 006, 007, and 008 too? Surely our catalogs were completely useless for the past 40 years, because they contained all this data which is not directly intelligible? Or no, it's because of those priests of MARC you were talking about that we all had, right? Oh, it's not that the catalogs were useless, but that all those fixed fields were entirely useless, just fortunately including data nobody cared about anyway -- but for some reason we've spent literally millions of person hours continuing to enter that useless data for 40 years anyway? Come on. Data that is not meant to be directly intelligible by end-users is nothing new to us. /snip So, does it now make sense to *increase* the amount of information that nobody uses, or can use? Of course, what does make sense is that sooner or later, somebody, somewhere, sometime, will determine what is useful and what is not. Whenever someone is looking at work being done, they understand that many times it is easier to just continue letting people do exactly what they have always done than to try to (gasp!) *change* it which will always create a huge backlash! How long did it take before the fixed field information Main entry in the body of the entry was finally eliminated because people finally recognized it was useless to everybody? It wasn't hard to do--it only took a fraction of a second, but nobody needed it. How much of the fixed field information has never been used at all? Probably quite a bit. I won't enter the danger zone of the variable fields! Roy Tennant has been making the first forays in that direction. When cataloging was a walled-off, semi-cloistered occupation, we could get by with it but those days are gone. They are as dead as those beautiful medieval cloisters that I love to visit. It is another world today. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment
On 09/05/2013 23:11, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip My software, and by extension, my users using my software, use the MARC leader, 007, 008, 040, and other fixed/coded fields, every day. It is not data that nobody uses or can use. But that's your opinion, that it has been a mistake to have fixed fields and coded fields in MARC from the beginning? That all values in the MARC record ought to be directly and without mediation intelligible to end users, just like a paper card? You are entitled that opinion (which I do not share), but it does not match how MARC has worked at any point in MARC's history, so continued use of coded values is hardly a unique innovative sin to RDA, as many seem to be suggesting, although they do it mostly with sarcasm so sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what they are suggesting. /snip I'm glad that that users who use your software have access to all of that. For instance, I am sure that the festschrift code has been critical for a huge percentage of the populace. All of those illustration codes, too, although there are only four possible. Maybe we should consider bringing back the main entry in the body of the entry :-) In the copy i have done, I have noticed the great popularity of the no attempt to code option. So, I guess we should continue to add information irregardless of whether it is used by anyone. In any case, as I said, just continuing to do the same thing is much easier on catalogers' feelings than to open up the Pandora's box and evaluate actual utility for users. And yes, users includes catalogers and other library collection managers. -- *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
Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for as told to (RDA-L(#2013-110)
On 06/05/2013 15:27, Nancy Braman wrote: snip Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: The complexity of the bibliographic world does not fit neatly into a finite predetermined set of terms. True; and it seems to be getting more complex all the time. /snip Yes. There is another aspect to this as I discovered when I searched for as told to in the catalog for some examples. I found this curious example The confessions of a con man as told to Will Irwin (1909) available at the Internet Archive http://archive.org/details/confessionscon00irwirich and wound up reading it (a fabulous story). In the preface, Will Irwin writes: I hasten to assure the reader that this is a genuine confession; that I figure in it but as the transcriber of a life story told me I believe with every conscientious effort at truth during a month of pleasant association in New York. ... I have set down only what he told me, trying through it all to give some flavor of the man and his vocabulary. The vocabulary is not the least interesting thing about that personality of mud-and-rainbows. Uneducated and unread, he has a keen perception of the value of words, and especially of those Latinate words which express an intellectual idea. He pounces upon a new phrase ; he makes it his own upon the moment. I mention this, lest I be charged with dressing these plain tales of the highway in a vocabulary too pretentious for the subject or the man. Here, the fellow calls himself a transcriber although he makes no mention of using a sound recorder. They existed in 1909, but it does not seem as if we should use Transcriber. I think John Hostage got it right when he asked is it worth it? It seems that if the addition of a relator term is to have any value at all, there should be some level of consistency within it, otherwise too much variation makes it too difficult either to search or comprehend, thereby making the relator codes an academic exercise. But it is an additional task and indeed can be difficult. Sooner or later, people will have to decide whether it is worth it or not. -- *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
[RDA-L] Cataloging Matters no. 19: Library Catalogs and Information Architecture
Apologies for cross-posting. I would like to announce a new episode of Cataloging Matters: Cataloging Matters no. 19: Library Catalogs and Information Architecture Please share this with anyone who you believe may be interested. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
On 21/03/2013 12:26, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe: Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material? Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the Lubetzkian question has to be asked: Is this dividing line necessary? /snip For a long time, publication was linked to getting copyright, making copies and distributing them. A published item had certain protections that an unpublished item did not, in this way there was a distinction between published literature and grey literature. Grey literature are/were resources that are printed and distributed but do not normally have copyright protection because it wasn't seen as worth the effort. You could also have items copyrighted but never published. Now with the latest copyright conventions, everything is automatically copyrighted from the moment it is written down--even a few thoughts jotted on the back of a napkin--and the distinction between published and unpublished materials has become much less tangible. It would seem that anything on the web is automatically published. At one organization I worked at, we concentrated on cataloging grey literature because it was so difficult to get. The web has made that literature some of the easiest to get today. The dates on a catalog record do not, and should not, have any legal standing whatsoever. The information there is only to help the users and librarians find and identify resources. The use is strictly practical and should be considered that way. Perhaps a more useful way of dealing with the issue is the cataloger should enter dates connected to the resource that will help people identify or find that resource. But catalogers spending their time trying to figure out whether a date has to do with real publication would not seem to help anyone find or identify anything. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper
On 19/03/2013 13:15, Crum, Cathy (KDLA) wrote: snip We are beginning to transition into original cataloging with RDA, but we have encountered a situation concerning the title proper and other title information. The title as presented on the title page is: Evaluation of pilot project: Emergency traffic control for responders In the light of RDA's transcribe it as you see it theme, how would you transcribe this title? Would you transcribe all of the title as the title proper or is there a title proper and other title information? I feel that Emergency traffic control for responders is the title proper, but its placement on the title page is problematic. If the 2 title segments had been flipped in sequence, I think there would not have been much question about it. If you were to transcribe all of the title as the title proper, would you include the colon as well? /snip This is one of those points where different catalogers will decide differently. For the reader of course, by far the most valuable part of this record will *not* the how the title page has been transcribed, but the the URL that goes to the item: http://www.ktc.uky.edu/files/2012/06/KTC_11_05_SPR_398_10_1F.pdf (I assume this is the item) It seems to me that the problem actually boils down to: what will the searcher see in a browse list? After all, as long as the t.p. is transcribed, everything will be searchable, but perhaps it will make a difference for the relevance ranking. Still, when browsing, will people see only the title proper or at least a part of the $b? Browse lists should not be limited to titles proper because of the lack of consistency about titles proper, as pointed out by Mark Ehlert and Kevin Randall, and I have never seen a browse list of titles limited only to 245$a, at least none that I can remember. It's interesting to see how it works in Google: https://www.google.it/search?q=Evaluation+of+pilot+project%3A++Emergency+traffic+control+for+responders. First result is (on my machine): Evaluation of Pilot Project: Emergency Traffic Control for Responders..., second is into the actual pdf, then the third is Emergency Traffic Control for Responders Training Pilot Project ... If you scroll over the first record and hold the arrow over the for a moment, you will see a preview display of the record as it displays in the Kentucky Transportation Center. If you do the same for the second hit (the direct link to the pdf), it takes a moment, but then you see the t.p. The third does not have a preview. (The fourth one they want you to pay from $15 to $48 for a copy!) The Google interface is a little clunky, I admit, but also kind of nice to see everything. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 08/03/2013 02:02, Robert Maxwell wrote: snip The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice if there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in this case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In this case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the preferred title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the relationship between the resource and the work that is in it. /snip This shows the difference between RDA/FRBR and cataloging rules that came before. RDA/FRBR are philosophical, academic statements while AACR2 and previous rules are pragmatic and based on practical issues. RDA/FRBR posits that every manifestation contains a work, and a specific version of that work, the expression. Therefore, every manifestation must contain the requisite work and expression information, even if there is only one manifestation. Previous rules did not make such a philosophical statement. They began by creating a record for the item, then *if and only if* it turned out that your item were related to records of other items, you would make those relations in various ways. In the physical catalogs (card and book), this was achieved through filing those cards together in different ways, by typing the heading at the top of the card, which would tell the card filers where the card should be placed in the catalog. This system was continued into the OPACs. Therefore, before RDA/FRBR, works and expressions were *arrangements of records* created only when necessary. If not necessary, the cataloger could forget about works and expressions. All very tangible and exceedingly practical. As Robert points out: the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles and everything becomes much more complex for the cataloger. *Every* manifestation automatically contains a work and expression and therefore, this information must be in the record somewhere. This is definitely more complicated for the cataloger to create, and any real advantages for searchers has never been shown. The traditional FRBR user tasks can now be done using facets by anyone in the world but nobody seems to want to celebrate that success or even want to do it, while the push toward making our catalog records into data is also very doubtful. The example of the typographical error in the title is a great example of all of this: what do you do with a typo in the title? In the past it was simple: you just make an added title with the corrected form, but now this becomes a difference from the ideal/preferred title (title of the work), when that ideal/preferred title doesn't even exist! A metaphysical solution! Not very tangible nor very practical. The final product for the searchers will allow them to find the item by using correct spelling, which is exactly what happens today. They won't notice a thing. Practical concerns have never been RDA/FRBR's strong point however. I can only hope that in the BIBFRAME, they will come up with some method to make the creation of the work, expression and manifestation entities as efficiently as possible with a minimum of duplication. Otherwise, the resulting format will be so complex, no web developer will be able to make heads or tails out of it. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 08/03/2013 17:48, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip You don't seem to be aware that AACR2 has two parts. Part 1: describe the resource (which could include data about any FRBR entity in the resource-- work, expression, manifestation, item) Part 2: provide access to the *WORK*. Catalogers have never had a choice about deciding what the work is in a manifestation because that's what determines the main entry heading. RDA takes the existing practice and labels it more concisely as a process of identifying the work in the manifestation rather than as something that creates a file order for a catalog. RDA also makes it a CORE element for the same reason that AACR2 doesn't let catalogers be lazy and not make a decision about main entry (aka identifying the work in a manifestation). In addition, RDA takes the pragmatic step of acknowledging other data scenarios in which authorized access points may not be the only method used to identify entities. Or, as AACR2 20.1 puts it (and I hope this issue is laid to rest once and for all): The rules in part II apply to works and not to physical manifestations of those works, though the characteristics of an individual item are taken into account in some instances. Cataloging has always posited the philosophical idea that every manifestation has a work, and every record has that decision embedded within it. It's only a question about being implicit or explicit about it in terms of encoding and processing of bibliographic information. /snip Really? There is a part 2 to AACR2? I never got that far into the book! ;-) In my opinion, laziness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Catalogers were always supposed to check to see if there were other editions of the work and relate those editions using a uniform title when appropriate. If it is not appropriate, such as when there is only a single edition, they can stop and go on to the next item. I call this *efficiency* and not *laziness*. The final product will be exactly the same for the users. It isn't that people will be able to find anything more than they can now. The catalog always was a tool for practical use, primarily by non-librarians, but also by librarians. It was not supposed to be the product of a philosophical and academical exercise, and in fact, there have been periods when the catalog and the cataloging process have been purged of inefficiencies and information deemed superfluous. The reason these reconsiderations have occurred is because the catalog is supposed to be a tool designed to help people find the items they need. As far as people finding WEMI, that can be done now. Technology has made FRBR unnecessary if the purpose is to find, identify, ... but nobody seems to care about that. From my own researches into the history of the catalog, I suspect that people never did want those tasks so badly and there were other reasons why the catalog was built in the way it was, but that is a completely different topic. Adding the FRBR relationships (director, editor, sequel, and so on) is fraught with it own problems, but I have already discussed that at length. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 08/03/2013 20:48, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip But they haven't stopped. The choice of main entry (just choosing the main author responsible) is still part of the choice for identifying the work. The uniform title choice (or lack of a decision about it) doesn't change the fact that a work exists in a manifestation, and it doesn't change the other decisions that revolve around that fact. There is still a specific choice being made about authorship for the main intellectual or creative content. Even if no other editions exist, it still might be ambiguous as what the work in an item actually is, and who is primarily responsible for it. AACR2 (and mostly copied in RDA) has may situations when catalogers are called upon to tease out the relationships among entities that exist in an item, as well as to do things in a consistent way that is cognizant of relationships between entities in resources in a collection. /snip So, we see the pronouncements of the purest true believer. It is a fact that a work exists within a manifestation? It is important to keep in mind that this is *not* a fact, but a belief that may or may not be true, much as whether a soul exists in the body of a person. --The reason I am pointing this out by the way, is that my mother-in-law (quite a lady, incidentally) passed away just in the last few days. Her funeral was today-- So, is there is a work dwelling within a manifestation, similar to a soul dwelling within the body? To answer yes or no is merely a matter of faith, not a matter of fact. In my own opinion, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that doctors create medical care (or catalogers create cataloging practice) that either works in our own world of experience or does not work in our world of experience. The metaphysical world can be left to sort things out for itself. We need to determine whether what we create today--not 30 years in the future--is an improvement over what we have--or does not improve anything at all. Whether we like it or not, all kinds of situations, tools, materials have been left to our keeping. We cannot ignore what we have been left. To do so is simply... crazy. There is something in cataloging called--in my own opinion, the insulting term: legacy data. Maybe it's not everything we would like; we would like more of it and we would like it to be different. Too bad. It is what we have inherited and represents everything that we have. Many others rely on it. Renounce that, ignore it, and we renounce everything. We harm more than just ourselves and all will be left to suffer the consequences. Neither RDA nor FRBR has demonstrated that there is any advantage over what we have now. In fact, I have gone to some pains to demonstrate that there will be tremendous *dis*-advantages compared to what we have today. Plus, if we say that it is important for people to do the FRBR user tasks, they can do them now. Right now. Today. But this is ignored. Therefore, I can only conclude that the FRBR user tasks are unimportant. People haven't been able to do those tasks since keyword was introduced, what was it, over *20 years ago*!? And yet there was no outcry. When facets actually allowed the user tasks again, there was no fanfare. Clearly, *nobody cares* about that. What else can anyone possibly conclude? RDA and FRBR have *never*--absolutely *never*--demonstrated that they will, or can, create something better for the *public* than what we have now. Not in realistic, practical terms. Ever. Only vague graphs and promises. And yet people are supposed to keep the faith that they will make a real, substantive difference. A very sad state of affairs for the cataloging world. Up until FRBR, a work manifested itself only as an arrangement of the records. That's it. Nothing more. If there was only one record, that has always been enough. Nobody has shown any advantage of the added complexity of RDA. Doesn't it make sense to expect that someone should *demonstrate* some practical advantages, somewhere along the way? But that might lead to questions that might puncture the faith. Pretending that there is a spiritual work and expression (it appears that BIBFRAME may even drop something out of this mystical union) is only holding on to a theory that some, but not all, consider to be beautiful. Sooner or later though, the public will speak. And it will be interesting to discover what they have to say. Even if we hear complete silence. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 07/03/2013 18:49, Jenifer K Marquardt wrote: snip Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? /snip The purpose of the uniform title is to bring together the same work when the titles vary. It is an organizing device. Therefore, the title on the physical piece may be The tragicall story of Hamlet, prince of Denmark but the uniform title ensures that people do not have to search under T to find Hamlet. The corrected title is simply that: it ensures that someone does not have to look under a typographical error to find an item. So, following the example above, if the title appeared as The tregicall story of Hamlet... there would be a corrected title and a uniform title. If an item comes out in only a single edition (or manifestation), there is no need for a 240. Naturally, this practice may be going overboard with RDA and FRBR since now everything supposedly has work, expression, manifestation and item qualities. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Cataloging Matters Podcast no. 17: Catalog Records as Data
Apologies for cross-posting. This is to announce a new Cataloging Matters Podcast that I just put up. Please share this with others you feel may be interested. http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/01/cataloging-matters-no-17-catalog.html -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?
The big boys have said they will implement RDA, but it still has never been road-tested. Certain parts will definitely create some controversy when news reaches the public, such as eliminating the rule of three for the rule of one. That is a very serious change and when I have mentioned this to researchers, no one has liked it. At least, I *hope* it generates some controversy among the public because at least then it would show that people value our records. But maybe nobody will care. I have tried to demonstrate some other problems with implementing RDA, which should generate some controversy among the public, if they ever learn of them. It seems that searching will definitely change for the public: it will either become more complex or the results will become more puzzling. I still think that the best advice for catalogers is found in a Far Side cartoon http://scientificcuriosity.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-we-should-always-question.html. Click on the cartoon. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title proper vs. other title information ...
On 02/01/2013 01:25, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip There are several reasons to code remainder of title separately from title proper. Subtitles may differ between manifestations of the same work: having title proper gives us the form for uniform titles, author/title citation. subject and added entries, and until the mistake of removing GMDs, GMD placement. Of course alternate titles should be other title information, as in an early RDA draft. /snip I guess those are valid reasons, even though everything is still mixed together and I would bet that nobody who browses the title War and peace understands that manifestations of Tolstoy's War and peace will be found *after* War and peace in the nuclear age and after all other kinds of other titles that have nothing to do with Tolstoy's book. Collating a single work that has different manifestation titles is done through the uniform title. Based on experience, and the fact that nobody browses titles like they did in the card catalog, it seems that coding title proper vs. other title information is relatively unimportant and has been so for a long time. Therefore, leaving the coding to cataloger's judgment seems fine to me. On the other hand, transcribing other title information should be considered absolutely vital. It seems to have been the case in cataloging in the past--other than abbreviating it when it is very long--but now it has become optional for some unknown reason. And this at a time when keyword makes the subtitles more accessible than ever! The only reason I can imagine is that adding the subtitle/other title information *may be* optional in ONIX (I have difficulties understanding it) http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%203/ONIX_for_Books_Release3-0_html_Best_Practice+codes_Issue_19_v1-1-5d.zip, where we see an example: TitleDetail TitleType01/TitleType TitleElement TitleElementLevel01/TitleElementLevel TitleText ?/TitleText Subtitle??? ? ?? ???/Subtitle /TitleElement /TitleDetail although in the BISG Best Practices which is attached to this, subtitle is clearly optional http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf (p. 15): At a minimum, a main title is mandatory for every product; subtitles and title prefixes should be supplied as applicable. The real advantage of the BISG is that there is a business case for every part, although some business cases are elementary. There is no reason given, that I have heard, of making the 245$b optional, or for any of the other changes for that matter. There has been no research on the public, and in any case, I would suspect that almost no one would say that the subtitle was unimportant information and could be dropped. I can only conclude that it has been made optional because of the BISG guideline, which is aimed at secretaries and not for catalogers or libraries. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] The purpose of standards
On 12/21/2012 09:52 PM, Deborah Fritz wrote: snip At the risk of sounding even more obsessive-compulsive than Bob, I offer you this. /snip and On 12/21/2012 05:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:Here's a postscript to the discussion (for those of you who still care): snip Here's a postscript to the discussion (for those of you who still care): /snip I want to make clear that I believe that all of these concerns are indeed very important if we want to create and maintain high-quality standards. The people who create the records (i.e. standardized products of any type) *must* care because if even they don't care, why should we expect anybody else to care? And why should the public provide money to create products that nobody cares about? Bibliographic records that conform to high-quality standards are the only products we have. Anyone off of the street, or any computer can easily make garbage records, and make them easier, cheaper, faster, and if garbage records are considered to be the same as anything else, they will be better as well. Specific matters of quality aside, what I challenge is the re-opening of questions that were solved long ago. If someone can demonstrate that the former methods don't work any longer or if they can demonstrate that there are better and more efficient ways to do the same job, then those would be good reasons to re-open such questions. For instance, long experience has proven that transcribing the title of an item exactly is extremely important to the running of a library. Therefore, accuracy and even extended rules for titles became necessary. And yet transcribing the same rules for titles may have little purpose *in an internet world* where the title of a resource can change in an instant and the earlier title no longer even exists. This is a fundamentally different situation from title changes for e.g. printed serials and series because the earlier issues held in the library will forever bear the former titles. So in this regard, re-opening the question of transcribing titles may make sense. Another example of a fundamental difference from printed copies versus materials on the internet is that everyone is looking at *the same file*. In the physical world, each library that adds an item is examining an individual copy that might, or might not, differ in certain specific ways from other similar items. In the printed world, for the sake of coherence and efficiency, all of these individual items have been lumped together into what is called a manifestation in FRBR terms, or an edition in earlier terminology, based on certain definitions. The definitions for manifestation can and have changed, leading to the situation where something that on one day had been considered a different manifestation/edition, on another day becomes a new manifestation because of changes to the definition. With online resources, everyone is looking at *exactly the same files* so the utility of even considering an online resource in terms of a manifestation may be far less useful. In terms of work/expression/manifestation/item, I ask what could constitute an item when considering webpages and websites? With manifestations, it seems that the only way to consider the different manifestation aspects of a webpage would be to relate it to the Wayback Machine in the Internet Archive somehow. But I certainly wouldn't want to catalog each one of those manifestations. The website of Microsoft.com currently has 3226 earlier versions (or manifestations/editions) in the Internet Archive! http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.microsoft.com Yet for physical materials, the idea of the manifestation/edition still makes as much sense as it ever did. So, I am not against the need to re-open old questions, but I maintain that there need to be good reasons for re-opening those questions. In the current cases, I cannot find any reasons at all--in fact, I have tried to point out in some of my podcasts how there will be serious negative consequences for the public. These consequences should not be ignored. It seems to me that the motivation is some need to shoehorn everything into a highly dubious and unproven metaphysical construct such as FRBR. A construct that is unproven especially in relationship to online materials. So, I applaud those who take these matters seriously. They are doing a very important task. What I question is the need to re-open questions if there is no practical utility in it. -- James weinheimerweinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thushttp://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Ruleshttp://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcastshttp://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Rule minutiae
On 19/12/2012 18:52, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip How wonderful to see my cataloguing teacher remembered and quoted. Ms Pettee occupies my cataloguing pantheon along with Margaret Mann and Judith Hopkins. Lubetski doesn't make it, because he went too far in reducing redundancy, not anticipating the deconstruction of bibliographic records in OPAC displays. Much of SLC's early work was dealing with records lacking statements of responsibility and imprint when the same as the original 1XX. The 1XX could change form or become 7XX, as well as the data not being displayed in logical order. The Office is not helpful as a 260$b when not following a 110. RDA allows the same error, in leaving too much to cataloguer judgement. We are going to be faced with the same upgrading required by AACR1 records. /snip That's great! Lubetzky lived in a print/physical world, not a keyword/virtual world, but it is difficult to fault him too much because the catalog has never been upgraded to deal in a coherent way with keyword access and the new ways that people interact with information. We are still making card catalogs. Unfortunately, RDA doesn't change much of this at all. For the current situation, I would suggest that Lubetzky's question change from Is This Rule Necessary? to Is This Rule Change Necessary? When considering an answer to this question, there should be a need to demonstrate at least some kind of advantage to the change; otherwise, it is only change for the sake of change itself. And yes, I would hope that there would be at least some kind of concern over the practical consequences as well. Is there a need to change the rules? Absolutely. One fact is that today's world has much less need--if any at all--for a *dictionary* catalog. I don't know how many people even understand what a dictionary catalog is since people use online dictionaries in a different way than printed dictionaries. But no matter what, the changes decided upon should have practical effects that will be positive for the various users of our catalogs--they should not appeal merely to our own aesthetic sensibilities. Otherwise we are creating ...an encyclopedic work of pedantic distinctions and specific directions for every possible vagary -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in one list
A sobering list! Presenting such a list to a user to search as a separate relationship would make them run away screaming, so I guess this would be used for sorting the headings for people (and corporate bodies) in different roles, e.g. someone as editor vs. braille embosser vs. host vs. story teller. Of course, apart from updating our inferior legacy data to conform to this list (something that we can assume won't be much trouble--!!!), I think catalogers will experience difficulties in figuring out the difference between an abridger from an editor from an annotator and so on. For instance, Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare, would Charles Lamb be story teller? Naturally, there is no doubt that all this will lead to better cataloging. !! -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html On 06/12/2012 00:35, J. McRee Elrod wrote: abridger actor addressee animator annotator appellant appellee architect [arranger[ arranger of music [consider arrange] art director artist author autograher binder book designer [cinsider designer] braile embosser broadcaster cartographer caster [cataloguer] cinematographer choreographer collection registrar [consider cataloguer] collector commentator compiler composer conductor costume designer court governed court reporter currator current owner [consider owner] dancer dedicatee dedicator defendant degree granting institution depositor designer director director of photography distributor donor draftsman editor of compilation [consider compiler] editor of moving image work [consider editor] enacting jurisdiction editor engraver etcher [faculty adviser] film director [consider director] film distributor [consider distributor] filmmaker former owner [consider owner] honouree host host institution illumninator illustrator inscriber instrumentalist interviewee interviewer inventor issuing body judge jurisdiction governed landscape architect librettist l lithographer lyricist moderator musical director narrator on-screen presenter [consider presenter] [owner] panelist performer photographer plaintiff praeses [consider faculty adviser] presenter printer printmaker producer] production company production designer [consider designer] programmer publisher puppeteer radio director [consider director] radio producer [consider producer] recording engineer respondent restorationist screenwriter sculptor seller singer speaker sponsor sponsoring body stage director [consider director] storyteller surveyor teacher television directory [consider director] television producer [consider producer] transcriber translator [writer] writer of added commentary [consider writer] writer of added lyrics [consider lyricist] writer of added text [consider writer]
[RDA-L] Descriptive Cataloging
or dump it. Otherwise, it seems to be a bridge to nowhere. I vote for fixing it but I don't know if that will happen. Too many resources--and hopes--are going toward RDA and linked data. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] I'm taillights
Mike, Even though you worked for the dark side, I think everyone forgave you. Your knowledge and experience will be missed! http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/movie-en-43a2ff9214836fbeb0fa285074f5a5bf.html Jim -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title page vs. cover title
On 28/10/2012 09:46, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Be assured that I also want to keep the title page as the chief source of information for printed materials. There are, I believe, a number of good reasons for doing this, and you mention some of them. Another is that questions of design play a much bigger part on the front cover than on the title page - so the version on the t.p. can perhaps be seen as the one more appropriate for the aims of a catalogue. But I think James Weinheimer has a point when he says that our patrons may have different feelings about what is the most prominent part of a resource. /snip I want to emphasize that what I am saying is that today, there is no reason to have a single 245 a and b (or whatever those fields may morph into). If we were setting up a database from scratch, the idea of titles not being repeatable would probably be considered strange. I submit that the reasons that the 245 a and b are *not* repeatable have nothing to do with the inherent structure of information resources, but because of historical circumstance. Making them repeatable would make a tremendous difference on how the cataloger approaches the resource, no matter what format it happens to be. I have worked in non-ISBD cataloging settings where there is not a formal idea of prominent and the mindset of the cataloger is different--not inferior or superior, but different. In just a few seconds, the database manager could make the 245 repeatable. The question should be: Why not? There are reasons, and I personally would like to believe that the t.p. is the best title, but are these reasons really enough to constrain the database? Especially in the networked world we are entering, there will be different interpretations of what is the best title. Our formats and procedures should be able to deal with these differences. I hope these are the sorts of questions that the deciders of the new bibliographic framework are asking among themselves. Otherwise, I fear it will just be more or the same. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
This is a provocative discussion. I agree with what you say, but I would like to make the following observation On 26/10/2012 22:30, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title of an item but as we see here, there are problems with choosing a single title and there always have been. Why do we have to pick one as being *the* title? We always have but perhaps matters could be reconsidered. New systems allow novel possibilities. Let's imagine something rather blasphemous and almost impossible to conceive of in a card environment: that 245a and b could be repeatable. As a result, all 246s (and 740s?) would be equal titles to what is in the 245 now. This would mean that when there is more than one title, there is not *the* title of an item but different titles of equal worth. And each 245 could have its own note explaining where it comes from, as they do now, perhaps in a subfield i, as in the 246. For retrieval, it certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) matter which title you use. But I'm not so sure about display. Would we really do our readers a favour if we presented all titles as having equal worth (perhaps in an alphabetical or random order)? I think most users would agree that a title on the title page is more authoritative than e.g. one on the spine. If those responsible for the resource wouldn't have wanted us to associate it primarily with this version of the title, they wouldn't have put it in the most prominent position. /snip Not disputing this, but I do wonder if our idea that the title page is the most prominent is based more on historical circumstance and not what the public thinks is most important. I am sure that all on this list know the history of the title page, the half-title page, etc. that the title page originally served the purpose of the splashy cover that we have today, in the days when books were sold unbound, and had those magnificent title pages. Originally, the title page was to help sell the book. (Here is a nice one from a very famous chess book: http://www.sg1871loeberitz.de/fotoreports/fotoreports11/selenus_gr/titelblatt.jpg) The title page does not serve that purpose today; publishers put the same emphasis and care on p.1 of cover, or the jacket, because they know the cover is what is most important to the public and then they do relatively little with title pages. When I was first learning to catalog, I was surprised to find that catalogers said that the title page title, which you could find only after leafing through a few pages into the book, was the most important one and actually called it prominent(!). In my eyes, it was anything but. Before I cataloged, I never really looked at the title page of the book. I honestly do not remember when I was a student and made a citation for a bibliography in a paper, if I copied the title off of the cover or took it off of the title page. I suspect I took it from the cover because it would have been to difficult to hold the book open while I wrote or typed. Later when I first started considering the catalog idea of prominent, I remember thinking that perhaps the most prominent part of a book for the public is the spine, since that is the first thing they see and is the real access point into the book. When a book is too skinny to have a spine title, it is a *lot* harder to find on the shelf. Of course, if the original jacket or cover has been discarded and people are stuck looking at library binding, then it blows my cover title theory to pieces Nevertheless, I think it would be so useful to cataloging, especially at this pivotal moment, to do at least some research on the public to find out how they relate to these assumptions that have been handed down to catalogers, sometimes from the earliest days. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
On 25/10/2012 15:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Let's take the following example: A becomes B (major change) B becomes C (minor change) C becomes D (minor change) D becomes E (major change) This leads to the following three entities: Entity 1 (A) Entity 2 (B, C and D) Entity 3 (E) For the three entities, three records are created. There are links between them, so in a catalogue you can easily jump between them. Now consider entity 2. According to RDA, it looks like this: Title proper: B Later title proper: C Later title proper: D In a conventional display, B would be given in the title area, whereas C and D would be shown as notes. Now according to our practice, the entity looks like this: Title proper: D Earlier title proper: B Earlier title proper: C /snip These sorts of practices always interest me and I try to come up with ideas that bring them together. One way of looking at this would be that a record for a serial is the manifestation, and that this single manifestation has variant titles (not necessarily earlier ones, but variants), similar to monographs that have spine titles, a variant title on p. 4 of cover, and so on. That is how AACR2 and RDA consider them. But the Germans (and I assume others--many?) would consider them in the way you describe. One of the first things catalogers must do when cataloging is determine the chief source of information. This can be easy but is always tricky with serials and other continuations of course, since there are many more options: the chief source is not only on a certain page of the issue, but there also the problem of choosing the first or last issue of the continuation (for textual materials). It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title of an item but as we see here, there are problems with choosing a single title and there always have been. Why do we have to pick one as being *the* title? We always have but perhaps matters could be reconsidered. New systems allow novel possibilities. Let's imagine something rather blasphemous and almost impossible to conceive of in a card environment: that 245a and b could be repeatable. As a result, all 246s (and 740s?) would be equal titles to what is in the 245 now. This would mean that when there is more than one title, there is not *the* title of an item but different titles of equal worth. And each 245 could have its own note explaining where it comes from, as they do now, perhaps in a subfield i, as in the 246. This is not all that novel of an idea, since the VIAF brings together different headings for a name, and does not choose any as *the* form, and these can be displayed in different ways. I also keep referring to Thomas Hyde's catalog of the Bodleian Library where his name headings actually included the cross references! http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2011/09/re-objection-to-authors-birth-year_28.html, with the example of his heading for Roger Bacon: Rogerus Baconus, seu Bachonus sive Bacconus. This kind of heading could be done today. For instance, choosing Thomas a Kempis from the VIAF, it could display as: Author: Thomas, a` Kempis, 1380-1471, or Thomas, a Kempis, or Thomas à Kempis (1379-1471), or Tomás( Kempenský, 1379-1471, or Tomás de Kempis, ca. 1380-1471, or Thomas a Kempis, ca 1380-1471. If there are too many forms, there can always be a more... option as we see in many pages on the web. This would be an example of handling all headings equally and the first could display, e.g. taken from the country information from your IP address. This kind of situation could work more simply for titles since if the 245ab were made repeatable, it would just be a matter then of how to display them. There is already the example of Dublin Core which allows all elements to be repeated, including the title. In your example: RDA: Title proper: B Later title proper: C Later title proper: D German: Title proper: D Earlier title proper: B Earlier title proper: C it could be something like: Title proper: B (time period) Title proper: C (time period) Title proper: D (time period) and the style sheet could order the titles however the library would want. The display could also follow something like Thomas Hyde's name headings: Title: Title B, or Title C, or Title D (in any order the library chooses) Just sharing some thoughts. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
On 25/10/2012 08:20, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip I'd like your thoughts on a problem which the German library community has to face when making the move to RDA: It's the question of whether the description of a serial should be based on the first or the latest issue (in cases of minor variations, which do not call for a new entry altogether). RDA, of course, is quite clear on the matter: If the issues or parts are sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available (2.1.2.3). Information that appears on later issues has, I believe, traditionally been handled by notes in Anglo-American cataloguing. Now our problem is that we do it exactly the other way round, i.e. the description is always based on the latest issue, with information regarding earlier issues given as notes. The reasoning behind this is that the current information (current title, current publisher...) is what our users are most interested in, and what is also needed for acquisitions and used in the relevant systems. So we want to give this information prominently. /snip A question: When a serial has title changes A to B to C to D (D is the latest title) and a library has only A and B, what does a library do now? My own experience is that library users rarely understand the 780/785 information and would actually be better served by latest entry since the idea of the serial is much clearer, although there are differing points of view on that. Today, *in theory*, (I emphasize in theory) it would be possible to generate latest entry records from the 780/785 information. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
On 25/10/2012 10:58, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: A question: When a serial has title changes A to B to C to D (D is the latest title) and a library has only A and B, what does a library do now? Firstly, bear in mind that of course we also have split entries, so if there is a major change, a new record will be created. I was only talking about minor title changes, e.g. from Deutsche Nationalbibliographie (German national bibliography) with ph to Deutsche Nationalbibliografie with f (which is the more modern spelling variant in German). In cases such as this, the local catalogue would still show the latest variant (f) in the main body, even if the library in question in fact does only own issues with the ph spelling. The ph-variant would only be shown in a note (e.g.: Proper title until 2002: Deutsche Nationalbibliographie). And, of course, the ph-variant is also indexed in the OPACs. Therefore, a user searching for the older title variant will also retrieve the record. I'm not a serials specialist myself, but I don't think this causes any problems for users or librarians: After all, the OPAC doesn't give an incorrect bibliographical information (it is true that the title is now spelled with f, even if the library has stopped acquiring the serial). Actually, I think it's much more confusing the other way round: Somebody looks for the current title of a serial and is then perhaps presented with a rather old-fashioned looking variant. /snip So it is more of a difference in what is considered a minor change. So, if I may revise my earlier question: When a serial has minor title changes: A to B to C to D (D is the latest version) and a library has only A and B, I am still interested in what the library does. Is the library supposed to add a title reference from Title D? This would be easy in the card catalog, but perhaps more difficult in the OPAC. Is there still catalog maintenance done on these serials that are, from the library's perspective, dead? I am not judging at all--I just find different bibliographic practices fascinating. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
On 23/10/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be comparable to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears much simpler. There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating elements. There are clear demarcations between transcribed elements and recorded elements. There is some added redundancy (such as with authorized access point for the work and Creator having the same Person involved), but these serve to illuminate what entities are being presented and how data elements logically flow together, which can facilitate better workforms and machine processing. Overall, much simpler. /snip Punctuation was always the easiest part of the records for me. I never worried about punctuation and when there did happen to be some detail I couldn't remember, it was very easy to look it up. Punctuation has meaning only to catalogers. I still say that cataloging punctuation could disappear tomorrow and nobody would even notice--except catalogers. I'll leave it up to each person to decide for themselves if RDA is simpler. Certainly from all I have seen, the examples from the RDA Toolkit, discussions on this list and others, it seems to this cataloger at least, that RDA will be far more complicated. Whether it is true that data elements logically (or illogically) flow together as opposed to AACR2's very practical emphasis on workflow, plus adding the relationship designators to authors, and the relationship of all of that data to the WEMI, it becomes much more difficult to conclude that RDA is actually simpler. Added complications would not be a problem if it were clearly seen to be creating something that will be much more useful to the users of our records. That has yet to be demonstrated. There is also the proviso that libraries will have the actual resources (that is, enough trained catalogers) to implement all of it in a decent manner, also called sustainability. Unfortunately, there is no indication that RDA can provide any of that. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
On 24/10/2012 16:33, Kelleher, Martin wrote: snip Try buying a television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action I Put in Dracula DVD on Best buy (54 entries) then I tried Dracula video! 1 entry: $14.99 Special Offers: •Free Shipping Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles — PRE-OWNED SKU: 1481313 Platform: PSP Rating: T=TeenRelease Date: 9/29/2010 /snip And it works right now in Worldcat. Here is Dracula http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_allq=dracula, and you can limit by Video, limit to Christopher Lee, limit to 2001, and you get two videos with Christopher Lee. It took just a few seconds and I see no problem with it. Could this be improved with RDA and FRBR? Maybe, but it needs to be kept in mind that the catalog system is also not the best and it can also be improved a lot, especially the user interface. But it works great. So long as you have an appropriate system, the facets work today. You do not have to build them by hand. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Main entry in RDA
On 22/10/2012 23:41, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip I see no advantage in combining 100/240 or 100/245 in nuMARC. They only need to be combined in 600 and 700. In new title lists we print, we give the 100 once, with 245s after in alphabetic order. I see no need to repeat the 100 in print or OPAC display before each title. I suspect we will abandon all print poducts with nuMARC, and leave our clients to cope in terms of OPAC display. We've never seen an OPAC display we like better than unlabeled ISBD. We agree with Martha Yee: http://slc.bc.ca/yee.pdf /snip With modern systems, you can display anything however you want. So, if a series of records authored by William Shakespeare is already displaying Shakespeare, William, you can tell the computer not to display it more than once. It can be done in other ways too. For instance, if you search Worldcat for William Shakespeare, http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=william+shakespeareqt=results_page, you will see in the facets section William Shakespeare (45010). His name only displays once, and it could appear only once in other ways on the page. True, there is the unfortunate Shakespeare William (383) which should represent 383 errors of different sorts such as no date, wrong date, coding errors, etc. I have personally never really understood the reasoning for 1xx/240 but I have always assumed it had something to do with limitations on early displays. I won't bring up single main entry vs. multiple main entries again. Still, I completely agree about the unlabeled ISBD display. In my opinion, with the cards, people rarely understood the power and utility of the tracings and these needed to be made more prominent--as they are by turning them into hyperlinks. People have lots of trouble understanding what they see in the catalog and how to use it, but I don't think it has much--if anything--to do with the information in the records and how it is displayed. The problems are much deeper. Besides, they see far weirder things every day all over the web than they would ever encounter in an unlabeled ISBD display. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
On 23/10/2012 19:45, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip Thomas Brenndorfer said: Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms shouldn't be bogged down by display issues. Display issues? The function of 245$h or 33X would seem to me to facilitate discovery of desired resources. It would seem to me that how they are displayed is central to their serving their purpose. The major problems we see with 33X is that some terms are too long for convenient display, are redundant, or are obscure (e,g,,tactile three dimensional object; object would suffice). Relator terms have the same problems. It is not necessary to include film or sound film in relator terms; it is clear from the record what is directed or composed; director or composer would suffice. /snip This has turned into an interesting thread. In an ideal world, display *can* be rather unimportant so long as the information is input consistently. Information that is consistent in a computer can display in almost any way someone would want. So, if the text says mediated or whatever is beside the point. It is similar to arguing whether a computer code in the 008 field should be 1 9 z or §. It really doesn't matter. It's only a code. The moment inconsistency is introduced, the task of display becomes far more complex. So for me, the question of what a cataloger actually enters into a 33x field is rather unimportant: the computer can display it--or not--however you want. Yet, we should not ignore that this also concerns consistency with what is in the *totality* of the database, that is: what the public works with every day--not only the newest records--and this in turn brings up the issue of the incorrectly termed legacy data. This however, is a topic few catalogers seem to want to discuss, although the public will see it in *every single search* until the end of time. Not a minor concern, I think. At the same time, from a theoretical point of view, the traditional GMDs really have conflated different aspects of an item, and this can be demonstrated clearly, as has been shown with particular clarity in the examples of [electronic resource]. I am sure we have all wrestled with this in our own practice. An auxiliary point is the idea of turning our text into data. Here, we have an assumption that in the linked data universe, people will *not* be looking at entire records, so that someone will not even be able to examine an entire record to learn that the relationship of John Huston to Moby Dick is that he was director and not an actor. They may only see the name (perhaps through a URI) John Huston. If the other fields of a record are not readily seen because of linked data, then it can be argued that the information for roles (or whatever) must be carried within the data, itself (in this case, along with John Huston's heading). In my own opinion, the real question is: is all of this a problem only from the theoretical point of view, or is it a problem for the actual public? Unfortunately, we don't have any research and have only anecdotal evidence. My experience has shown that fewer and fewer people even understand what it means to search by author, even less by subject, and with very few exceptions, a search by title, other than a few major keywords of the item, is too weird for them even to imagine. To focus on practical considerations, and going back to a recent discussion on Autocat discussing Eric Miller's talk at LC about the new Bibliographic Framework, he said that what needs to be made is something *simple* because if what catalogers make is too complicated, no web master will ever be able to implement it. (I also wonder if regular catalogers can either) His advice makes perfect sense to me. RDA is *anything but* simple. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ?
On 12/10/2012 19:24, Larisa Walsh wrote: snip This is where it gets even more confusing... Heading for Russia refers to a country that existed until 1917. Heading Russia (Federation) represents the country starting from 1991 only. So heading Russia cannot be used in 370 instead of Russia (Federation) as this heading is for a different geographic and political entity. I agree that applying RDA 16.2.2.4. (precede the name of the LARGER PLACE by a comma) to recording headings that have type of jurisdiction as a qualifier is not a good practice, and I would love to see it changed. The reason why you see inconsistency for using Russia and Russia (Federation) as qualifiers in corporate bodies is that because catalogers apply /LCRI24.4C4: /If a corporate body is qualified by a geographic name (place or jurisdiction), use the heading for the current geographic entity as the qualifier (or the heading for the latest geographic name in use during the lifetime of the body if the corporate body no longer exists). Looks like Don Cossack Chorus Russia (Federation)) was established according to this rule and it needed a qualifier to break a conflict. Geographic headings for places in Russia (old and new) established under different practice though, and they are all qualified by Russia only. /snip If you look at the Short Course for Russia/Soviet Union/Former Soviet Republics in the Slavic Cataloging Manual (http://www.indiana.edu/~libslav/slavcatman/rsufsr.html) and see the section Russia/Soviet Union/Former Soviet republics or republic subdivision? there is the explanation. The heading used to be Russian S.F.S.R. but when the Soviet Union disintegrated, it changed to Russia (Federation) to distinguish it from the former Empire Russia. During the Soviet Union, geographic headings were qualified not by Soviet Union but by an abbreviation of the republic. Therefore, e.g. Moscow (R.S.F.S.R.) changed to Moscow (Russia (Federation)). *BUT* LCRI23.4B states that the qualifier of a qualifier drops out. Therefore, the heading for Moscow displays as Moscow (Russia) but that is only because the (Federation) qualifier *does not display*. It is actually qualified by Russia (Federation). (Because of all of this, I was hoping that the heading would be Russian Federation so that everything would be clearer, but no such luck) We see this with subject headings, e.g. Moscow (Russia)--History but Art--Russia (Federation)--Moscow. I don't know what this means for the 370, but it's probably confusing too. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry)
On 08/10/2012 19:27, Adam L. Schiff wrote: snip Because the rule of three from AACR2 is gone, it doesn't matter how many creators there are for a work. In RDA the authorized access point for a work is the combination of the first named or prominently named creator and the preferred title for the work. Hence: AACR2 245 00 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A ... [et al.]. 700 1_ $a Author A. RDA 100 1_ $a Author A. 245 10 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A, B, C, and D. /snip Yes, and the problem with this (other than changing the rule of three to the rule of one and maintaining that it increases access--but that is another point) is that the 1xx field is not repeatable. If the four authors have equal responsibility, they should all be in the 100 field, while those with other responsibilities would go into 7xx, thereby making it similar to Dublin Core's creator and contributor. The reason there is only a single 1xx field is historical: something that was very useful before has no use today but it sticks around. Much like an appendix or the coccyx. If we were making records completely from scratch today, single main entries would not even be thought of. Also, in the past, titles were considered quite differently from how catalogers consider them today. I remember how I was struck by the cavalier fashion they were handled in earlier catalogs, when I first started researching them. Many times, they weren't traced at all, even with anonymous works. Several times, I saw them just thrown in together into a section called Anonymous, pseudonymous, etc. works which made it pretty much useless. Journals were often included in these sections because the idea of corporate authorship took awhile. In these cases, I guess people just had to ask the librarian. Look at the incredible guidelines for title entries (references) in Cutter's Rules to try to make titles of books useful for the public (see p. 56+ in his rules https://archive.org/stream/rulesforadictio02cuttgoog#page/n62/mode/1up) and we can get another understanding what Cutter really meant when he wrote: To enable a person to find a book of which either ... the title is known. It was more complicated than it may appear since people rarely know the exact title of the book they want. In sum, his rules show that first-word entry is minimized in favor of catch-word or other titles. Much of this part of his rules disappeared later, probably because of their complexity. As an example, he says to make a first-word entry for works of prose fiction (Rule 135) giving the intriguing reason that novels are known more by their titles than by their authors' names. Even here he has an exception for the name of the hero or heroine in the title, citing the entry David Copperfield, Life and adventures of so that people didn't have to look for the book under L. Just wanted to share that bit. Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three... -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry)
On 09/10/2012 16:02, Paradis Daniel wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three... RDA is not concerned with encoding but rule 6.27.1.3 does give the alternative to Include in the authorized access point representing the work the authorized access points for all creators named in resources embodying the work or in reference sources (in the order in which they are named in those sources). Also, it should be noted that chapter 19 does not set any limits on the number of creators recorded. /snip Yes, I understand that. To believe that real human beings--who formerly had to trace three authors and are now allowed to trace only one, or in other words, will actually choose to do *more* work when they can get by with *less* work--is a complete misreading of human behavior. *Of course* people will do only what they have to do and will do no more. How can anyone believe any differently? I discussed this in a paper I gave in Buenos Aires: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/02/is-rda-only-way-alternative-option.html -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
On 08/10/2012 09:38, Keith Trickey wrote: snip Point of order! Main entry was adopted by AACR2 - Eric Hunter argued against it at a JSC meeting in the 1970s in York and was timed out. It goes back to catalogue card days - when full bibliographic data was entered on the main entry card and the other cards relating to that item were listed on the back of that card. The concept of main entry belongs to the Cutter shortage era when access was limited (restrictions of the 5 x 3 card and staff to catalogue items and the bulking out of catalogues) and the researcher was expected to understand the foibles of the cataloguer when engaged in a search for an item. The cataloguer's arrogance is part of the main entry concept. The searcher approaches with catalogue with whatever information they have - could be author or title or words from title etc. For the searcher the information they use to access the item identifies their main entry which may be at variance with what erudite cataloguers with a head full of RDA thinks! Michael Gorman (Our singular strengths p.170 - Filing) illustrates this beautifully! /snip I don't know if it is arrogance so much as not reconsidering what you are doing when there has been a fundamental change in technology. There is a difference between main entry and the need to come up with a *single* main entry. This is also called creator and contributor. In a resource with two authors of equal prominence and status, why should the first one be chosen over the second one, such as Masters and Johnson? As Keith mentions, in a card (or printed book) catalog, a single main entry was a very natural outgrowth of how the card catalog functions, but in the computer world, having to choose a single main entry is an anachronism. In MARC format, the 1xx field could easily be made repeatable, but doing so would have consequences for the rest of the format, for instance, in analytic added entries, where the 7xx would have to handle more than one main entry. This has been discussed at length on other lists; here is one of my posts to NGC4LIB http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/06/re-are-marc-subfields-really-useful_07.html Nevertheless, there needs to be a difference from creators vs. contributors. This is one part of FRBR that I have actually liked: I cannot see how a single main entry makes much sense in an FRBR system: there are names attached to the work, or the expression, or the manifestation, even to the item if we wanted. It makes no sense to limit any of them to a single instance. Not having to determine a single main entry would make the job of the cataloger easier, make cataloger training simpler, with no loss of access to the public. Mac and I have differed on this a number of times. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
or totally incomprehensible. Transferring the capabilities I just mentioned assumes you start from scratch and redo everything. With a single book or set of books as I postulate here, that may be achievable although much more difficult than it may sound, but doing anything similar with millions of catalog records created over the decades (or longer) designed for other purposes, is a task of radically different dimensions. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 26/09/2012 14:35, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: I consider that *if* the rules were coded correctly (DocBook for example), stylesheets could merge them as you wished. So in theory, a cataloger who happened to be working on a video of an Arabic scholar discussing the law, the cataloger could in essence, merge everything together that would give him everything he needed in one nice place. A cataloging manual on videos of discussions of Arabic law. And it could be done on the fly. So basically we don't do what you're suggesting, but instead stick with RDA, which supports legacy data and doesn't requires starting from scratch, and directs data into formats that can be modified by different communities and still interoperate, and is based on the simplest and most modular framework for data. The narrower issue of relationship designators seems like a trivial thing to accomplish compared with what you've just proposed and then rejected. The point? /snip As I wrote in that message, I am talking about modularizing the *cataloging rules themselves* and *not* the records. This is not my idea and so far as I know, the idea comes from Michael Gorman in his talk at the rda@yourlibrary online conference where I heard it for the first time. http://rda.amigos.org/node/10 He suggested what I mentioned above: very basic rules with modules for specific cataloging communities, all kinds of new things could happen. Perhaps someone could get his paper online...? Returning to your message, I have gone to rather great pains to show that RDA does not support legacy data because of the inconsistency of coding information. Because we are discussing a catalog and catalogs rely on consistency, this lack of consistency must have consequences. Either everything will have to be redone manually or there will be the unavoidable consequences of decreased access, all as I laid out in my podcast. Some consider this decreased access to be very important, while others figure that the public will just deal with it, apparently until the catalogers can update millions and millions of headings, which will probably take some time. And a little money. Of course, we all know that a recon of such a magnitude will not take place and the records that exist now will just be less and less findable, resulting in less reliance on the catalogs by the public, and ultimately lead to less use of our collections. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 24/09/2012 22:19, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: In turn, I hope this helps you understand the importance of consistency in library catalogs and that to break that consistency has consequences, some of which may be difficult to foresee even for catalogers. We must also understand that progress is *always* going to involve varying kinds and degrees of inconsistencies. If we're going to insist on absolute consistency, we're going to be stuck with something that's increasingly out of date and irrelevant /snip No, the problem is ignoring the practical problems of what the public will experience. Claiming that adding the relator codes will *increase* access when it will actually *decrease* access is an excellent example of torturing the language. I think many members of the public, as well as catalogers, would disagree that this should be labeled progress. What would progress in the catalog really be? For one thing, to get the thing to cross-reference structures to work once again, and how about those subject headings? Inconsistency may sometimes be necessary, as I mentioned in my podcast with the subject heading Labor and laboring classes, but there should be full recognition of the consequences, and then some kind of provisions made instead of deciding that the public will have to deal with it and feel lucky, then foisting off everything on public services, who will have to bear the brunt of the problems. I agree that the catalog is increasingly out of date and irrelevant, but is it because it lacks relator codes? The cataloging abbreviations? Give me a break! Is it because it is so difficult for people to find the WEMI structure? Oh wait! They *can* find the WEMI incredibly easily right now with the new indexing software that allows for facets! And that software is even open source! But of course, all of that is completely irrelevant and is best ignored by everyone! Why is the catalog increasingly out of date and irrelevant? Because it doesn't fulfill the needs of the public. What are those needs? Well, I have some ideas, and probably everyone has some ideas, but lots and lots and lots of very interesting research needs to be done. But let's stop equating the RDA changes with progress. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Bernhard offered an excellent reply. I want only to mention: On 24/09/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip There is nothing new being added here. Retrospective conversion will always be an issue with every new code or tag. This doesn’t begin or end with RDA. /snip Absolutely true. In my podcast, I discussed the introduction of AACR2, which led to incredible changes. At least the catalogers back then understood the added complexity for the public, took those changes seriously and tried to figure out some sort of solutions. snip The more we get data in this form, the ***EASIER*** it will become. The more we move to what is in RDA, with its database-friendly (and therefore ultimately user-friendly) approach, the ***EASIER*** it will become. Perpetuating bad practice for some false premise of “less access” based upon functionality that is entirely optional until one is ready is incredibly bad advice. /snip This is yet another instance of not having a valid business case. How many more years (and how much more money and how many more scarce library resources) will be needed to get even a halfway decent result? Nobody knows! Nobody even knows what a halfway decent result means! In one organization I worked at, there was a retrospective conversion project done through automated means and the result was 70% satisfactory results. That result was considered a failure because, while 70% may not sound all that bad, it also meant that 30% of the collection was inaccessible! Almost 1/3! When I talked about this with one of the IT people who dreamed up the project, I'll never forget what this person said, Well, 70% is good enough for me! Of course, this person hadn't mentioned this little bit of information at the beginning of the project and in any case, it wasn't that person's decision to make. The project was labeled a success on the person's CV, an interesting point I think. Finally, the less access is not a false premise but an indisputable fact. That must be acknowledged. To maintain that it is not less access is to ignore reality. Perhaps some may claim that it is a sad, necessary step toward the radiant heights of FRBR, but the immediate effects, lasting into an unknown number of years, will be less access. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 25/09/2012 15:33, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip In your case of 70% success on a conversion project, you also indicated that this was also purely an automated conversion. I'm not under any such illusions-- to get to 100% requires many reports on the data, and the listing of all missing or incomplete fields, and that requires manual intervention. I would say there is currently less access today than what is promised in AACR2 cataloging. Part of that is the transfer of the traditional catalog card format to an online catalog. Several good examples: name-title headings chopped up and scattered over different indexes; unpredictable hyperlinks on controlled access points (which could point to a keyword search, a browse search, or a record summary list-- all compromises in some way); keyword searching missing authority references; much data locked away in free-text notes rather than controlled vocabulary; repeated work and expression data across multiple bibliographic records, where there is inconsistency in the application of that data (inconsistent subject headings and other work related data for the same work). /snip I agree with this. I have mentioned over and over that transferring the card catalog into the OPAC didn't work very well (that was not the original idea of computerization of the catalog records anyway), and especially when keyword was tacked onto the OPAC. I have given many examples. But the two little words you bring up: manual intervention hold a huge unknown and will cost money. Probably lots of money. Money is what libraries do not have. Many libraries can barely justify paying for subscriptions to the RDA rules (and many can't justify that either). All this is part of the necessity of making a business case. Here we are faced with a dilemma: Adding relator codes and initiating a search option will result in decreased access for the public. To increase access using relator codes, manual updates will be necessary. So, you either do not implement the search option, which makes the RDA changes useless, or you spend money on manual updating. Therefore: is it worth while to spend money and resources on adding relator codes (and other markup) to records already there? The result is to make a product that is more complex to use now and in the foreseeable future. But, yes: there are some who can perceive fluffy clouds out on the horizon, decades from now, where with patient and diligent work, plus plenty of money, there may be better access than ever before! (And maybe not) Is this what the public wants? I understand that you feel that it is all worth while, but I think it is more important to discover what is more important to the public and of course, most importantly, to the administrators, who are the ones who actually have to cough up the cash for the access to RDA and training--*then* they'll discover implementing those rules made their catalogs obsolete(!) and now they have to spend more to update those catalogs manually. I wonder what they'll say? Plus, planning so far into the future in such a volatile information environment as what we are living through today makes little sense. I personally believe that what RDA and FRBR proposes is already obsolete, but for the moment, I shall admit I may be wrong. Yet, by the time everything is manually updated it is fair to state that the final result will be as outdated as the trilobyte. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on fixing what everyone can see is broken now, such as getting the cross-references to work and the subjects? And to improve user interfaces for the faceted catalogs and we could declare victory on the FRBR user tasks? -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 25/09/2012 16:32, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip James, you’ve missed my main point--- Manual intervention occurs already. It has to – system upgrades often involve invoking new features, sometimes based on long stagnant data. Systems migrations to entirely new systems means rooting out all the workarounds and redoing a lot of work—it’s inevitable, but generally often worth it. New MARC codes have come out on a regular basis over the years, some of which require fixing old records (or waiting for them to gradually disappear as the collection churns over). Authority records and access points get changed all the time, and this requires a set of procedures and tools to incorporate them successfully. My current setup includes vendor cached copies of the LC authority files, and instant automatic linking and overlaying. Manual intervention put pressure on getting better tools. The tools I have today to do large scale batch updates are light years ahead of what I was using 10 years ago. Plus, a lot of what is in RDA is a simply a transfer of what is in AACR2 (perhaps too much of a dump). Many of the same options will continue as before. Libraries that used $4 relator codes will continue to do the work, but may convert the date to the new designators. But, like the fixed fields, the groundwork is being set up for better things. Unlike in previous systems, I now make extensive use of fixed fields. I would never go back to the old way of doing things, with all the typos and makeshift local fields and clunky batch change tools. There will never be anything as complex as AACR2/MARC for cataloging. Students learning RDA generally find it easier, and students who’ve learned how to build databases find it a breeze, as it is written in a more universal language that doesn’t depend on card catalog jargon. (True, there’s still jargon, as with any technical standard—but at least one can point to generic texts on database modeling and discern why RDA and FRBR are structured the way they are). /snip I understand about manual interventions and I discussed them at some length in my podcast. But as I pointed out there, using different words: there are manual interventions and MANUAL INTERVENTIONS. If the relator codes are to be made useful, there must be a number of MANUAL INTERVENTIONS, touching a huge percentage of all of our records. I don't know what level of staff it would demand. Doing it automatically is only possible in theory and must be demonstrated in reality before any assumptions there could be made. When I consider what would make the relator code editor useful *for searching*, I marvel at what an incredible undertaking that would be. There are always disputes on where an organization's resources should go, and these disputes become especially tense as budgets become scarce. As a library user, would I prefer that resources be spent on updating the records with relator codes, or buying more new materials and cataloging them quickly so that I can get at them? A no-brainer, I think. I have also never said that AACR2 shouldn't be changed. Of course it should. The problem is, there is still not enough information to know how it should change. The FRBR structure seems obsolete to me, although yes, there a few nice things, but modern faceted indexing has obviated any need to manually create the FRBR format structures. I have made several suggestions for rule changes, such as eliminating single main entry(!), also combing through the rules to eliminate the rules clearly based on alphabetical browsing, such as the rules for cross-references for permeated names of conferences and other corporate bodies, perhaps even for personal names, but many have protested against these suggestions. Still, others would have several suggestions themselves. I still like Michael Gorman's idea of simplifying the rules to an absolute minimum and then allowing various groups (maps, images, theology, law, Arabic and so on) to make additional rules for their own communities, thereby modularizing the entire system. This way, a bare minimum amount of standardization would be achieved for basic interoperability and we could--in theory--work together with a certain amount of freedom. What would that mean in reality? I don't know, but it seems as if it would be a promising road to try. RDA is not the only choice to move forward! There are many options. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 23/09/2012 19:14, Amanda Xu wrote: snip Great discussions again! You are right that we need to put user-centered design into consideration when we decide what to give description for and how to render it, e.g. relator. We've been dealing with legacy compatibility for many years, e.g. reclassification from DDC to LCC, re-cat serials from latest entry to successive entry, and lots of local procedures for series decisions, etc. To improve consistency, many people have shared to the list about their ideas how to recon from 100, 700, notes fields, etc. for relators. Whichever choices catalogers have made, users' info seeking and retrieval behavior studies and report analysis have always been used as the evidence to support the discussions and final decision making as far as I am concerned. The users included are librarians, end users and others. You are right about new tool adoption, e.g. new saw requiring no training for people to use at all. That's the design idea of RDA as far as I understood and tested for indexing field choices and community-contributed tagging at production level in spring 2010, and media rich content representation via various snapshots at research level since spring 2007 in collaboration with private and public universities and research institutions, and industry and academic thought leaders and researchers. How will people respond to RDA changes? I would hope they won't notice the difference except nicer and easier interface for finding, browsing, search, retrieval, obtaining, etc. and FRBR extension for researcher's task completion, e.g. citing, reformatting, coordinating, comparing, geo-coding, visualizing, synthesizing, scheduling, note taking, etc., all of which will be rendered in users' preferred experience. Thomas beautifully described what his library did for content enrichment yesterday. That's a great start. It would be nice if we can brand such content and user experience as library's catalogs and related knowledge bases even though we are embedding them into users' lib research environment that I described to the list a few days ago. It's important to preserve local specialty and embrace global capability if desired. At least, RDA/FRBR have the potential to get us there. Thanks a billion for the discussions here /snip I am a little confused. Are you saying that if people search for John Huston *as a film director* in our catalogs, they should *not* expect to find the films in which he was a director? Because it is a fact that the public will not find them after RDA is implemented and a library allows for searches by film directors. Or that catalogers don't need to be concerned about it? -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 24/09/2012 15:02, Amanda Xu wrote: snip There are four kinds of cases that we need to act upon so as to add a relator code to 100, etc. fields in a bib consistently across result set including film director: 1) on-fly rendering of relator code for existing MARC data being asked for use based on rules that many discussed here already and MARC leader 06, 07, etc. 2) newly-created RDA data will have such code stored in the database and ready to be used, and met the objectives setup for FRBR and others that we've discussed; 3) recon highly circulative or frequently used MARC data so that it is compatible with RDA data, including relator code, and improve performance overtime; 4) program changes for newly created RDA/FRBR data to be reused, interchanged, discovered and others among upstream and downstream data utilities that would consume or publish the data, including RDFa conversion for Web search engines; If we can, e.g. time and resources permitting, we can run four cases at the same time collaboratively. If not, let's focus on case 1, 2, and 4. That's how I see how we can make film director and other relator codes to be implemented for RDA data consistently if our existing data have designated materials for motion pictures, sound recordings, etc. consistently. A lot of value-added processes have been added to library metadata, e.g. MODS, MADS, etc., which might be leveraged on-fly RDA generation. But you know the danger when you are not cited from the original. We also want existing and future workforce to be ready for the transition. Catalogers have to be concerned and work in parallel modes, e.g. MARC and RDA/FRBR. /snip Concentrating on 1, 2, and 4 ignores the problem of the so-called legacy data (also known as 99.999% of everything we have). So, I guess your contention is that changing older records to add the role film director can be done automatically, although your point 3 mentions recon (manual) of selected records. Assuming that automatic updates can work seems to be making a highly unwarranted assumption and should be subject to at least some kind of preliminary project to see if what it produces is not completely incoherent, which is in fact, what I believe. In this respect, I remember when I was working with optical character recognition and found that it was rated as somewhere around 95%+ accurate, but when you see the results of OCR, you begin to question what that 95%+ accuracy means since the final problem is often total gobbledygook. Additionally, this is only for a single role. There are actors, writers, producers and other kinds of roles available. Also, this is only a single format and in a single language. Some may say that this is being negative but it seems to me to be realistic and to ignore it is being idealistic. I wish it would all work out too, but from the very first day that a search is implemented for specific roles, we know what the public will see. This is nothing to do with maybe or once in awhile, but it has to do with definitely and in practically every search. Shouldn't there be at least something to say to the public who will begin to get strange search results? Or do we just leave all of that to public services, who will have to deal with the fallout? -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 24/09/2012 15:19, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip In the case of relationship designators/relator codes for films -- if the data already exists (whether in IMDB or another database or with libraries having already done the work with $4 codes), then the technical burden shifts to finding means of sharing with other libraries. Right now, my catalog is ingesting thousands of newly coded RDA data elements in authority records every week. As a cataloger, I've already started to use them, and I can see them working really well in future displays of catalog data, including the possibility of searching and filtering on them. There has to be a start somewhere, sometime. Locking oneself into the past, and declaring defeat before the battle even starts, is the worst possible advice and analysis one can make. /snip As I mentioned, if the data exists somewhere else, in the IMDB or elsewhere, and catalogers can use that information that would be fine, if it actually works. There is an old saying, Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Wouldn't it be wise to have some kind of prototype to see what happens first before betting so much on it? While it *can* work, I have no doubt, but I have had too much experience translating these sorts of can work into does work (therein lies entire epic stories!), so whether it actually *will* work is something else--and of course, films are only one format, while libraries have lots of formats. But maintaining that those who criticize are declaring defeat is absolutely incorrect. I completely agree that the catalog as it stands now is broken and needs to be fixed. But *decreasing access* to resources is *not fixing it* (this is the reality of adding the relator codes)--I maintain it is breaking the catalog even more than it is now. This must be accepted. Otherwise, we are guilty of doublethink. If you asked members of the public if they want less access to the materials, or they could have relatively the same access but it was more complex, I wonder what they would reply? RDA makes optional the rule of three, and 245$b among other important information. Finding out what the public thinks about all of that really would make for an interesting project for someone out there! The catalog is broken, so how can we fix it? By discovering what really is broken, evaluating each broken part, and fixing those parts deemed important to fix today. I have mentioned these points many times already. Instead of declaring defeat before the battle even starts it seems to me that RDA lives in its own theoretical world, attacking the wrong enemies with the wrong weapons, without caring about the consequences to the public or cataloging departments in the real world. It lives for itself. These are some of the readily foreseeable consequences of working without a valid business plan. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
to the RDA changes, so it is all a mystery at this point. In my latest podcast, I demonstrated how RDA will lead to decreased access. That is a fact because of the fundamental principles of what makes a catalog a catalog. What will happen? The public will discover that the catalog doesn't retrieve as much as it used to. It will become even stranger than it is now and they will quickly see the errors. I looked for D.W. Griffith as film director and got nothing. Then I looked for him *not* as a film director and got lots of stuff. Those catalogers are worthless! You can't trust anything in that catalog... This is a normal human reaction and can be predicted very easily by anybody. There is a wonderful book by Donald Norman, The design of everyday things that opened my eyes to the world of user-centered design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things For instance, in his book he has an amazing discussion about doors(!): he admits that he has a lot of trouble with doors: pushing when he should pull, or opening them the wrong way, and he talks about how and why some doors work well and others don't. He also mentions that when he stayed in a room at a university or hotel, the sink for the water came with a user's manual! You had to read the manual before you could get any water! That's crazy! He also mentions that if you are lucky enough to buy a new tool and discover that it fits in your hand perfectly and you can use it immediately, you mostly don't think about it, but it is evidence of a lot of hard work and absolutely brilliant design. It is a tremendous book and I suggest it to everyone, cataloger, librarian, or not. It is my fervent belief that what we need to do is build something that follows this user-centered design. It means exactly what it says, and I have seen little evidence of this with RDA. One example is no concern for the lack of consistency in the catalog. What is the user to do? Maybe in an ideal world, adding film director would be better for our public and maybe not (no research has been done) but in the world we actually live in, people will retrieve a fraction of the materials really available to them, and if they are not to retrieve very little, the final product of adding the relator codes to our new records will be similar to expecting people to read a user's manual to get water out of the tap. If searchers are to keep from missing 99% of everything that is available when they search for film directors, they are going to have to know a lot, and that means reading and understanding the user's manual. Everybody knows the public won't do that and will find our catalogs less useful than ever. And we must remember, in our case, the public will have to read the user's manual *not* to get the the actual resources they want (at least if you read the user's manual for the sink, you would actually get the water), but in the case of the catalog, people will need to learn how to use the tool just *to find* the books and materials that they will then have to obtain. RDA does not talk about the consequences of decreased access, but librarians and the public will have to deal with it from the first day such a search option is implemented. What is everyone to do? There are too many alternatives out there for people today to find information. They will happily use tools that are easier. I have mentioned plenty of places where the catalog could be improved without changing a single cataloging rule. But I have stated these enough times already. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 21/09/2012 18:28, Karen Coyle wrote: snip On 9/21/12 1:13 AM, James Weinheimer wrote: This is very interesting, but how will it work in the real world? Let's assume that this has all been done with an acceptable percentage of the records: 60%? 70%? 80%? You are working as a reference librarian and a senior faculty member on the library committee of your institution comes up to you and explains that he or she is writing an article and needs a list of the movies directed by Clint Eastwood. (Yes, the faculty member would have this information in other ways, but I am positing a reference question, and variations of this kind of question come up all the time). We also assume the reference librarian fully understands the issues in the catalog and knows that it will be 20%, 30% or 40% wrong. Why on earth, when the question is a list of the movies directed by Clint Eastwood would any reference librarian point to the catalog?! The catalog is an inventory of the items owned by the library, not an encyclopedia. Any decent reference librarian knows that, and I suspect that most users, while they may not know that consciously, act as if that were the case. You go to IMDB, you go to Wikipedia, you find the official Clint Eastwood site online. This reference question has nothing to do with library ownership. Which is why the library catalog is NOT the first place that users go for information -- it's where they go to find out if the library has a particular item and if it is available. So the real scenario should be: Faculty member wants list of CE movies. Goes to IMDB/Wikipedia/web site. Finds list there. In perfect world, similar to how OpenURL works today, browser would show faculty member which items in that list are available at the library. Thus faculty member gets 1) needed information 2) link to library holdings, all in one place. /snip Actually I was thinking in terms of the union catalog of Worldcat, but that's all right. I'll agree with you that the local catalog is a lousy place to answer such a question, just like Worldcat. So, why should librarians spend their time adding the film director code, plus all the other film roles, to create a product that *we all know *will miss a huge amount of materials and is definitely inferior--and always will remain inferior--to what is available to people right now? If we are supposed to build this wonderful new tool, it would make sense to make sure it really is a wonderful new tool and not some broken down jalopy. What is a searcher of the catalog to think and to believe, if they see a search box with an option to search for film directors? If I were that searcher, I would think that I would be searching for the film directors in the database. What else could I assume? So, how is somebody supposed to know that the search they are doing--by definition--is definitely a lousy one within the local catalog or the Worldcat catalog? Or an option for actors or editors for that matter? Let's think about how the *public* will consider these searches. Sure, what we build may look like a Ferrari, but open the hood and you find an engine of a lawn mower underneath. People will find out sooner or later. Perhaps what would be best would be to make a search option for film directors that would actually search not the library catalog but the IMDB, then some kind of browser plugin based on an API that would let you know what is available in your local collection or perhaps what's available for free online (quite a bit actually). I agree that linked data can be used for this, but it's certainly not necessary. You don't need RDF either, and neither do you need RDA nor FRBR. There would be lots of ways of doing it and it would be easier with agreement from IMDB. In the IMDB, people can also search by female Capricorns between 5'5 and 5'8. In any of these scenarios, I still see no need or utility for the cataloger to code film directors in the catalog, thereby making our present catalogs obsolete. As I mentioned in my podcast, if these codes are just for *display*, that is probably not much of a problem because I don't believe too many people spend much time on individual records. People are much more interested in the actual resource and once they find what they want, they stop caring about our records. The idea that the public spends massive amounts of time actually reading (instead of quickly scanning) our records is rather strange to me. In my experience, the public just ignores and immediately forgets anything they don't understand, just as they do with Google. What is more important is getting reliable results. If it is about display, let's just admit it. Yet, from everything I have seen, it appears that RDA intends something else, and that would logically lead to searching. So, I still do not understand what is the point of the relator codes and the other relationships proposed by FRBR if they are not for searching. But it seems, as I said
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 21/09/2012 00:07, Kelley McGrath wrote: snip I sometimes wonder what the silent majority on lists thinks. There are definitely people interested in trying to insert this kind of data into existing records. Many moving image (and music) catalogers are very interested in relator terms and codes because our materials include people performing many different kinds of roles and users want to know who is doing what. This doesn't mean just when they're looking at a single record. They might want a list of the movies directed by Clint Eastwood or the directors of recent French comedies or they might want to slice and dice the data some other way. I am involved in a project that is trying, among other things, to retrospectively add role information to authorized names in records for moving image materials. We have an article in the Code4Lib Journal about our preliminary test, which including figuring out which 700(s), if any, were for the director: http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/775. I also did a presentation at ALA in June about our current work to do this in a more sustainable, scalable way: http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/publications/CCIRG_FRBRinMARC_DatainText.pdf or http://goo.gl/pFvFV. It's not a trivial problem and we can't get 100%, but we can do far better than 0%. My goal is to convert what we can to a machine-actionable form, identify and fix erroneously-converted info where practical, triage the rest and move forward. /snip This is very interesting, but how will it work in the real world? Let's assume that this has all been done with an acceptable percentage of the records: 60%? 70%? 80%? You are working as a reference librarian and a senior faculty member on the library committee of your institution comes up to you and explains that he or she is writing an article and needs a list of the movies directed by Clint Eastwood. (Yes, the faculty member would have this information in other ways, but I am positing a reference question, and variations of this kind of question come up all the time). We also assume the reference librarian fully understands the issues in the catalog and knows that it will be 20%, 30% or 40% wrong. What does the reference librarian do? The only responsible answer is that if you decide to point the faculty member to the catalog, you must explain the problems, which as I have shown, are very complex. To knowingly point someone to a tool that you know will not produce the correct answer without providing an explanation is--at the very least--unprofessional. In the case of film directors, luckily there are other options, such as the IMDB and (I am sure) other tools. At least I know what I would choose to point the faculty member toward if I were the reference librarian, if nothing else but to shield myself from future blame. Now, to make this scenario even more realistic, let us assume that the faculty member avoids the reference librarian altogether and goes straight to the catalog. He or she sees an option to search by film director but how is this person to know that the result will be off by 20, 30 or 40 percent? They must know this, otherwise they will write the paper and risk looking like an incompetent idiot. The faculty member will be very angry. And who will be to blame? It seems to me that there are certain tools for certain tasks. A screwdriver is not a chisel. A Smart car (are there Smart cars in the US?) is not a tow truck. Sure, you can try using the wrong tool for the task but the results may turn out to be very bad. The library catalog is a tool designed for certain tasks. To ask it to do more than it is designed to do will have consequences. I don't believe that bringing this up is being negative or part of the profession of no. Instead, it is positing a normal and realistic situation seen in the library everyday and admits that there will very definitely be consequences to human beings and to the library profession as well. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 20/09/2012 11:01, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip Yes, but it is one thing to create new rules and another to get those who are supposed to comply with them to actually do so. And as long as you need to shell out considerable sums to even read those rules, and get no glimpse of the pleasingly reworded text, what chance do they stand? But maybe more important: Practice is, I think, to a large extent ruled by pragmatic reasoning. Money issues aside, catalogers will be quite aware they'll be doing a disservice if they break away from sensible legacy practice without being able to change (and upgrade!) legacy data accordingly. And they are aware of what and how much they can actually do and what they can ill afford. /snip All fine points you make. I only hope you are correct that catalogers will be away of the legacy practices. It is my fear that it will be too overwhelming, especially in these difficult economic times which show no sign of improvement, and will become forgotten. In this regard, it reminds me of a moment of learning when I was Slavic cataloger after the communist countries disintegrated. In an earlier post, I discussed how I myself refused to see legacy practices, and since I am so lazy, I'll just copy and paste it! To be fair, I was guilty of exactly the same attitude back when the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe fell apart. I and my team at Princeton struggled mightily to fix all of the--who knows how many subject and corporate name headings in the catalog, but we did it. It was one of the tasks I took special pride in and the heading browses looked great! But then came the retrospective conversion project of the cards, and the beautiful displays of the headings were utterly spoiled by being inundated with zillions of obsolete headings! I was so mad until... I realized that what I was looking at was only the reality that confronted our patrons every day. When the patrons used both the cards and the OPAC (which they did constantly of course), everything had always been split, but for me as a cataloger, I was concentrating only on the OPAC and the cards were somehow outside. I had been ignoring the complete reality of the situation. Suddenly, I was confronted with what the users saw every day. I didn't like it, but it was a humbling moment. The full post is here: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2011/04/re-frbr_5472.html I don't think I am unique, and perhaps others can learn from my misperceptions. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 20/09/2012 16:55, Karen Coyle wrote: snip But I find it interesting that for so many of you (and I refer here to others who replied) that you are more motivated to declare change impossible than to think about ways to make possible changes. That's not only self-defeating, that is library-defeating. You seem to prefer to go down with the ship than steer toward shore. In fact, I'm pretty much done having this discussion because there is no progress to be made when talking to the profession of no, where every answer to every suggestion is no rather than Well, not quite but you could ALSO do No suggestions, no options, no dialog. It's a dead end. In contrast, there are lists where if I had made that suggestion someone would have come back with a complete list of types and possible algorithms to get the best results. Why anyone would prefer the worst results than the best is absolutely beyond me. /snip This is unfair. I don't believe that those who have chosen not to climb onto the RDA bandwagon are saying that change is impossible, and there have been scads of suggestions for improvements from lots of people. The issue really comes down to: are RDA and FRBR really improvements? And if so, for whom? These are only reasonable, responsible--and necessary--questions to ask in a professional environment at such a key moment. The answers are often not so readily apparent, as my podcast tried to show, especially when taking the point of view of the patron--the audience that RDA purports to be aimed at. If the RDA rule for relators is implemented, along with the bibliographic relationships (for adaptations, summaries, satires, etc.--something else I cut from my podcast), and everything is coded in the new format, the practical result will be that access to library materials will *decrease*. I think I showed that clearly. Is this what we want? This seems to be a reasonable question. If access is not to decrease, searchers need to know and understand a lot. A lot more than they know now or perhaps ever had to know and understand. It therefore foists everything off on public services. It is a huge task. This seems to be a rather poor road to go down. I personally have come up with tons of suggestions, in posts here, on other lists, and in papers I have given. I remember when I suggested that instead of RDA's mandate to physically type in the cataloging abbreviations (which is an obsolete 19th century solution), it could be programmed, something far simpler than what you suggested with role information, I was completely ignored. The faceted capabilities allowing for the public to rather easily do the FRBR user tasks have also been resolutely ignored. Why? That one I have never understood. Working to make better user interfaces to these indexes could go a long way, and I have made suggestions there, too. Again, silence. How about finding out what the public really wants from a collection of metadata records? I have done a little work there, too. How about admitting that the catalog hasn't functioned since the moment it went to an OPAC, and fix the subject headings, and get the cross-references to work? There's plenty that can be done and suggestions are everywhere. Instead of the profession of no, I think it is more a matter of RDA as the project of no business case. There is a huge amount developers can do with our records right now, *today* without turning our catalogs into legacy data as RDA seems to intend, at such great cost. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
All, For those who are interested, I have just made a new Catalog Matters podcast. This one is number 16 about Consistency, Catalogs and the Future. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
On 22/08/2012 23:46, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip But until we do have some mechanism for dynamically keeping descriptions current, the notes that you say are completely useless are absolutely essential. I certainly agree with you that the traditional methods of creating metadata are not adequate for handling the universe of online resources. But that does not mean that we shouldn't still have standards that will allow traditional metadata and created-in-an-as-yet-unknown-method-and-system metadata to be able to interoperate. Developing those standards is what we're trying to do with RDA. Hopefully there will be ways to harvest data from the resources themselves, and map them to the data definitions in RDA, to get them into our discovery tools. But until we reach that goal, we still need to be creating traditional records, and we need to know what it is that the records are describing. With a Description based on note, there is a clue to what was described, and when. /snip This was my point: that catalogers need to find methods to make sure that the records describe something that actually exists! While I have little argument against placing a note detailing when the description was made, I doubt how important it is since it only shows people (librarians, because the public will not really understand it) more precisely how obsolete the information is. Oh! This record is five [ten, twenty, etc.] years out of date. Therefore, it is a rather sad bit of information, but from another viewpoint, it is the easiest part of the record! Still, the mere fact that catalogers will be spending their time creating records that have a very high probability of being obsolete in x number of weeks or months or years does not bode well for how administrators will view the value of catalog records. And they are the ones who must be convinced--not catalogers or even the public. Several years ago, I wrote an article where I tried to deal with this issue: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1668881show=pdf and I think it is still not too bad of an idea. If I had the chance to do over again, I would improve the article because I tried to write for both an IT audience and a cataloging audience at the same time and I don't believe it worked all that well. Still the basic idea still is worth a try (I think), where embedded metadata would be linked to separate metadata records in catalogs and spiders would keep the two in sync. There was a major role for selectors, responsibilities for web masters and for catalogers too. But novel ideas are needed more than ever, I think that is becoming clear enough to all. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1668881show=pdf -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
On 23/08/2012 22:55, Karen Coyle wrote: snip On 8/23/12 10:43 AM, James Weinheimer wrote: Still the basic idea still is worth a try (I think), where embedded metadata would be linked to separate metadata records in catalogs and spiders would keep the two in sync. I believe the technology is called microformats,[1] with the primary one today being schema.org. This is also the basis for the linked data that is now included in each Worldcat page. /snip Yes. Back in 1998-9, I don't believe microformats existed yet. In my examples, I used information in the meta fields in the header, but it all comes down to the same thing. My idea was based on setting up a workflow in tandem with webmasters. It starts with library (or other expert) selectors who would select sites and get into initial touch with the webmaster of the sites they selected, telling them that their sites were selected as especially valuable and what was expected of them. Catalogers would then make the initial description along with headings; then the entire record(s) would be sent to the webmaster, who would add the record to the headers of the required pages of their sites. The workflow followed CIP up to this point. After this, it was they up to the webmasters to update the descriptive information (about 1000 times more efficient than library catalogers), while all headings would be updated by catalogers. Webmasters could add their own keywords (limited to a certain number, controlled for spam, etc.) plus other information. Spiders would keep everything in sync. Certainly microformats would be great for something like this. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
On 22/08/2012 08:56, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip 20.08.2012 21:59, J. McRee Elrod: Heidrun wisely said: The ISBD has been a common core of many cataloguing codes for decades. This common ground shouldn't be casually abandoned. VERY true. While not taking issue with the importance of ISBD as such, it can, I think, not be called a common core of cataloging codes in general, but of those of their parts relating to description. While the D in RDA is for Description, the focus is really all on the A for Access, and that's a lot more relevant these days for most people using catalogs. So, I think it is appropriate that RDA doesn't go to all the lengths, as older codes did, of painstakingly describing every bit of descriptive information and how it should all be stitched together for a readable display. The latter can and must be left to software, and I think it is true that ISBD had not been formulated with an eye on how well the rules lent themselves to being algorithmically representable. Where there is still a demand for ISBD display, and I'm not arguing with this, one will have to live with minor flaws. What's more important is that much more detail than before should be actionable for algorithms. This, of course and among other things, speaks for standardized codes and acronyms rather than vernacular verbiage. The focus in cataloging must be on access points and their standardization and international harmonization by way of vehicles like VIAF. Thus, RAD would be a more appropriate name for a contemporary code. Another focus should be on the question of *what* we catalog, and here in particular, how to treat parts of larger entities. As of now, the woefully inadequate contents note for multipart publications seems still very much alive. /snip Right now I am assisting on an inventory of serials so therefore at this moment, I am feeling that *the rules* for description must be standardized, otherwise pure chaos awaits. For instance, interlibrary loans (so long as they are allowed!) demand precise description and therefore, if we want ILLs, precise descriptions seem unavoidable if they are to work at all--otherwise, everybody will forever be requesting what you already have, requesting what another library doesn't have, or they send something you do not want. ISBD provides this level of standardization and nothing I have seen has tried to displace it. Selectors also need such accuracy. *How* a record displays is another matter but, I have always felt that the display aspect of ISBD has been overblown by the IT community. I believe there should be *a* standardized display (for experts) and the current ISBD is as good as any for now, but I am sure there are many other displays that could the purpose just as well or better. Today, displays are flexible, as they have been for quite some time, and this flexibility should be the emphasis for the *public*. Expert-librarians have their own requirements, but these requirement are *no less* important then what the public needs. Modern systems should be able to allow it all. I do believe that the purpose of description should be reconsidered since our current rules suffer from a paradox. Description of physical materials that never change are one matter, but online materials that change randomly, sometimes very frequently, and without any notification, present an entirely different situation. Sooner or later, catalogers must consider how it is possible to describe virtual materials that are completely mercurial, by creating a record that must be changed manually. I have thought about this for a long time, and have never found any solution, nor have I seen one offered, therefore novel ideas must be tried. Notes such as Description based on web page (Dec. 23, 2008) are 100% completely useless for everyone involved, including the catalogers, and serve only as salve for the cataloger at the time of making the record. The description should be based on the resource as it stands currently, not on some version that no longer exists. The only solution in the traditional sense would be to try to start cataloging each instance as found in the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive, but the very prospect is a nightmare. I think we would find very few takers on that one! You can count me out. That would truly be like trying to fight the ocean and you will drown. Several years ago, I wrote a letter to D-Lib Magazine about this issue, and surprisingly, I find that I still agree with it http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/03letters.html -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
The actual rules in the LCRIs are at https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/22-17-22-20-additions-to-distinguish-identical-names 22.17-22.20. Additions to Distinguish Identical Names. Although flourished dates are allowed, they are sixth of seven in order of preference. Therefore, they were trying to reduce the use of flourished dates. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html On 23/07/2012 16:14, Kelleher, Martin wrote: Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher
Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC
On 19/07/2012 21:31, Robert Maxwell wrote: snip For the same reasons we might upgrade a pre-AACR2 record to AACR2. RDA records have lots of advantages over AACR2 records. The abolishment of the rule of three is an example that comes to mind quickly. /snip Revising the rule of three to the rule of one plus illustrators of children's books(!) is difficult to call an advantage--that is, if you are saying it is an advantage to the public. As I mentioned in my paper in Buenos Aires, somebody has to be realistic sooner or later. My own reality has always been to be happy when I see that fourth author or corporate body--and I don't think I am all that different or terrible than anybody else! Thank heaven for the rule of three! http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/02/is-rda-only-way-alternative-option.html Catalogers are human beings, and to expect human beings to do *more* than is required is unrealistic. To expect people to do so without any rewards, or when the rewards lie elsewhere, as when catalogers are rewarded for making more records (as is the case almost everywhere today) is even more unrealistic. If rewards were changed from number of items processed to number of access points added, then sure--access points would go up but I don't see cataloging departments changing that way. I can certainly imagine someone looking at the growing number of items waiting for cataloging, and deciding that I can do, e.g. 1/3 more records by following the rule of one. There are certain realities of human beings, and realities of following standards that should be acknowledged. People do what is required of them and very few do any more. Especially if there are no rewards except spiritual ones--or you may even be punished because your productivity goes down. This rule will probably have the biggest consequences for the public. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Reality Check: What is it that the Public Wants today?
All, I would like to announce that I have placed the paper I presented virtually last Friday at the CaMMS Forum at the ALA Conference on my blog at http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/06/reality-check-what-is-it-that-public.html. The title I chose was: Reality Check: What is it that the Public Wants today? The theme of the forum was Reimagining the library catalog: changing user needs, changing functionality http://ala12.scheduler.ala.org/node/400 and the speakers were Jane Greenberg, Kevin Ford, John Myers, and myself. There is an audio presentation of this and I will add it when it is available. The paper is a bit more complete than the audio since I had to hurry through parts of the presentation. Please share this announcement with any others who may be interested. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Work manifested in new RDA examples
On 07/06/2012 20:42, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip You still don't get it. Everything you're doing is based upon some data element somewhere that a user must act upon. It doesn't have to be traditional bibliographic data for the FRBR user task to apply. You're still looking for things, finding them because the relevant data was somewhere, still having to make discernments and decisions about what you're looking at, and still having to make some decision about suitability. For example, one the data elements for an expression entity that satisfies the Select user task is Award. So if you find something, anything that won an award, and that's important to you, then you are Selecting. There's nothing 19th century about doing that. /snip I believe I have demonstrated, as much as anyone has, that I get it. I understand FRBR. It's really not all that complicated. It is just that I don't believe it. It has never been demonstrated that it is what the public wants, not even by Panizzi himself, but the limits of his technology and his environment constrained him to come up with his type of catalog, which we have inherited. Certainly, we can ascribe some kind of transcendent meanings to find, identify, select, and obtain, along with the entities, and say that these are constants that people have needed and wanted, and will remain so for as long as humans stay human. Therefore, no matter what are the advances in search and how those results are presented to humans; no matter how intellectual products are created, how those products are metamorphosed and how we perceive them, someone can always label it all as variants of FISO WEMI by their ATS. Of course, that is the same as maintaining that astrophysics is actually a subtype of astrology or that biochemistry is really a variation on alchemy. That the periodic table of the elements actually displays various aspects of fire, water, earth and air. Someone could make such statements and probably even make an interesting case for them. Yet, it would be obvious to us that anyone who would maintain such attitudes today would actually be talking about the state of his or her own mind and nothing about the actual materials themselves. So yes, maintaining the primacy of the FRBR user tasks is evidence of an earlier way of thinking that stems from the 19th century and in many ways from before that. And that's OK but so long as we maintain such an attitude, we voluntarily limit our possibilities when compared to those who are not constrained by such presuppositions. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Work manifested in new RDA examples
On 07/06/2012 18:38, Stephen Early wrote: snip James Weinheimer wrote: snip Find is morphing into something that is really entirely new and never seen before. *And with the resources themselves that get more mashed up and vivisected both manually and automatically, it's increasingly difficult to even say what an item is*, which has major repercussions on what is a work, expression or manifestation, which I still say are all based on physical materials. And finally, focusing on the traditional access points of author, title, and subject is almost forgotten by the public. Certainly they do it, but they do it through natural language searches which goes far beyond ATS in the expectation that the system will sort it all out. And very often, it does. /snip A couple definite examples of the mashed up resources please, with explanation as to how and why they don't fit WEMI so that those more deeply involved in this discussion may be able to review them and then clearly agree or disagree with your points. You may have done this before, but I mostly skim over these posts. However, I'm sensing a lot of repetition of arguments without a lot of progress being made. /snip They are all over the place. There is Google News, which mashes up all kinds of things. Programmableweb is a good place to find mashups: http://www.programmableweb.com/ where you can find a lot of them. To understand what they are, there is a great, and short youtube video by ZDNet that explains it really well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRcP2CZ8DS8. It explains what an API is and how people can put them together to make their very own mashups. Here is one called Apartable http://apartable.com. It takes all the APIs found here http://www.programmableweb.com/mashup/apartable which is Facebook, Amazon, and several from Google to make something brand new that may actually help someone find an apartment. I am sure that all of the information exists on those separate websites, and nothing much is on the apartable.com site, which merely brings it all together. If it's good, people may be willing to pay for a service like this. Here is Google Public Data Explorer, http://www.google.com/publicdata/directory which uses the statistics held at Eurostat, the US Census Bureau, etc. to mashup new views based on Google's graphs and map capabilities. All of these are dynamic, i.e. they are generated on the fly, so it is difficult to call anything an item. These mashups are bits and pieces of all kinds of things brought together to make something very personal, very often just for you. Anybody can make these mashups now and they do. It is important to realize that the bibliographic world is headed precisely into these directions, whether it will be using the so-called linked data or through other means. Our records will be available through APIs (Worldcat has some now) and webmasters will be able to include our records into whatever they make. Developers cannot do so now because of our lousy formats but once we turn output in XML, they will be able to. Some believe that the reason web developers do not use our records now is precisely because of our obsolete format and once we do have better formats, developers will want our data. I do not agree since I believe the challenges faced by libraries are much more profound than a simple problems in formats, but I admit I would like to be wrong. In any case, we need to change our formats. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Work manifested in new RDA examples
On 07/06/2012 18:49, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip I think part of the problem is that James believes that FISO (find, intentify, select, obtain) applies only to traditional access points of author, title, and subject. That's incorrect. Any element, big or small, belonging to any entity can be the target of these elementary tasks. When people fill out any form, it's to provide bits of data so people can find the form, identify what's on the form, and do things with the data, such as select (which is the basis of limits and filters and other kinds of operations). When James is saying entities are changing into all kinds of strange new things (entirely new and never seen before) he's ignoring the main point -- just get the data you need so we can continue to do useful search and retrieval on these strange new things. As anyone who has set up a database will say -- design the system to get the job done, and that means deciding what data are important and what needs to be related to what. /snip That is the theory, and how it was supposed to work in the old days. While it is true that the entities are changing into strange new things, find is not an entity. It is a behavior of the people, and based on the powerful new, and constantly changing capabilities of systems today, people are able to find things in an entire variety of ways that only the wildest science fiction writers could have imagined 30 years ago. As I said before, Google the russian that killed the old pawnbroker https://www.google.com/search?q=the+russian+that+killed+the+old+pawnbroker That information is nowhere in the bib record, nor does it need to be. It works, that is if you are looking for the novel Crime and Punishment, but if it is the name of some musical group, you may have a problem. I have seen a video where, it's a book about Napoleon but I don't remember the author or title, only that it had a really neat green cover. You Google napoleon book go to images, click on the color green (you'll find it) and you get books about Napoleon with green bindings. This kind of search was a librarian's joke not that long ago. Now it can be done! https://www.google.com/search?q=napoleon+bookhl=entbm=ischprmd=imvnsasource=lnttbs=ic:specific,isc:green The modern information agencies are collecting vast amounts of information about each person that even we don't know about ourselves, to use it to find things I am not even aware I am searching for. This is what Tim Berners-Lee's mechanical agent is all about. Whether I love it or hate it is irrelevant; it is happening now. But we must see that it is something profoundly different from what we had before. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Mini Tutorial: Keeping order in RDF and ISO Common Logic/IKL (was Re: [RDA-L] Work manifested in new RDA examples)
On 06/06/2012 02:43, Simon Spero wrote:* *snip In situations where only some authors are given numeric rank, and the rest are ordered by some other principal (e.g. lexicographic order, or no order specified), we can just state the constraints on authorship are, and leave the ordering to be determined by the computer. We could then indicate that JohnSmith was principal investigator; that no-one goes behind Golgo 13, and the relative contributions of all authors, then calculate appropriately ordered lists of authors based on context (which might be that of the query, or that of the work, or some other set of rules. This is where the advantages of representing data as logical propositions, rather than as strings should become immediately obvious to anyone who has ever done work on scientometrics. Also, many people may be disappointed to learn that their college courses in philosophy might turn out to be of practical use. It should be clear why no one should reasonably expect catalogers to enter this sort of information directly. It should also be clear that the Rules for a Knowledge Based need to be developed with direct input from Subject Matter Experts who understand the theory behind the practice. Most important of all, it ought to be obvious that any new Bibliographic Framework needs to consider all the changes to work flows and practice that can be helped or hindered by different choices, and which cost/benefit tradeoffs need to be made. /snip A couple of points here. First, if there is an order imposed, it should possibly be based on the manifestation instead of on the work. I have seen author order moved around on different manifestations and it should probably not constitute a new work. But second, the question should not be It should be clear why no one should reasonably expect catalogers to enter this sort of information directly but rather, what the catalog can actually provide. Since there are literally millions of records that do not have the t.p. order in the encoding--it is only in the statement of responsibility--any search that utilizes that limits to order on t.p. (or whatever) the result will necessarily be limited only to the set of records that have that information, i.e. a tiny, tiny percentage. This is similar to the earlier thread on Card catalogue lessons where there are unavoidable (and probably insurmountable) practical issues with adding the relator codes. Sure, you can do it, but it doesn't solve anything for the *user.* Here is one of my postings. http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/03/re-rda-l-card-catalogue-lessons_6269.html If we were building a catalog from scratch, I would agree that almost anything can be done. Or if we were dealing with a corporate database or almost any other type of database except a library catalog, we could perhaps get away by just archiving all the old records and start a brand new database, but the fact is, the greatest value that catalogers have now is precisely this huge database that has been built up over many, many years by our predecessors. Libraries do not have the same options as businesses that often consider anything over 5 or 10 years old is semi-obsolete information and less valuable. Libraries are different in this way. So, the first thing that someone who wanted to do scientometric research using library catalog data would have to understand is: it *cannot* work. Why? Because that information has never been input. *Any* results they got would be fatally tainted, just as I mentioned in the previous thread, searching for Mary Pickford *as a film producer* will retrieve zero, which would be a false result because you can find her without limiting to film producers. How can you possibly explain that away? If there were the necessary funding in place to pay people to update the information in the records that already exist, that might be another factor but I have heard of nothing like this. It would be a tremendous waste of money to do so anyway when so much needs to be done. I believe we are in a very delicate time right now. Libraries should be very careful to avoid setting themselves up for failure. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Work manifested in new RDA examples
On 05/06/2012 11:29, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip We do lots of record exchange in Germany between various systems. In the exchange format, it's common to have both the heading in textual form and the national authority control number, but I'm fairly sure it would be no problem if only the control number were transported, without a text string. Whenever e.g. data from the German National Library is imported into the Southwestern German Library Network, I believe there is a procedure which automatically exchanges the national authority control number with the correspondent record numbers in our union catalog (where we have a complete and regularly updated duplicate of the national authority file) and re-builds the links. I hope I'm making sense here - there are certainly people who could explain this much better than me. But be assured it can be done (without having to wait for Linked Data) if there are unique identifiers (in our case, the national authority control number). So, it should also be possible to use the same techniques for linked WEMI records, if we had them. /snip As I have mentioned before, a URI does not have to be a number, but can be any string of characters, so long as it is unique. Also, any entity can have more than a single URI. Therefore, according to cataloging practice of no conflicts in headings, the VIAF fulfills this role right now since it can supply exact matches of preferred forms for specific national libraries. So, a search for exact preferred forms for, e.g. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, works now. All of these searches are for exact forms restricted to national forms. LC form: http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22Dostoyevsky,%20Fyodor,%201821%201881%22+and+local.sources+any+%22lc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22Dostoyevsky,%20Fyodor,%201821%201881%22+and+local.sources+any+%22lc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 Czech form: http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22Dostojevskij,%20Fedor%20Michajlovi%C4%8D,%201821%201881%22+and+local.sources+any+%22nkc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22Dostojevskij,%20Fedor%20Michajlovi%C4%8D,%201821%201881%22+and+local.sources+any+%22nkc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 Israeli form: http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%95%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99,%20%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A5',%201821%201881%22+and+local.sources+any+%22nliara%20nlilat%20nlicyr%20nliheb%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%95%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99,%20%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A5%27,%201821%201881%22+and+local.sources+any+%22nliara%20nlilat%20nlicyr%20nliheb%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 and so on. This way, it could work similarly to dbpedia which does not base its URIs on numbers but on consistent textual strings, e.g. http://dbpedia.org/page/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky, and brings together other URIs through owl:SameAs. Currently in VIAF, I have noticed some inconsistencies in search results, e.g. the exact heading for Martin Luther, http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22Luther,%20Martin,%201483%201546%22+and+local.sources+any+%22lc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names+exact+%22Luther,%20Martin,%201483%201546%22+and+local.sources+any+%22lc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100, which incorrectly pulls up three of his works in addition to his personal record, although this is supposed to be an exact search. When you switch to search for Preferred Headings, you get 307 http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.mainHeadingEl+all+%22Luther,%20Martin,%201483%201546%22+and+local.sources+any+%22lc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.mainHeadingEl+all+%22Luther,%20Martin,%201483%201546%22+and+local.sources+any+%22lc%22stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xslsortKeys=holdingscountmaximumRecords=100 -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Work manifested in new RDA examples
On 05/06/2012 13:54, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Come to think of it, this seems to be a general flaw in RDA: For instance, if there is more than one statement of responsibility, we're told to record the statements in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the source of information (2.4.1.6). But how can this be done? As with creator, there is only one data element statement of responsibility. So how can am I supposed to specify which is the first statement and which the second? RDA doesn't state this explicitly, but there seems to be an underlying presupposition here that in the encoding format it will somehow be possible to bring out the correct sequence. Yet, as a content standard, RDA is certainly incomplete here (and in similar cases elsewhere). If the information about sequence is important, RDA should provide a way of giving it. /snip In ONIX, there is SequenceNumber within the Contributor tag. See: http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%203/ONIX_for_Books_Release3-0_docs+codes_Issue_17.zip, open zip file, open the pdf file, and it is on p. 70. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L]
All, Apologies for cross-posting, but I think this is important for everyone. I would like to suggest that everyone watch a public lecture from Princeton by Daniel Russell, who has the improbable job title: Über Tech Lead for Search Quality and User Happiness at Google. His talk was What Does It Mean To Be Literate in the Age of Google? http://hulk03.princeton.edu:8080/WebMedia/flash/lectures/20120228_publect_russell.shtml. It's rather long, but the talk is very important for all librarians I think. Some of the questions he is asked are not bad either. I have mentioned in several postings that it is important to build tools that fulfill the needs of the public and not only our own needs. Of course, one of the main problems is that we need to find out what the public wants, but even beyond that, since systems have changed, and are changing so radically, we also need to find out what is even possible to do with the new search powers at our disposal. This lecture provides that level of information. Among many examples, he mentions his blog where he asks research questions, http://searchresearch1.blogspot.it/. He gave an example of one of those questions: it was a photo of an unknown cityscape taken out of a window. The question was: what is the phone number of the office where the picture was taken? Apparently, it can be done today! While that is not such a realistic question, the very fact that it could be answered verges on the incredible. Of course, few people are able to do it (I can't, although the answer is on his blog). His solution for people is, strangely enough, that everyone train themselves! To become informate is the term he uses. My own opinion is that searching the library catalog was and is immeasurably simpler than what he suggests, and librarian experience shows that even that turned out to be too much. To do what he suggests requires much more skill, practice and time, and I think is not a solution. Nevertheless, someone needs to be the expert in the kind of searching he describes, and this would seem to be a perfect niche for librarians. Two points he mentioned are needed to become informate: when searching you must be: persistent and creative. Librarians fulfill both of those requirements. Of course, our tools must fit into these new types of space-age technology, and it becomes clearer that the user tasks as enumerated by FRBR seem more and more tired and antiquated by the minute. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Are RDA, MARC data, and Bibliographic concepts compatible with Relational database principles or systems? (Was: Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF)
On 21/05/2012 18:06, Karen Coyle wrote: snip Obviously, you can do what you want with FRBR inside your own system, but we're talking about massive sharing of data. It's the sharing part that matters. The danger is that the library community will form standards that are widely followed but that are not a good idea. Or that deteriorate over time, like MARC, but we're so stuck to our standards that we can't imagine changing. If you actually look at that page and read the arguments there, rather than just shoot back an email telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, you might see why some folks are concerned. /snip Yes, sharing data, and sharing it in the ways as seen in the Linked Data world, is entering unknown territory. The non-libraries who are already there, and those who are trying to get there, are not waiting for libraries to show them the right ways to do it. I don't think they really care if library metadata is added or not. Therefore, it is up to libraries to enter *their* world in the best ways possible and not expect everyone to follow us. I personally cannot believe the FRBR structures/ontology will be widely followed, but to expect the (weird) WEMI structure to magically become compatible with other structures that are only W or E or M or I or strange amalgamations that change constantly, or are generated dynamically--such as XSL Transformations and the on-the-fly transformations such as Google Translate, or when browser plugins are used--is taking a lot for granted. What I personally believe is that WEMI is more of a remnant of the print/physical world and has little to do with most digital information. Not that most members of the public wanted WEMI anyway. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Part 2: Efficiency of DBMS operations Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 15/05/2012 17:53, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip Frankly, I no longer have much confidence that the library cataloging community is capable of any necessary changes in any kind of timeline fast enough to save us. Those that believe no significant changes to library cataloging or metadata practices are neccesary will have a chance to see if they are right. I believe that inaction -- in ability to make significant changes in the way our data is currently recorded and maintained to accomodate contemporary needs -- will instead result in the end of the library cataloging/metadata tradition, and the end of library involvement in metadata control, if not the end of libraries. I find it deeply depressing. But I no longer find much hope that any other outcome is possible, and begin to think any time I spend trying to help arrive at change is just wasted time. /snip I think many share your fears. I certainly do, but it is important not to give up hope. The problem as I see it is that while everyone agrees that we should move forward, we don't even know which direction forward is. Some believe it is east, others west, others north, others up, others down. Nobody knows. Is the basic problem in libraries the way our data is currently recorded and maintained? For those who believe this, then it would mean that if libraries changed their format and cataloging practices, things would be better. But this will be expensive and disruptive. That is a simple fact. And undertaking something like that during such severe economic times makes it even more difficult. So, it seems entirely logical that people ask whether this *really will* help or whether those resources would be better used to do something else. In fact, this is such a natural question, not asking it makes people raise their eyebrows and wonder if there really is an answer. This is why I keep raising the point of the business case. It is a fundamental, basic task. And another fact is, if we want to make our records more widely available in types of formats that others could use, it can be done right now. Harvard is doing it with their API: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/dplatechdev/2012/04/24/going-live-with-harvards-catalog/ They say their records are now available in JSON using schema.org, in DC or in MARC, although all I have seen is MARC so far. Still, Kudos to them! It is a wonderful beginning! So it is a fact that the library community does not have to wait for RDA, FRBR or even the changes to MARC to repurpose their data. Would it be perfect? Of course not! When has that ever had anything to do with anything? Everyone expects things to change constantly, especially today. A few years of open development using tools such as this would make the way forward much clearer than it is now. Then we could start to see what the public wants and needs and begin to design for *them* instead of for *us*. If we find that there is absolutely no interest in open development of library tools, that would say a lot too. To maintain that RDA and FRBR are going to make any difference to the public, or that they are necessary to get into the barely-nascent and highly controversial Linked Data, is simply too much to simply accept. Each represents changes, that's for sure, but theoretical ones that happen almost entirely behind the scenes, and all whose value has yet to be proven. All this in spite of the incredible developments going on right under our noses! Therefore, it seems only natural to question whether RDA, FRBR and Linked Data truly represent the direction forward or are they actually going in some other direction. On a more positive note, I think there are incredible opportunities for libraries and librarians today. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Part 2: Efficiency of DBMS operations Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 15/05/2012 02:52, Karen Coyle wrote: snip let's say you have a record with 3 subject headings: Working class -- France Working class -- Dwellings -- France Housing -- France In a card catalog, these would result in 3 separate cards and therefore should you look all through the subject card catalog you would see the book in question 3 times. In a keyword search limited to subject headings, most systems would retrieve this record once and display it once. That has to do with how the DBMS resolves from indexes to records. So even though a keyword may appear more than once in a record, the record is only retrieved once. /snip I don't believe that is correct. That kind of search result should be a programming decision: whether to dedupe or not. It seems to me that a record with France three times in the record could easily display three times in a search result if you want it to. With relevance ranking, or ranking by date, etc. it makes little sense to display the same record three different times, although I am sure you could. Having a record display more often makes sense only with some kind of browse heading display but I have never seen that with a keyword result. This is a great example of how our current subject heading strings just don't function today, and they haven't ever since keyword was introduced. Computerized records work much better with descriptors than with traditional headings, for instance, your example would be something like: Topical Subjects: Working class, Dwellings, Housing Geographic Subject Area: France. Here, there is no question since France appears only once in the subjects. Seen in this light, our subject headings are obsolete but nevertheless, I believe our subject headings with subdivisions provides important options found nowhere else, as I tried to show in the posting I mentioned in my previous message. But really, how the subject headings function must be reconsidered from their foundations, otherwise they really are obsolete. The dictionary catalog really is dead, at least as concerns the public. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Part 2: Efficiency of DBMS operations Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 15/05/2012 16:50, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip I certainly agree that the way our data is currently recorded and maintained in MARC is not suitable for contemporary desired uses, as I've suggested many times before on this list and others and tried to explain why; it's got little to do with rdbms though. /snip Although MARC needs to change, and has needed it for a very long time, I don't see how changing the format would improve the subject headings. The semantics are there already, so searching would remain the same. It is the display of the multiple search result which has disintegrated. I think there are lots of ways that the displays could be improved for the public--primarily by making them more flexible and could be experimented with now--but even then, there will need to be a major push from public services to get the public to use and understand what the subject searches are. All of it has been effectively forgotten by the public. For a whole lot of reasons, library subject searches will always be substantively different from what what people retrieve from a full-text search result and while librarians can understand this, it is a lot harder for the public. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 13/05/2012 19:49, Karen Coyle wrote: snip All, After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some of my thinking on the topic: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/rda-dbms-rdf.html The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further from being suitable for RDF. I use headings (access points in RDA, I believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA that belie its intention to support scenario one. I have intended to write something much more in depth on this topic but as that has been in progress now for a considerable time, I felt that a short, albeit incomplete, explanation was needed. I welcome all discussion on this topic. /snip This is really good. I question whether libraries primarily need a new relational database model for our catalogs, especially one based on FRBR. I still have never seen a practical advantage over what can be done now. The power of the Lucene-type full-text engines and the searches they allow and their speed are simply stunning, and nothing can compare to them right now. There are versions such as the Zebra indexing system in Koha, which was created for bibliographic records and very similar to Lucene. http://www.indexdata.com/zebra and the guide http://www.indexdata.com/zebra/doc/zebra.pdf. A relational database would be far too slow if used in conjunction with a huge database such as Google. So, some catalogs use the DBMS only for record maintenance, then everything is indexed in Lucene for searching, while the displays are made from the XML versions of the records. The DBMS is there only for storage and maintenance. This is how Koha works and could be more or less how Worldcat works as well, but these are not the only catalogs that work like this. Still, I will say that much of this lies beyond the responsibility of cataloging per se, and goes into that of systems. But on the other hand, your point that library headings are not relational and are actually based on browsing textual strings really is a responsibility of cataloging. It is also absolutely true and should be a matter of general debate. The text strings haven't worked in years because what worked rather clearly in a card catalog did not work online. I've written about this before, but there was a discussion on Autocat not too long ago. Here is one of my posts where I discussed the issue and offered an alternative to the current display of the headings found under Edgar Allen Poe: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/04/re-acat-death-of-dictionary-catalog-was.html I still maintain that we do not really know what the public wants yet. Everything is in a state of change right now, so it will take a lot of research, along with trial and error, to find out. I do think that people would want the traditional power of the catalog, but they will not use left-anchored text strings. The way it works now is far too clunky and new methods for the web must be found. Paths such as you point out would lead to genuine change and possible improvements in how our catalogs function for the public, which is the major road we need to take. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Cataloging Matters Podcast no. 15: Cataloging Interfaces
All, I would like to announce a new Cataloging Matters podcast, where I discuss cataloging interfaces. Many thanks to Kevin Randall for giving rise to the idea. You can find it on my blog at: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-15.html Please forward this to any and all who may be interested. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
