Daniel,
The wording regarding the non-roman script issues appropriately addresses
concerns to our specialized library/research community, which have not
been raised previously.
Thanks for sharing this latest draft.
Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/07/06 11:33 AM >>>
Lenore,
I'm convinced now too. Thanks for reinforcing Caroline's point.
Also, as suggested by Caroline, I've added some language about
AJL and
Non-Roman script-specific concerns (see revised draft below). I tried
including a specific example, but found it was too hard to represent
non-Roman script and in any case it seemed like it would be too confusing
to a non-specialist, so I took it out.
Since we're getting close to AJL, and I've only heard from a few AJL
members (catalogers or otherwise), maybe the thing to do is to put the
draft out there, invite additional comments, and then Catalog Committee
members can vote on it when we see each other in person.
Thanks very much for your help and interest.
/ Daniel
Here's the latest draft:
Dear Dr. Marcum,
We are writing to express our deep concern about the Library of
Congress (LC) decision to discontinue creation of series authority records
(SARs) effective June 1, 2006. While it is certainly LC's prerogative to
change its own policies as it sees fit, it is also true that LC occupies a
preeminent position among American libraries, sets the national cataloging
agenda in many ways, and has a long history of consulting with peer
institutions before making major policy changes.
We are also concerned that the new policy will fail to achieve
its stated
goal of increased efficiency. Indiscriminate discontinuation of SARs is
counter-productive because, in the long run, such records save all of us
time by disambiguating similar titles, keeping track of cataloger research
(so as to avoid duplicated efforts), and recording complicated series
treatment decisions.
Excessive editing and redundant record creation is a major cause
of high
cataloging costs, and by cutting back on authority control, those costs
will rise even more. The greatest gains in efficiency will come from
strengthening - not weakening - compliance with standards. By adhering to
professional norms and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for
interoperability. This, in turn, means that multiple agencies can trade and
repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other costly human
intervention.
Considering recent developments in the Middle East, and the major
role
played by the United States in that part of the world, it is more important
than ever that American libraries provide controlled access to Hebrew and
Arabic script materials.
Controlled series headings are especially important when
providing access
to documents written in non-Roman languages and scripts (such as Hebrew and
Arabic). Non-roman script titles are a particular challenge because, within
a single monograph series, they may appear in original script, in romanized
form, and/or as translations. And each of these possibilities contains a
further level of complexity: original script titles may have been printed
in more than one orthography; publisher-supplied transliterations may have
been derived from more than one romanization scheme; publisher-supplied
translations may, at different points in the series, vary as to specific
word choices. In addition, the cataloger must also provide a
transliteration, and the standardized ALA/LC scheme her or she uses may
differ from the ones supplied (if at all) by the publisher. The potential
confusion caused by so many possible representations of a series title is
staggering.
We believe that the series authority record is the single most
efficient
way to pull together all the variants so that, regardless of the search
term entered, readers will be directed to a comprehensive list of all
series items held by the library.
We know from daily experience that our users greatly appreciate
being able
to search by series title, and to have such titles normalized and
collocated within our catalogs. The sad truth about eliminating series
authority records is that it shifts the burden of collocation from the
library (which can do it more efficiently) onto the researcher. This is a
clear violation of Ranganathan?s 4th law of library science, namely, "Save
the time of the reader".
If present trends continue, the pool of shared cataloging which
has done
so much to reduce costs and nourish American libraries over the past 30
years will either dry up from neglect or become brackish with inferior
content. With staffing cutbacks at LC and elsewhere, the recycling of
substandard records is likely to increase throughout the shared cataloging
system and cause a
degradation of service to all our patrons.
AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive
Board, the
Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council,
the Music Library Association, the ALCTS Board of Directors, and other
concerned groups, and finds that the indiscriminate discontinuation of
series authority records, combined with the lack of consultation with other
stakeholders, compromises LC's professed commitment to uniform
bibliographic standards and cooperative cataloging. We believe that
greater consultation with other libraries -- including postponing
implementation until after the ALA 2006 annual meeting -- would have helped
avoid the current atmosphere of mistrust.
We support ALCTS' request for LC to share the rationale behind
its new
policy, "including as many aspects of the decision-making process as
possible, in hopes that other libraries outside LC could carefully examine
their own series practices in a thoughtful manner." In particular, we would
be interested in any empirical data that suggest series authority control
is no longer cost-effective or desired by our patrons.
Dr. Marcum, in your 2004 address to the EBSCO Leadership Seminar you
suggested that catalogers should spend more time on "authority control,
subject analysis, resource identification, and evaluation, and
collaboration with information technology units on automated applications
and digitization projects." We are confused, therefore, as to why series
authority control has suddenly been singled out for elimination.
We are concerned that this latest decision is the beginning of a long-term
retrenchment in LC's commitment to bibliographic control and access. LC
still has considerable influence among libraries and other cultural memory
institutions around the world. For instance, LC Subject Headings, LC
Classification, and MARC21 are used in many countries and have been
translated into multiple languages. With digital collections and metadata
initiatives such as MODS and METS, LC has extended its influence into the
digital realm as well. The decision to end SARs, however, and the process
that led up to it, risks undercutting the tremendous good will and
influence that LC has built up over the past many years. Is that a risk LC
really wants to take?
In summary, we deeply appreciate the leadership role LC has played --
and for the most part continues to play -- in all aspects of the library
profession. We hope you will reconsider your decision on series authority
control, and we look forward to many future years of fruitful collaborative
efforts.
Thank you for your consideration.
