Kelley said:
It's easy enough to find examples of things that our catalog interfaces do poorly or bizarrely due to lack of understanding or misinterpretation of cataloging rules or the MARC format on the part of system designers. Mac said: So true. But if an increasing number of our own are willing to substitute computer manipulation of raw data for bibliographic records, how likely is that to occur? Also bear in mind that interface displays can be affected even if the system is designed well, but are used incorrectly. I once worked at a place where the head librarian actually *deleted* the 2nd indicator of the 245 field. The result, of course, was that the title displays were listed by initial articles and users would have to scroll through pages of "And . " "The.. "Of ." etc. One character off, but one which drastically illustrates the need to add metadata (eg. Something like MARC) to the raw data in bibliographic records intended for computer manipulation. It's not like you can just dump everything in the closet and expect it to magically sort itself out so that you don't have to dig through a messy pile when you want a sweater (metaphorically speaking). One way or the other the computer is going to need some kind of instruction that tells it which type of data is which and how it needs to be retrieved and then how it should be displayed. Why not tweak what Martha calls (I think correctly) simple, elegant, and concise? Why is it that the proposition is so often couched as either/or? It's "you don't like getting rid of (insert standard practice) so you're a Luddite and resistant to change." That I've seen, no one has said that MARC or AACR2 or LCSH or any other particular set of standards or coding needs to remain as is . the argument is usually that these standards provide good, tested means that could be used as a foundation or at least a model with which to create something both enhanced and at least as functional as before. Talk about a need for improved communication! Robin M. Mize Technical Services Librarian Brenau University Trustee Library 100 Academy Street SE Gainesville, Georgia 30501 (770) 718-5303 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McGrath, Kelley C. Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comments from Martha M. Yee on the April 10, 2008 version of the STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES Although I feel Martha's frustration, I also agree with Karen that (perceived) finger pointing is not a good direction and we somehow have to find a way for system designers and catalogers to work together rather than at odds. It's easy enough to find examples of things that our catalog interfaces do poorly or bizarrely due to lack of understanding or misinterpretation of cataloging rules or the MARC format on the part of system designers. On the other hand, it's also very easy to find examples of things that it would be desirable to do in our catalogs which we can't do either because the data isn't there or it isn't there in a consistent manner that is suitable for computer manipulation. The only way out of this cycle is better communication and cooperation. Kelley McGrath A/V Cataloger, Ball State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Martha Yee wrote: > > First, these replace a set of principles that were elegant in their > simplicity and conciseness and therefore easy for laymen to grasp, > even though the designers of current online catalogs never bothered to > read them so we never managed to implement them completely in existing catalogs. > Karen Coyle wrote: Martha, I have to object to this statement which I will generously characterize as "unkind." Many of us who have designed library systems (or parts of them) have indeed read the literature of cataloging, have studied cataloging in library school, and even keep AACR2 beside our desks. We are not a bunch of ignorant dolts. As I have said to you many times before, computer systems may not be able to do everything you want in an affordable and efficient manner. But it's not for lack of trying on the part of your colleagues in the systems department of your institution. It would be ideal (nay, I should say necessary) for cataloging standards and systems standards to be developed together so that the requirements of both communities can be met. I can see many things in the current RDA drafts that simply WILL NOT DO what they are intended to do when taken off the written page and managed in a machine-readable record. Those of us in systems can only manipulate the data we are given, and we have very little say over its form. A better dialog between catalogers and the folks who will actually bring the catalog into being using computers would only benefit everyone, and the users most of all.
