>Whatever the cost of developing and implementing a new standard which >approaches integration of library metadata with the wider universe, the >*opportunity cost* of standing still and waiting, and adhering to the >reactionary claque, is much too high. We may be trapping ourselves in a >self-fulfilling prophecy.
Whatever the cost? Really? It's tempting to say that ALA and the "Co-publishers" are already on track for determining if there is an upper limit for the cost of RDA, but if you truly believe that a new set of cataloging rules based on an untested theory and written in a nearly incomprehensible muddle is worth any price no matter how high, I invite you to my budgetting party at such time as RDA is adopted. And I see that now, in addition to being a filthy vendor (self-identified, to be sure), I may well be a member of a "reactionary claque," too! Gad, that certainly puts me in my place! But how delightful; just as the coarse part of the political campaign was starting to ebb, at least in my no-longer battleground state of residence, a little vitriol is supplied to keep me warm as I contemplate whether my copy of And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street is a work, an expression, a manifestation, or a random set of subatomic particles. What a wonderful day; it's morning o! n the RDA list! Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Casey Mullin Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:23 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?) Weinheimer: > This is the world as it is and it's not going to go away. People have > discovered a universe of information resources out there and the > library materials are only a tiny, and diminishing part of that > universe. We can put our efforts toward making our small part of the > universe subject to the FRBR user tasks, which will be a lot of work, > and what difference will it make to our users? I don't think they will > even notice a difference. And remember that our users include the > people who determine the library budgets. Is this then the best use of > our resources.? Jim is right. Our users have discovered the world outside the brick and mortar of the library. The cat's out of the bag; the information universe is seemingly limitless. And while, by sheer quantity, the library's "materials" may be a very small part (just as any physical collection is but a microcosm of the bibliographic universe), that does not mean they are any less relevant to our users. If we want our local collections (in whatever format they may be) to continue to be relevant (and sufficiently discoverable), then we need to continue to find ways to break down the silos that lock up these resources. To do this while not losing the high quality of our metadata, we need to come up with a way to integrate our libraries' metadata with the wider "information universe" effectively. This, I believe, is one of the fundamental goals of FRBR/RDA. To speak in terms of books-as-information-packages (as is the legacy of AACR2) is no longer enough. Revising AACR2 incrementally is, a! nd has been, a band aid. To say nothing of the quality of the *data* stored in MARC format (which is often quite high) or the sophistication of the format, our retrieval tools have failed us for too long. Whatever the cost of developing and implementing a new standard which approaches integration of library metadata with the wider universe, the *opportunity cost* of standing still and waiting, and adhering to the reactionary claque, is much too high. We may be trapping ourselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lest I end on too grim a note, I concur with Jim's tip-of-the-hat to librarians who are "doing it for themselves", developing their own retrieval tools. We have the energy and collective intelligence in this profession to charge forth with elan. We mustn't underestimate ourselves... Casey Alan Mullin MLS Candidate School of Library and Information Science Metadata Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music Library Indiana University ________________________________ > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:40:30 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: > Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?) > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > > /It brings me no joy to point out these issues, but I think somebody > needs to do it. It's the future of our field. It's only reasonable to > ask that in the information landscape of today, is FRBR/RDA any kind of > a solution? Undertaking these changes will demand enormous efforts from > library staff and budgets, and we need to know that it will be worth the > effort. I question it and feel that the same efforts would be better > used in different areas. I may be wrong, but I think it is vital to > discuss it. > / > I don't know if FRBR/RDA is the solution. I tend to agree with Mac that > there is a lot of potential in MARC--even given the fact that it needs > to be updated to remove redundancies and other problems. The reason it > has potential is that it has been designed to accommodate those who need > complex and detailed description and those who just need something > simple and quick. It's never been fully utilized by any given system > that I've ever worked with, but it could do a lot of the things we talk > about wanting now if we had the right data environment. I'm not saying > MARC and only MARC; and I agree with many that RDA has a lot of problems > that need to be addressed before it would become a true standard in the > sense of being used by most. I'm saying that we shouldn't abandon good > tools or any set of users for the sake of following a sexy trend because > that approach doesn't serve anyone well in the long run. > > Regarding funding. Since when have we had the funding to do whatever we > want to do whenever and however we want to do it? I think that the > expense of resources going into staff and programming is partly why it's > so hard to find a system that takes full advantage of something like > MARC; because even in the best of economic times, the commercial > interest is only going to invest as much as is in the interest of its > profit margin. That's why there are so many open-source > applications--because there have been librarians who know enough about > systems and programming to design something useful in spite of our given > resources, and they have been willing to share their efforts in the > interest of the community. > > To paraphrase the song ... Librarians are doing it for themselves. (and > the users, of course) > > Robin Mize > Head of Technical Services > Brenau Trustee Library > Gainesville, GA 30501 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > / > > /Weinheimer Jim wrote: > > <snip> > > I thought that Robin Mize had written an excellent response to Jim > > Weinheimer, but once again Weinheimer insists that the FRBR user tasks > > are not relevant. I'm wondering now if maybe the problem is that > > Weinheimer is not characterizing the user tasks accurately. He > > says: "I don't believe that the user tasks are to 'find, identify, > > select, and obtain' 'works, expressions, manifestations and items.' I > > really don't think that is what people do today, I don't think they > > particularly want to, and perhaps they never did." > > </snip> > > > > I don't want people to get the wrong impression that I think that the > > FRBR user tasks are not relevant. I think that people do want to find > > items by their authors and subjects (less by titles). The users I have > > worked with believe they can do this now in Google because Google has > > been very successfully designed to give results that make people > > "happy," but of course they are happy with an author search only > > because they don't know what they are missing. > > > > Research has shown, and my own experience concurs, that most people > > believe they are good searchers. In the information literacy classes I > > teach, I mention that most people believe they are good searchers, but > > then I ask them, "Do I think I'm a good searcher?" and to the > > inevitable silence, I continue, "I don't know if I'm a good searcher > > because I don't have any kind of yardstick to measure myself by. When > > I search Google, Yahoo, Google Books, Google Scholar, and so on, I > > don't know what I am searching, so I don't know what I am missing. > > Also, I don't know if a specific search is "good" or "bad" based only > > on the number of keyword hits. In a library catalog, I can search > > "wwii" as a keyword, or "Samuel Clemens" and I can know exactly what I > > am missing, and this way I can determine if I am a good searcher, or > > not. In the Google-type searching, there is nothing like this. In a > > library catalog, I can say that I am a good s! earcher, but in Google, > > I don't know." I can go on and on and on about the problems of Google. > > > > But I realize that it doesn't matter what I say. While I may make a > > difference to the few people in the classroom who aren't asleep, my > > words make very little difference in the scheme of things. People like > > keyword searching. I do too. People think they are good searchers. And > > Google searches can be very useful. I don't have to go on about this. > > > > This is the world as it is and it's not going to go away. People have > > discovered a universe of information resources out there and the > > library materials are only a tiny, and diminishing part of that > > universe. We can put our efforts toward making our small part of the > > universe subject to the FRBR user tasks, which will be a lot of work, > > and what difference will it make to our users? I don't think they will > > even notice a difference. And remember that our users include the > > people who determine the library budgets. Is this then the best use of > > our resources.? > > > > It brings me no joy to point out these issues, but I think somebody > > needs to do it. It's the future of our field. It's only reasonable to > > ask that in the information landscape of today, is FRBR/RDA any kind > > of a solution? Undertaking these changes will demand enormous efforts > > from library staff and budgets, and we need to know that it will be > > worth the effort. I question it and feel that the same efforts would > > be better used in different areas. I may be wrong, but I think it is > > vital to discuss it. > > > > If we want to be able to find resources by their authors, titles, and > > subjects, our systems all allow for it right now. There are huge > > problems we are facing today in the entire workflow from selection to > > description and organization, to access and reference. Libraries need > > to change in fundamental ways if they want to make a dent in that > > ever-widening "information universe" of our users. I don't see how, if > > FRBR /RDA were fully implemented right now, this moment, how it would > > change anything. We need to focus on things that make a difference. > > > > Does it mean we have to throw it all out? No. I still maintain that > > people want traditional library access, and many think they are > > getting it in Google now when they definitely are not. But I believe > > there should be a general re-evaluation of many things, most > > specifically, are FRBR user tasks what is needed in the modern world? > > And we should do this before we begin a huge, and expensive, > > restructuring. > > > > Of course, this is only restating what the Working Group said. (At > > least, that's my reading of their conclusions!) > > > > Jim Weinheimer
