Weinheimer Jim wrote:
This report concludes that consistency is not worthwhile, and I think this paragraph (p. 17) sums it up quite well. "At the other end of the spectrum is metadata of judgement. In traditional cataloguing practice this is often called analytic cataloguing; it involves the description of an item's 'aboutness' the assigning of controlled vocabulary terms or classification numbers. This sort of metadata is highly subjective and very expensive to create since it usually requires subject and/or metadata experts (cataloguers). Moreover, it is extremely dependent on the intended audience of the metadata. One person who is describing an item for a learning objects repository may assign one set of terms, and another person describing the same item for a subject repository may describe it another way. Same item. Different experts. Different audience. Different metadata values. Given the expense and nature of this type of content, we believe it is not feasible to expect consistency with regard to metadata of judgement, except perhaps where it occurs in a tightly controlled, narrow and consistent environment such as a database of drug trials."
I interpret this statement differently than you do. Nowhere does the report say that consistency is not "worthwhile" -- this is a study of consistency, not the value of subject headings. Their conclusion, as you quote above, is that consistency is unlikely across a broad spectrum of metadata, especially between different communities. (Remember, this is a report about repositories, not libraries, so we aren't talking MARC records or AACR or even LCSH.) Since the question of consistency in this report has to do with record sharing, they are pointing out that some areas of the record are less likely to be consistent than others. They aren't advocating AGAINST consistency, IMO.
Later, on p. 20 we read "brief judgemental records are the domain of humans (and maybe computers) but the content will often be thin and inconsistent; fuller and judgemental records are too labour intensive for all but clearly defined situations where ongoing costs have been accurately estimated and benefits are considered to outweigh them; and computer technology is not yet at a stage to replace human effort in this regard." So, what have we learned here? Subject analysis by catalogers is very expensive (presumably because they make too much money), and they don’t do their jobs very well. Therefore, subject analysis is not worthwhile. Although retaining controlled vocabulary apparently is worthwhile.
Again, no statement in the report about "worthwhile." That's your term. An admission that it's expensive, that we don't have a good cost/benefit ratio, and yet there is no way to automate this function. I think this is no news at all. I think you've mis-interpreted the report, Jim. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
