Nerissa:
I think what this discussion points out is a gap in how we think about
who contributes to data and how it is created. In libraries we have
this fantasy that catalogers are 'objective' and that's what we're
trying to do when catalogers create data--provide one-size-fits-all,
all-purpose objective data. The problem is that isn't necessarily what
our users want, we just think that's it and go on serving it out (no
matter that it's not objectivity we were aiming for, but consistency).
And the issue of costs keeps coming up to justify why we can't do
anything different from what we've always done.
But once you start thinking outside of the usual library silo and
consider what users might *contribute* and how we might change our value
system a bit so that we could accept their contributions (whether
reviews, ratings, additional description, whatever), it upends our
thinking a bit (which is good, IMO). To do that requires that we think
of catalogers as just another contributor, in a panoply of contributors,
and their viewpoint can be important or not, depending on what you want
your data to do.
So all the arguments about that one record and whether it's right,
wrong, silly, charming, should be fixed (or not), etc., are really not
the point. We should instead be thinking about how we can figure out
the bigger questions--what can we do with our data that is outside our
current model of data creation and maintenance, that would accommodate
what our users want to contribute? Surely, we can't come up with all
the answers from a 'top-down' perspective that we have now, but it's an
important question, and we should by now have stopped the endless
detailed discussions that we've seen on this issue, that get us exactly
nowhere.
Nerissa, I'm depending on your and your buddies to move us along on
this--you're definitely on the right track.
Diane
On 3/2/11 11:26 AM, Nerissa Lindsey wrote:
I got a kick out of this as well. My cataloger friends and I had a
long playful discussions about how that particular 300 seemed like a
cataloging culture jam designed to elicit ironic or satirical
commentary about the nature of description. I highly doubt that was
the original catalogers intention, but boy what fun. On a serious note
(I know us catalogers are supposed to be serious and *ahem objective)
I think Jonathan and Jim brought up some good points. It /would/ be
ideal if the colored/not colored could be a machine interpretable
check box, and it /would/ be a shame to strip an ONIX description down
from something very detailed to something less so. However the issue
is not detail it's subjectivity. It's a fine line to walk between
value added detail and stating personal opinions in records. However,
I really don't think it bears any new criticism to RDA. I could be
wrong, please let me know if there is a specific rule in RDA that
states cataloger must express subjective judgment about the quality or
aesthetics of illustrations in the resource being cataloged.
Nerissa Lindsey
Cataloging Librarian
Texas A&M International University
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joanne Paterson <jopater...@gmail.com
<mailto:jopater...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree. Loved it
Jo Paterson
Music cataloguer
LAC
Sent from my iPhone
On 2011-03-02, at 9:33 AM, "Moore, Richard" <richard.mo...@bl.uk
<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>> wrote:
> I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would
like to say
> how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question.
>
> Regards
> Richard
> _________________________
> Richard Moore
> Authority Control Team Manager
> The British Library
>
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 <tel:%2B44%20%280%291937%20546806>
> E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk <mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>
>
> Private opinion, obviously.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
> Sent: 02 March 2011 13:43
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
>
>> While NYPL would like to politicize it,
>
> An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying
in this
> manner.
>
> As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in
> black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library
> patrons do care about that, and probably find that information
somewhat
> more useful than the number of pages devoted to "bibliographical
> references,"* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any
better
> than the frightful "col. ill." or "etc."
>
> Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further
> "politicize" this thread.
>
>
> Mike Tribby
> Senior Cataloger
> Quality Books Inc.
> The Best of America's Independent Presses
>
> mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
<mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com>
>
>
**************************************************************************
> Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
>
> The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts
2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge
>
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a
Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
>
> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
>
>
*************************************************************************
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may
be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk <mailto:postmas...@bl.uk> :
The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied
without the sender's consent.
>
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British
Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for
the views of the author.
>
>
*************************************************************************
> Think before you print
