Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Case in point. Flexibility and interoperability ... and I might add it
works between languages as well as between schemas or systems.
But why should we carp on about something that has proven so handy and
adaptable? Got no eye for the future, there.
Why, we old timers might as well be talking about how we used to fight
bears in waist-high snow uphill both ways to school before we had to
work all night in the mines and all we had to eat was biscuits and
water! Dang kids! Get off my lawn!
:-D
Robin
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Robin said:
I think it's well acknowledged that there are compatibility problems
with MARC as it pertains to the "larger information universe," ...
That's what cross walks are for. One can crosswalk from MARC to
almost any existing schema, but not the other way, because of the
higher deffinition of MARC fields. You can go from 1XX/7XX to
"Author", but not back again.
We've done quite a few crosswalks for people who don't use MARC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Robin said:
>I think it's well acknowledged that there are compatibility problems
>with MARC as it pertains to the "larger information universe," ...
That's what cross walks are for. One can crosswalk from MARC to
almost any existing schema, but not the other way, because of the
higher deffinition of MARC fields. You can go from 1XX/7XX to
"Author", but not back again.
We've done quite a few crosswalks for people who don't use MARC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Diane I. Hillmann wrote: Absolutely. We MUST move on, and continuing to carp about why MARC should be sufficient is just incredibly self-defeating. Please, people, we need to recognize that there is no going back ... I think people carp on MARC because it has worked so well within a variety of data environments over a period of decades. You can look at that as being terribly archaic. Or you can consider having worked over the course of decades of evolving technology as itself a remarkable feat considering how much technology is designed to be more or less disposable, that is, without allowing previous versions beyond a generation or two to remain viable. It's been a protocol that's facilitated the migration from one LIS to another and from one version of LIS to another. It's got street cred, I guess you could say. I think it's well acknowledged that there are compatibility problems with MARC as it pertains to the "larger information universe," however it's also true that the needs of the larger information universe don't necessarily address the needs of every individual user trying to find specific information within a particular collection. The reason I pointed to MARC is that it's known to provide options for several levels of need, from very simple to very complex. In my opinion, what's of value there is the flexibility of the tool. I've said before on this list and I'll repeat: the developers of RDA need to decide what they really want it to do. If its purpose is to provide a simple, broad-based method of approaching resource description so that even non-librarians will see the value in using it ... that's one thing. But if it wants to supplant standards that are designed for more detail-oriented applications, then it's going to have to address all of the complexities required in the environments that need them regardless of how intimidating those rules may seem to the casual person applying metadata. I realize that there is a desire/need to appeal to those who just want something basic and not too unwieldy, and I agree that there's no reason that they should be expected to do so. However, library environments are supposed to be part of the target audience as well (else it wouldn't be slated to replace AACR2, a library standard), so whatever replaces the former standards has to provide at least the same level of serviceability if not more in order to compete for new subscribers. Because "library environment" in itself can mean a variety of things, AACR2 and MARC have developed into their current incarnations in order to apply to a diverse set of needs in various contexts. By the same token that the "larger information universe" won't use a standard that doesn't suit their needs, there will be many collections that won't be able to use RDA because it doesn't provide for their needs. There won't be much motivation to move from standards that currently work for those of us who have more complex needs, regardless of the cost of the standard's publication. MARC and AACR2 are easy to carp on because they are already around and already functional; and I like to pick on MARC because it's pretty flexible, it's succinct, and it has the potential to be used as a template for something newer. I said in a previous post that it doesn't have to be MARC for the sake of MARC any more than it has to be RDA for the sake of RDA. Simple or complicated, what a standard has to be is useful, and I think the problem we keep encountering is that we're trying to apply the same set of language and rules to completely different environments in diverse situations. Yes, it's all information, and yes interoperability is very important, but that's not the end of the story. It's no more practical or advantageous to adopt an overly simplistic approach than it is to ignore the imperative to adapt and evolve. If RDA wants to appeal to all those who work with metadata, it would be better served by acknowledging the fact that there are some applications in which more complicated descriptions are going to be necessary while maintaining that skeletal structure that the larger information universe will find more appealing. Re: volunteers. Volunteers rock! So do non-MLS library staff who do a lot of professional-level work. If we need to be explicitly precise just in the terms used to apply to the library-centric users of these standards ... then ... Robin M. Mize Head of Technical Services Brenau Trustee Library Gainesville GA, 30501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casey, I think your points in the reply below are close to the mark (but missing a piece, which I'll explain below) Casey Mullin wrote: 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 smal
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Mike Tribby wrote: > Rather than show off my spectacular disinterest in some of the points Diane > raises, let me venture a guess as to the answer to her overall question: > Perhaps others disagree with your conclusions. Not saying they're wrong, but > I'm definitely saying that one of the biggest problems with this whole > dreamscape has been that many catalogers, perhaps most, have never been > convinced of the urgency you and others see in this "push forward." > Or, for that matter, that although it's obviously a push, "forward" > may not be the perceived direction. I'd say that this could conceivably > indicate that not enough effort was put into making your case. Or those of us > who are not enthusiastically backing the "push" are idiots, although > that's usually only a subtext. I guess one way of looking at it all is whether librarians and catalogers think we are leading or following. I would like to believe that we are leading the way, but experience tells me that we are following now. Many catalogers seem to think that we can just sit back, do what we have always done, and others will come and beg us to save them when it all turns sour. I don't think that's going to happen. The rest of the information world will most probably remain extremely disinterested in MARC format and our rules--that is, until a project arrives that shows them the advantages of using our tools. But the methods cannot be the same methods as searching the card catalog. The web has proven that those days are gone. Still, I don't believe that the primary task of cataloger was to build card catalogs, or MARC records, or AACR2/RDA records. We provide controlled, intellectually coherent access to information resources selected by experts. I think users would like that a lot if they understood that this is what we do. But we must demonstrate it to them first Jim Weinheimer
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
"I'm mystified that the work on the RDA vocabularies has been largely ignored
in these discussions (see http://metadataregistry.org for the provisionally
registered parts--elements and roles under schemas, and others under
vocabularies)--is it that we still don't recognize that our reliance on MARC is
one of the main impediments to participation in the larger information
universe? Is it because we don't recognize that the ability to express more
fully and clearly the data relationships we understand to be an important part
of our world is critical to moving forward? I wish someone could explain to me
why there isn't more interest in this work, given it's potential to integrate
FRBR relationships into our data and move us beyond MARC and the textually
explained relationships that it relies upon ..."
{snip}
"Um, how about those of us who are working on a volunteer basis to build the
structures (not just the retrieval tools) for the new library push forward?
Sigh,
Diane Hillmann"
Rather than show off my spectacular disinterest in some of the points Diane
raises, let me venture a guess as to the answer to her overall question:
Perhaps others disagree with your conclusions. Not saying they're wrong, but
I'm definitely saying that one of the biggest problems with this whole
dreamscape has been that many catalogers, perhaps most, have never been
convinced of the urgency you and others see in this "push forward." Or, for
that matter, that although it's obviously a push, "forward" may not be the
perceived direction. I'd say that this could conceivably indicate that not
enough effort was put into making your case. Or those of us who are not
enthusiastically backing the "push" are idiots, although that's usually only a
subtext.
Moan,
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] Re: Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
"If I could point out something rather uncomfortable, it could be argued that Google is far more powerful in the area of information retrieval than all of the libraries in the world put together." Google is also far more powerful as a provider of duplicate hits and clutter unless one has a pretty good idea of what one is searching for. Are 10,000 hits always better than a handful of meaningful hits? Jim, you and I have discussed this very issue offlist. For finding information about the latest movie stars or athletes, Google is great. So is YouTube. When I'm trying to move forward with my vital research into important and trendsetting Jamaican bass guitar players of the 1970s, it's next to useless. 10,000 hits that tell me where to buy the same MOR titles not only don't speak to my research question, they make it hard to sift out the germane information that might be lurking on page 23 of the Google search results. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Casey, I think your points in the reply below are close to the mark (but missing a piece, which I'll explain below) Casey Mullin wrote: 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.? It worries me that Jim (and others) feel that the work on RDA is primarily focused on meeting FRBR's user tasks. And by RDA, let me point out that we're talking about more than the textual guidance--the part that replaces AACR2. The work on RDA also includes the RDA elements, roles, and value vocabularies, which may well be the most immediately useful part, at least as far as building new connections to the larger data world is concerned. Casey Mullin says: 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, and 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. Casey, this is exactly the point. I'm mystified that the work on the RDA vocabularies has been largely ignored in these discussions (see http://metadataregistry.org for the provisionally registered parts--elements and roles under schemas, and others under vocabularies)--is it that we still don't recognize that our reliance on MARC is one of the main impediments to participation in the larger information universe? Is it because we don't recognize that the ability to express more fully and clearly the data relationships we understand to be an important part of our world is critical to moving forward? I wish someone could explain to me why there isn't more interest in this work, given it's potential to integrate FRBR relationships into our data and move us beyond MARC and the textually explained relationships that it relies upon ... 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. Absolutely. We MUST move on, and continuing to carp about why MARC should be sufficient is just incredibly self-defeating. Please, people, we need to recognize that there is no going back ... 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... Um, how about those of us who are working on a volunteer basis to build the structures (not just the retrieval tools) for the new library push forward? Sigh, Diane Hillmann
Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
And thank you for writing back, Casey. I can tell from your interpretation of my "vitriol" remark that you know how to read my invective. In response to a variation on my comment about a Dr. Seuss title being a work, manifestation, or expression, a defender of FRBR and RDA noted that in 80% of the bibliographic universe, the work/expresson/manifestation are the same. So for libraries that collect mainly this kind of material (i.e. books), RDA will yield little benefit. Far too often in this discussion those of us who oppose RDA are characterized as being against all change. This is hardly the case. Alll digital materials, video and audio materials, and really just about everything _except_ books are ill-served by AACR2 IMNSHO. But RDA will change _all_ cataloging And thanks for the link, but an underlying attribute of my opinion on the whole discussion is that _no_ new standard, whether RDA or whatever, is worth what it appears RDA will cost. For many libraries, especially public libraries, especially small-to-medium public libraries, RDA will not only be completely out of the question as far as cost of the resource and implementation (retooling and retraining), it also won't benefit the approximately 80% of their stuff for which FRBR is a non-factor. Reasonable cost, backwards compatibility for materials for which AACR2r already works quite well, and a soupcon of proof that FRBR is workable might go a long way in turning me into an RDA fan. But it's far too late on the cost front. We don't see much of it discussed on the RDA list or Autocat, but ALA Publishing and the co-conspirators--I mean the Co-publishers--have been locked into this as a high ticket item from the beginning. Which is probably why we don't see much discussion of it. 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 2:10 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?) Thanks for your pointed response, Mike. I'd like to point out that in that passage (which you have nicely quoted), I stated "a new standard..", not NECESSARILY RDA as has been published in drafts thus far. Put another way, while we must be skeptical of any content standard as a "messianic" new world order, we cannot afford to stand idly by while our profession's relevance is whittled away little by little. As for "untested": testing is in the works! (Here's where I show my bias...) I will direct you to a recent news bit: http://www.frbr.org/2008/09/16/indiana-u Stay tuned... Oh, and thank you for characterizing my posting as "vitriol"; I'll take that as a compliment! :) Casey Alan Mullin MLS Candidate School of Library and Information Science Metadata Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music Library Indiana University > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:30:36 -0500 > 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 > > >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
Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
"Regarding funding. Since when have we had the funding to do whatever we want to do whenever and however we want to do it?" My guess is that the answer to this rhetorical question is "Never." However, we have also never started out with the idea that the basic rules for what we do will start out priced beyond most libraries' (let alone individual librarians') abilities to pay. What good are the rules if most of us can't afford copies of them? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RDA-L] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re: Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam]=A0=A0Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)?=
If I could point out something rather uncomfortable, it could be argued that Google is far more powerful in the area of information retrieval than all of the libraries in the world put together. Here we are, arguing about MARC or in some cases, OAI-PMH, and Google has already dumped OAI-PMH in favor of XML sitemaps (which I have no experience with), See: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/04/retiring-support-for-oai-pmh-in.html I think it is a safe bet to believe that most of the world will go with Google. Where does that leave MARC? Again, I think there is a major place for librarians and especially catalogers in this scenario, but we must reconsider what we are really doing and where our strengths lie. I don't believe that our strengths lie in formats or authoritative rules, but in other areas of intellectual selection, description, and organization. If we reconsider ourselves in this way, I think our skills are unique. Jim Weinheimer > Thanks for your pointed response, Mike. I'd like to point out that in that > passage (which you have nicely quoted), I stated "a new standard..", not > NECESSARILY RDA as has been published in drafts thus far. Put another way, > while we must be skeptical of any content standard as a "messianic" new world > order, we cannot afford to stand idly by while our profession's relevance is > whittled away little by little. > > As for "untested": testing is in the works! (Here's where I show my bias...) I > will direct you to a recent news bit: > http://www.frbr.org/2008/09/16/indiana-u Stay tuned... > > Oh, and thank you for characterizing my posting as "vitriol"; I'll take that >as > a compliment! :) > > Casey Alan Mullin > MLS Candidate > School of Library and Information Science > Metadata Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music Library > Indiana University > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:30:36 -0500 > > 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 > > > > >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 ar
Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
Thanks for your pointed response, Mike. I'd like to point out that in that passage (which you have nicely quoted), I stated "a new standard..", not NECESSARILY RDA as has been published in drafts thus far. Put another way, while we must be skeptical of any content standard as a "messianic" new world order, we cannot afford to stand idly by while our profession's relevance is whittled away little by little. As for "untested": testing is in the works! (Here's where I show my bias...) I will direct you to a recent news bit: http://www.frbr.org/2008/09/16/indiana-u Stay tuned... Oh, and thank you for characterizing my posting as "vitriol"; I'll take that as a compliment! :)Casey Alan MullinMLS CandidateSchool of Library and Information ScienceMetadata Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music LibraryIndiana University > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:30:36 -0500> 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> > >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 a
Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
>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 t
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
I wasn't particularly saying they've argued this way on this list - I'm bringing it up because it's certainly something that comes up regularly from many non-cataloguing librarians (anti-cataloging librarians?), and I think indicates the attitude of large sections of the profession as a whole. It has popped up on this list before though, I'm sure. Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: 27 October 2008 17:34 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks Has anyone made that argument on this list? I frequently see people arguing against that straw man, but have very very rarely seen any librarians or anyone on any library-related listserv argue for it. Software engineers who work in library domains learn very quickly the value of good metadata, and the difficulty of providing useful features in the software without it. Jonathan Kelleher, Martin wrote: > I think the biggest beef here is the argument that if everyone just > uses keyword searches, you don't need such high quality cataloguing, > because as long as you have enough relevant data in each record it > doesn't matter whether it's in as an alternate title, buried in an > inappropriate note etc. Also, names don't matter, because the > cataloguing standard is wacky anyway, and people wouldn't think of > browsing for other works by the same author, or for anything else for > that matter. It's one of the big reasons libraries are cutting down on cataloguing staff, in favour of focusing on user education > > Also, once you've got that far, you're a hair-breadths away from the > rest of the whole googlization argument (the bane of cataloguers > everywhere) which can be used to argue that because people are so used > to Google picking up unreliably accurate hits for everything, they > don't expect/want/appreciate things being catalogued to any standard at all > > Martin Kelleher > Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of > Liverpool > > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Mize > Sent: 27 October 2008 16:00 > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to > AACR2/MARC21?) > > Exactly! Well put. Thank you for adding your chime to the chorus. > > Frankly, since those advocating the incorporation of bibliographically > controlled searching have never denied the usefulness of keyword > searching nor indicated that it should be eliminated as a tool, I've > often wondered why there are some advocates of keyword searching who > want to exclude any other kind of search mechanism. It's not like > it's a battle of the archaic Luddites vs. super techno gurus, because > the argument for adapting bibliographic standards to an interface that > seems simple to a user is a very sophisticated technical application > of a traditional concept. Is it the idea that "if the user doesn't > understand it, they don't need it?' Or "if behind-the-scenes group here> doesn't want to learn something > different then they won't and we shouldn't expect them to try?" Or is it that "since it's just library stuff it shouldn't be this hard?" > > I'm not sure I understand the source of the disconnect. > > Robin Mize > Head of Technical Services > Brenau Trustee Library > Gainesville, GA 30501 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Casey Mullin wrote: > >> I feel a need to chime in here as well... >> >> I'm going to get theoretical and quote some passages from Elaine >> Svenonius (/Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization/).. >> >> First, she paraphrases Hans Peter Luhn, the so-called "inventor" of >> keyword searching: "[Luhn] made it clear that keyword searching could >> never supplant the kind of scholarly, retrospective searching that >> calls into play the panoply of features mandated by the traditional >> bibliographic objectives...bibliographic systems are many and take >> varied forms; no single one need aspire to meet all the needs of all >> users." >> >> Secondly, she very succinctly and eloquently summarizes the argument >> for models like FRBR in the first place: "To [traditional objectives] >> can be added a further evolutionary step--that is, the adoption by >> catalogs of a navigation objective in response to the need for >> bibliographic *relationships* (emphasis mine) to guide the seeking of >> information. The bibliographic objectives thus can be seen as >> historically determined...A final argument in defense of >> *full-featured *(emphasis mine) bibliographic systems is that they >> are required if knowledge is to advance. Progress depends on >> cumulative scholarship, which in turn depends on scholars' ability to >> access all that has been c
Re: [RDA-L] What "they" are looking for
Monday, October 27, 2008
Dear Mac,
I totally applaud your last sentence. A catalog is of a collection or
its not a catalog. Well there are union catalog but aside from thelm.
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad
In a message dated 10/24/2008 10:44:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bernard said on RDA-L:
>For "they" are mostly not after specific documents but after facts
>,,,
That depends on who "they" are. A university catalogue use study I
did decades ago found that freshmen/women primarily sought topical
information, but graduate students primarily sought known items (from
reading lists, reviews, faculty mentions). There was a gradual shift
from freshman/woman to graduate student through the five or six years.
I have never done a use study of a public library's catalogue, but I
know that my wife is most often seeking the latest PD James ("Adam is
back" she just discovered), or the DVD of a movie for which she has
seen a "Globe and Mail" review, such as "Young At Heart" (a
documentary about a senior choir).
For the freshman/woman topic searcher, keyword search is a great new
boon. But for the known item searcher, exact transcription of 245
title remains vital, along with 246s with numbers spelled out or as
numerals, and other likely to be searched variations, as well as
author.
Whatever else we have or don't have, I want the 245/246 (or their new
fangled next generation equivalents) in manifestation records, and I
want to be able to search them whether the "'Net" is up or down,
assuming that I have electricity via the grid or my newly installed
generator (we were seven days without electricity winter before last).
The brave new bibliographic world as described by James and Bernard
assumes services not universally available. Depending on the upcoming
US elections, perhaps even American libraries should not be too
certain of the stability of their present services.
While SLC does do some OPAC hosting, we don't push the service. There
is something to be said for the library's catalogue being self
contained and inhouse.
__ __J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries CataloguingHTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
**Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame0001)
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Has anyone made that argument on this list?
I frequently see people arguing against that straw man, but have very
very rarely seen any librarians or anyone on any library-related
listserv argue for it.
Software engineers who work in library domains learn very quickly the
value of good metadata, and the difficulty of providing useful features
in the software without it.
Jonathan
Kelleher, Martin wrote:
I think the biggest beef here is the argument that if everyone just uses keyword
searches, you don't need such high quality cataloguing, because as long as you
have enough relevant data in each record it doesn't matter whether it's in as an
alternate title, buried in an inappropriate note etc. Also, names don't matter,
because the cataloguing standard is wacky anyway, and people wouldn't think of
browsing for other works by the same author, or for anything else for that
matter. It's one of the big reasons libraries are cutting down on cataloguing
staff, in favour of focusing on user education
Also, once you've got that far, you're a hair-breadths away from the rest of the
whole googlization argument (the bane of cataloguers everywhere) which can be
used to argue that because people are so used to Google picking up unreliably
accurate hits for everything, they don't expect/want/appreciate things being
catalogued to any standard at all
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Mize
Sent: 27 October 2008 16:00
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
Exactly! Well put. Thank you for adding your chime to the chorus.
Frankly, since those advocating the incorporation of bibliographically
controlled searching have never denied the usefulness of keyword searching nor
indicated that it should be eliminated as a tool, I've often wondered why there
are some advocates of keyword searching who want to exclude any other kind of
search mechanism. It's not like it's a battle of the archaic Luddites vs. super
techno gurus, because the argument for adapting bibliographic standards to an
interface that seems simple to a user is a very sophisticated technical
application of a traditional concept. Is it the idea that "if the user doesn't
understand it, they don't need it?' Or "if doesn't want to learn something different then
they won't and we shouldn't expect them to try?" Or is it that "since it's just
library stuff it shouldn't be this hard?"
I'm not sure I understand the source of the disconnect.
Robin Mize
Head of Technical Services
Brenau Trustee Library
Gainesville, GA 30501
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casey Mullin wrote:
I feel a need to chime in here as well...
I'm going to get theoretical and quote some passages from Elaine
Svenonius (/Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization/)..
First, she paraphrases Hans Peter Luhn, the so-called "inventor" of
keyword searching: "[Luhn] made it clear that keyword searching could
never supplant the kind of scholarly, retrospective searching that
calls into play the panoply of features mandated by the traditional
bibliographic objectives...bibliographic systems are many and take
varied forms; no single one need aspire to meet all the needs of all
users."
Secondly, she very succinctly and eloquently summarizes the argument
for models like FRBR in the first place: "To [traditional objectives]
can be added a further evolutionary step--that is, the adoption by
catalogs of a navigation objective in response to the need for
bibliographic *relationships* (emphasis mine) to guide the seeking of
information. The bibliographic objectives thus can be seen as
historically determined...A final argument in defense of
*full-featured *(emphasis mine) bibliographic systems is that they are
required if knowledge is to advance. Progress depends on cumulative
scholarship, which in turn depends on scholars' ability to access all
that has been created by human intellect. Ensuring such access is the
goal of ongoing efforts to achieve universal bibliographic control."
That last concept ("universal bibliographic control") may seem a
stilted and idealistic concept, but is it not our highest ideal as
catalogers/metadata creators? Keyword searching, no matter how sexy,
could never accomplish this. That said, keyword searching and
highly-structured descriptions and relationships can co-exist. Such
complexity can be in the background, hidden from the casual user, but
available for those who need it.
Some food for thought for this rainy (at least in Indiana) Friday
morning...
Casey Alan Mullin --
MLS Candidate --
School of Library and Information Science -- Metadata Assistant -
Variations3 Digital Music Library -- Indiana University
--
--
Date: Fri
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
I think the biggest beef here is the argument that if everyone just uses keyword
searches, you don't need such high quality cataloguing, because as long as you
have enough relevant data in each record it doesn't matter whether it's in as an
alternate title, buried in an inappropriate note etc. Also, names don't matter,
because the cataloguing standard is wacky anyway, and people wouldn't think of
browsing for other works by the same author, or for anything else for that
matter. It's one of the big reasons libraries are cutting down on cataloguing
staff, in favour of focusing on user education
Also, once you've got that far, you're a hair-breadths away from the rest of the
whole googlization argument (the bane of cataloguers everywhere) which can be
used to argue that because people are so used to Google picking up unreliably
accurate hits for everything, they don't expect/want/appreciate things being
catalogued to any standard at all
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Mize
Sent: 27 October 2008 16:00
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
Exactly! Well put. Thank you for adding your chime to the chorus.
Frankly, since those advocating the incorporation of bibliographically
controlled searching have never denied the usefulness of keyword searching nor
indicated that it should be eliminated as a tool, I've often wondered why there
are some advocates of keyword searching who want to exclude any other kind of
search mechanism. It's not like it's a battle of the archaic Luddites vs. super
techno gurus, because the argument for adapting bibliographic standards to an
interface that seems simple to a user is a very sophisticated technical
application of a traditional concept. Is it the idea that "if the user doesn't
understand it, they don't need it?' Or "if doesn't want to learn something different then
they won't and we shouldn't expect them to try?" Or is it that "since it's just
library stuff it shouldn't be this hard?"
I'm not sure I understand the source of the disconnect.
Robin Mize
Head of Technical Services
Brenau Trustee Library
Gainesville, GA 30501
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casey Mullin wrote:
> I feel a need to chime in here as well...
>
> I'm going to get theoretical and quote some passages from Elaine
> Svenonius (/Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization/)..
>
> First, she paraphrases Hans Peter Luhn, the so-called "inventor" of
> keyword searching: "[Luhn] made it clear that keyword searching could
> never supplant the kind of scholarly, retrospective searching that
> calls into play the panoply of features mandated by the traditional
> bibliographic objectives...bibliographic systems are many and take
> varied forms; no single one need aspire to meet all the needs of all
> users."
>
> Secondly, she very succinctly and eloquently summarizes the argument
> for models like FRBR in the first place: "To [traditional objectives]
> can be added a further evolutionary step--that is, the adoption by
> catalogs of a navigation objective in response to the need for
> bibliographic *relationships* (emphasis mine) to guide the seeking of
> information. The bibliographic objectives thus can be seen as
> historically determined...A final argument in defense of
> *full-featured *(emphasis mine) bibliographic systems is that they are
> required if knowledge is to advance. Progress depends on cumulative
> scholarship, which in turn depends on scholars' ability to access all
> that has been created by human intellect. Ensuring such access is the
> goal of ongoing efforts to achieve universal bibliographic control."
>
> That last concept ("universal bibliographic control") may seem a
> stilted and idealistic concept, but is it not our highest ideal as
> catalogers/metadata creators? Keyword searching, no matter how sexy,
> could never accomplish this. That said, keyword searching and
> highly-structured descriptions and relationships can co-exist. Such
> complexity can be in the background, hidden from the casual user, but
> available for those who need it.
>
> Some food for thought for this rainy (at least in Indiana) Friday
> morning...
>
> Casey Alan Mullin --
> MLS Candidate --
> School of Library and Information Science -- Metadata Assistant -
> Variations3 Digital Music Library -- Indiana University
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:45:16 +0200
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to
> AACR2/MARC21?)
> > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> > Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
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, and 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 MullinMLS CandidateSchool of Library and Information ScienceMetadata Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music LibraryIndiana 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>
Re: [RDA-L] [Possible Spam] Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
/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: 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." 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 th
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
Exactly! Well put. Thank you for adding your chime to the chorus.
Frankly, since those advocating the incorporation of bibliographically
controlled searching have never denied the usefulness of keyword
searching nor indicated that it should be eliminated as a tool, I've
often wondered why there are some advocates of keyword searching who
want to exclude any other kind of search mechanism. It's not like it's
a battle of the archaic Luddites vs. super techno gurus, because the
argument for adapting bibliographic standards to an interface that seems
simple to a user is a very sophisticated technical application of a
traditional concept. Is it the idea that "if the user doesn't
understand it, they don't need it?' Or "if doesn't want to learn something different
then they won't and we shouldn't expect them to try?" Or is it that
"since it's just library stuff it shouldn't be this hard?"
I'm not sure I understand the source of the disconnect.
Robin Mize
Head of Technical Services
Brenau Trustee Library
Gainesville, GA 30501
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casey Mullin wrote:
I feel a need to chime in here as well...
I'm going to get theoretical and quote some passages from Elaine
Svenonius (/Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization/)..
First, she paraphrases Hans Peter Luhn, the so-called "inventor" of
keyword searching: "[Luhn] made it clear that keyword searching could
never supplant the kind of scholarly, retrospective searching that
calls into play the panoply of features mandated by the traditional
bibliographic objectives...bibliographic systems are many and take
varied forms; no single one need aspire to meet all the needs of all
users."
Secondly, she very succinctly and eloquently summarizes the argument
for models like FRBR in the first place: "To [traditional objectives]
can be added a further evolutionary step--that is, the adoption by
catalogs of a navigation objective in response to the need for
bibliographic *relationships* (emphasis mine) to guide the seeking of
information. The bibliographic objectives thus can be seen as
historically determined...A final argument in defense of
*full-featured *(emphasis mine) bibliographic systems is that they are
required if knowledge is to advance. Progress depends on cumulative
scholarship, which in turn depends on scholars' ability to access all
that has been created by human intellect. Ensuring such access is the
goal of ongoing efforts to achieve universal bibliographic control."
That last concept ("universal bibliographic control") may seem a
stilted and idealistic concept, but is it not our highest ideal as
catalogers/metadata creators? Keyword searching, no matter how sexy,
could never accomplish this. That said, keyword searching and
highly-structured descriptions and relationships can co-exist. Such
complexity can be in the background, hidden from the casual user, but
available for those who need it.
Some food for thought for this rainy (at least in Indiana) Friday
morning...
Casey Alan Mullin --
MLS Candidate --
School of Library and Information Science --
Metadata Assistant - Variations3 Digital Music Library --
Indiana University
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:45:16 +0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to
AACR2/MARC21?)
> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rhonda Marker
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:29 PM
> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to
AACR2/MARC21?)
>
> I've been lurking since the list began, but will dart out into the open
> just this once.
>
> You ask what difference it will make to try to bring both precision and
> recall to searches (my vocabulary, not yours). For some tasks, such as
> finding enough to write an undergraduate essay, perhaps itadds very
> little beyond what a simple keyword search would accomplish. For other
> tasks, a more comprehensive result is vitally important-- for graduate
> level research, for many STM (science-technology-medicine) topics, and
> I'm sure others could give many more categories of things and even
> specific instances. I guess my point is that the General Searcher is not
> our only user. Having a model like FRBR helps us organize our efforts so
> that whatever our resources allow us to do, we can do in a purposeful,
> concerted way.
> ---
>
> I haven't read that FRBR or RDA will make it easier for people to find
> things, except in the sense that the FRBR displays may provide more
useful
> collocation of similar records (by work/expression/manifestation/item).
>
> And when we bring "precision and recall" into the equation, I don't
know if
> this has anything to do with RDA or even with human cataloging.
> Traditionally, precision and
