Re: Can we change the catalog without changing cataloging?

Of course it's not sufficient, but it's one more step to greater access.
 Please do not misunderstand me--I am following this list because our
library faculty is deep into explorations of the catalog of the future.
My comments point to inaccuracies in what others are saying about the
current state of the catalog.  That doesn't mean I defend that state; it
means I think we should stop dwelling on what is--good or bad--and start
talking about where we can go now to improve content and access.  As
President Musharaff responded to Jon Stewart's question on The Daily
Show on the whereabouts of Bin Laden, "Do you know?  If you know, then
go there and we will follow you!"

Elise

Elise T. Zappas
Humanities Cataloger &
Automation Librarian
Drew University Library
Madison, NJ  07940
973-408-3667
ezappas_at_drew.edu


>>> Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU> 9/28/2006 12:41 PM >>>
If it's perfectly sufficient to do a keyword searching of author names
and titles that are not authority controlled, why do we authority
control at all? Is it neccessary only for manifestation authors, but
not
for contents authors? That makes little sense, especially when what's
a
content in one manifestation can be the entirety of another.

Jonathan

Elise Zappas wrote:
> Notes fields (including 505 contents fields) are not inaccessible.
With
> a keyword search and the proper indexing of one's catalog virtually
any
> data are searchable in a MARC record.  Recently, in fact, 505
contents
> field author/title information has been placed in subfields (r and
g)
> which can be indexed to search by author and title searches as well
as
> keyword.
>
> Elise
>
>
> Elise T. Zappas
> Humanities Cataloger &
> Automation Librarian
> Drew University Library
> Madison, NJ  07940
> 973-408-3667
> ezappas_at_drew.edu
>
>
>
>>>> "K.G. Schneider" <kgs_at_bluehighways.com> 9/27/2006 10:50 AM >>>
>>>>
> This is a marvelous post, and while in my Thinking Unit (a long hot
> shower)
> it inspired me to come up with a 95% facetious rule: abolish all
> non-fixed
> fields. This would reduce the temptation to stuff valuable metadata
in
> notes
> fields. But it would need a corollary rule, which would be that
every
> month
> we (LibraryLand) would be required to establish at least ten more
> fixed
> fields whether we needed them or not. Then a third rule would be
that
> proposed fixed fields would be discussed in a weekly global
> teleconference
> in which a simple majority vote established new fields, and that
> demerits
> would be issued to libraries that suggested fields without solid
> evidence to
> support their suggestions. (I'm not sure what the punishment would
> be.)
>
> The less silly ruminations I had were related to what KC has called
> "the
> slow-moving barge" effect. I recently shopped for TV stands on
several
> store
> websites. I was able to browse by facets that were useful for
me-first
> the
> larger category itself (TV stands), and then by size, material, and
> color.
> These companies knew these facets were useful for me. How do *we* as
a
> huge
> profession know what fields are useful, establish these fields, and
use
> them
> in meaningful ways? We pride ourselves on standardization, and
indeed
> that
> has its charms. But are we also paying a steep price for it?
>
> Karen G. Schneider
> kgs_at_bluehighways.com
>
>

--
Jonathan Rochkind, MLIS
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind_at_jhu.edu