I have occasionally gotten the sense that some systems folks are dismissive
of cataloguers and cataloguing without really understanding what cataloguing
entails. However, I have heard more dismissive talk from public services
staff (particularly reference) than systems in my personal experience.
As far as systems development goes, at my last job (a consortium of 12
public libraries), the cataloguers voice was heard because I was one of the
lead original cataloguers as well as the overall SA for the consortium. At
my current job (largish public library), unfortunately, the indexes and
search schemes were not developed with any input from any cataloguers and I
(as the SA) am cleaning up the mess that occurred before I arrived.
Lynn
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:00 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Early faceted
At the last ALA I stood up after the ALCTS program on the future of
cataloging and said that I'd been to two meetings on the future of the
catalog and now two on the future of cataloging, but no where were the two
topics being discussed together. The organizers promised to make that a
topic for their next meeting. I hope they do.
At that ALCTS meeting the anti-systems rhetoric was very sharp, including a
statement about "caring passionately" vs. "simplistic thinking." I didn't
hear much anti-cataloger talk at the systems meetings, and I interpret that
to mean that the catalogers are frustrated and feel left out of the systems
process. However, in my one experience in developing systems, the tech
services staff was involved in all of the decisions about indexing and
display, although less so regarding the UI itself. Is this the usual way of
doing things? What experience have others had?
kc
benjamin hockenberry wrote:
> Jonathan -- I just posted on the need for catalogers to achieve
> rapport with systems folks over on Autocat; there was a wee furor
> going over the subject of Roy Tennant's RDA article in LJ. There gets
> to be a big "us and them" culture when there's really just one group
> -- the data and metadata support crew. It's not about arbitrary
> standards or technophilia, it's about sustaining and supporting the
> growth of stored store and service delivered.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hockenberry
> MLS, University at Buffalo
>
>
> On 3/22/07, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>> Indeed. I've become a broken record on this subject, but I think a
>> large part of the solution to our "NGC" needs to lie on the merging
>> of the cataloging and library systems fields. I think many of these
>> articles we're talking about were succesful precisely becuase their
>> authors (whether individually or in collective) had both these
>> expertises (and certainly Soergel, who I have a huge amount of
>> respect for, can hold his own in both communities).
>>
>> Catalogers and techies NEED to work together more---I think it needs
>> to become a single discipline in the library world,
>> cataloging/metadata and library systems are in fact part of the same
>> thing! That can mean individuals with both expertises, but it can
>> also mean people working together to form groups with both
>> expertises. On catalogers lists I see catalogers disparaging systems
>> people and suggesting that they have no right to comment on what are
>> 'cataloging issues', and catalogers need to 'take control'. But I
>> think this is in large part a reaction to techies, on lists such as
>> this one, disaparaging catalogers and suggesting that their lack of
>> 'systems' expertise is what has gotten us in this mess, and gives
>> them no right to comment on what are really 'technological issues'.
Neither of these things are true, and it's very frustrating.
>> The system and systems we are dealing with are systems including
>> technological elements and metadata elements (and 'cataloging' is
>> nothing but metadata since before there was 'metadata'), and the
>> solutions need to involve both communities--melded into one new
>> community.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>> > On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Christina Pikas wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pollitt, A. S., & Ellis, G. P. (1994). HIBROWSE for bibliographic
>> >> databases. Journal of Information Science, 20, 413-426.
>> >>
>> >> A. Steven Pollitt (1998). The key role of classification and
>> >> indexing in view-based searching. International Cataloguing and
>> >> Bibliographic Control, 27, 37-40. Retrieved from
>> >> http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla63/63polst.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> > What's really cool about these sorts of articles is that they
>> > outline processes and algorithms for such features. They are just
>> > shy of to- do lists. If libraries where add to their staffs people
>> > who can implement these processes and algorithms in software, then
>> > those libraries will have less of a need for licensed software.
>> > Moreover, those libraries would be in a better place for evaluating
>> > solutions as they presented themselves, whether they be licensed or
>> > not
>> >
>> > --
>> > Eric Lease Morgan
>> > University Libraries of Notre Dame
>> >
>> > (574) 631-8604
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>> The Sheridan Libraries
>> Johns Hopkins University
>> 410.516.8886
>> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net
http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 10:02:19 EDT