We first have to understand what "the approaches underlying DC (more
precisely the DCAM), RDF, and so forth" ARE, and what the "approaches
underlying aACR or MARC encoding" are. I think the "approaches"
underlying AACR2 are varied and ambiguous and sometimes conflict---and
are an entirely different thing than the "approaches" underlying MARC.
Meanwhile, the approaches behind DCAM or RDF are also different, and in
some ways overlapping and identical to 'traditional library
practices'---in other ways complementary and supplemental to
'traditional library practices'---and in other ways indeed contradictory
to 'traditional library practices'.
I know I'm being vague here--just as I'm suggesting we need to stop
being vague. Because I admit these things are complex and not obvious
and require analysis. That's exactly what is required. I get frustrated
seeing an assumption that anything that didn't come directly from the
cataloging community must be contradictory to what we've done and is
potentially dangerous. Or likewise, an assumption that what we've always
done is perfectly straightforward and formally clear and unambiguous--it
is not! I get frustrated by the assumption that anything new must also
be about "google" or about "free text"---in fact, to my reading, there
is nothing in the "approaches behind" DCAM or RDF or so forth, that
rules out authority control, delimiting elements and sub-elements, and
"other principled practices". Indeed, RDF is exactly about delimiting
elements and sub-elements. And neither RDF nor DCAM calls for abandoning
authority control where appropriate, and both are wholly compatible with
it.
There is this idea that there's the "old" that is all about "principle",
and there's the "new" that is all about "free text and throw control to
the wind." In fact, it's more complicated then that. There are more
dimensions involved than authority control vs. not, and even on that
dimension some of the "new" is looking for control too. And on all
dimensions the "old" and "new" are not distinct, but overlapping and
often complementary, and occasionally in different relation to each
other than one might assume. I am all in favor of appropriate control.
But what we do now is fundamentally broken for the contemporary digital
environment---not because we need to stop controlling anything and just
"do the Google", if that was all that it took this would all be easy,
and it's not. To the contrary, because we need to figure out how to
control smarter.
Jonathan
Jane Greenberg wrote:
> Candy, all:
>
> Following on your lead, a key challenge is to healthfully integrate this
> division (or rather shorten the continuum) in both the educational process
> and in our operational, day-to-day, cataloging and library catalogs.
>
> In what context should approaches underlying AACR or MARC encoding be
> supported and dominate library catalogs? Here, I'm referring to authority
> control, delimiting elements and sub-elements, and other principled
> practices.
>
> When should we emphasize the approaches fundamental to the Dublin Core
> (more precisely the Dublin Core's Abstract Model), RDF, and so forth?
>
> We are lucky to be living during such an exciting time and considering new
> models beyond our legacy approaches. But, as it has been said here
> before, let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> Indeed, interesting LIS classes, and an interesting workplace!
>
> jane greenberg
> janeg_at_ils.unc.edu
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Candy Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>> Well, if it's any consolation, I think that we who are involved
>> in education in this area are trying to bring a more "work
>> together" view to the process. It's actually very interesting
>> teaching a core organization course these days - you can't not
>> have the students learn about LCSH/AARC2/MARC/etc. since they
>> will be making decisions about (and bringing about change in)
>> such systems and working with users. Most of us also always
>> include fundamentals such as facet analysis and general concepts
>> of automatic analysis. Now they also need to know about
>> folksonomy and DC and RDF and XML and so on, again because they
>> will be using and making decisions about NG catalogues. It makes
>> for fast-moving classes, and keeps us on our toes.
>>
>> Candy
>> ------
>> Candy Schwartz
>>
>>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Tue Mar 27 2007 - 08:14:57 EDT