On 4/26/07, Sheehan, Kate <ksheehan_at_danburylibrary.org> wrote:
> Don't bother with good cataloging? Quelle horreur!
I think what needs to happen is turning cataloging from processing to
an incentive. Cataloging quality is in decline because there's too
much to be cataloged, putting strains on the people doing it and the
library as a whole to catch up with it. It's gone from being a thing
of passion (incentive) to a thing we do (process).
> I wonder if the
> traces you're seeing are a 2.0-style frustration with the restrictions
> of structured subject headings?
Just like there's more to be cataloged, there's more restrictions and
structures that one has to know about, and by golly, every single tool
we use for cataloging is just plain horrible rubbish! I'm so sick of
them I can't say that out loud enough! These tools are some of the
least focused programs devised in the history of man (yeah, I know,
big words. Prove me wrong), where the success is determined by the
amazing skills of the cataloger. I'm even surprised and glad that such
clever people exists! If quality metadata really is our most precious
outcome, why aren't we pouring in all our resources in making this
part better?
> On the reference desk, I see tags and
> more flexible metadata as the LC-to-English translation service. Just as
> I wouldn't hand a patron a bib number to find a book (though I have had
> them handed to me), I don't expect them to be able to use subject
> headings on their own.
It's amazing what users *can* do, though. Let's not try to
underestimate them; those days are gone.
> Of course, we're the only ones that care about this stuff. What's that
> saying? Librarians like searching, everyone else likes finding.
Sometimes I think librarians have some wierd masochistic trait, that
they really *want* this pain. Yeah, searching *is* fun when your life
doesn't depend upon it ... :)
> We can
> barely convince taxpayers to pay for their local libraries, how can we
> swing a national cataloging service?
It's about values. I belive that abriviated knowledge in which the
library used to be king now is anywhere but in the library. We're
stuck with the heavy stuff, and all sorts of other media has taken the
fluffy stuff away from us. Adopt or die, I say.
> As usual, Candy has the answer-
> tell them that if they want to find the right book and not just the
> close enough book, they'll need more than tags alone. Assuming that's
> true. Maybe it's not.
Indeed, maybe it's not. Maybe all they need is a commercial indexer or
Google scholar. When it comes down to it, what does the library
provide thse days? Mostly access to physical objects. I feel the
knowledge battle and the digital content struggle has been lost,
especially considering that we're not even pushing our precious
metadata to any extent beyond searching. It's very sad.
> Aargh, indeed!
Ditto.
regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Thu Apr 26 2007 - 20:08:21 EDT