Thomas,
Thanks. I don't want to irritate people by saying anything more in
detail about that movie, but I'd like to comment briefly on this
question you raised. I'll get philosophical later, and of course no one
has to read that if they're not interested.
You wrote:
"This information about "De Lift" came from the review attached to
the IMDb record--a plus for user-supplied social networking data. An
interesting question arises. Say that the cataloguers would always miss
that data, but a user found this relationship and supplied it. Would
someone then make a more formal link (a 730 field or equivalent) in a
catalogue record in some sort of global next gen catalogue? Or is that
title information just loose data that other end-users could make use of
if necessary? I would say that information from the end-user should be a
trigger for more formal use of data fields with the final decision made
by librarians ..."
It strikes me that we can get into trouble trying to tie the entire
information world together. I'd opt for the "just loose data" answer to
the question. I appreciate the fact that IMDb gives us this information
about the relation to De lift. But I doubt that it's worth the time,
money, and effort of libraries (or the "library world") to show what
this rather obscure 2001 film is a remake of.
Now, if "The shaft" came to be regarded as some sort of classic of
cinema art, and scholars around the world were studying it as such,
interest in De lift and its relation to The shaft would increase. I
think there are pairs of films like that, though I can't remember any
examples right now. It might then make sense to add the title added
entry to cataloging records.
My philosophical point:
What I said above relates to a perspective I came to after reading
Thomas Mann. I think we need to recognize that the Web and library
catalogs have different purposes. They are both valuable, but we
shouldn't think their values are the same. We shouldn't have to catalog
the whole Web or show relationships between all kinds of information.
And I think the reason some people (not Thomas Brenndorfer) want to
discontinue things we've been doing is that they want to catalog almost
everything, which means they can't catalog anything in much detail.
Here's a stab at how we might distinguish the purposes of libraries and
the Web. I think libraries, as public institutions, are in the business
of preserving information that the public (or maybe better, the "body
politic") has decided is important. The things which are necessary for
education, research, public safety, and other concerns. That isn't
really contradicted by public libraries' fiction sections, because they
just show that the "body politic" has decided it's important to provide
entertainment, too. Nor is it contradicted by some libraries being
privately owned, because even if they're private--unless they're just
"libraries" in people's homes--they have to reflect "public" concerns to
some extent. Otherwise no one will use them.
In contrast, the Web is centered on the interests of individuals. It is
often, in Thomas Brenndorfer's terms, "loose data." It is the realm of
freedom and personal preference, and somewhat of chaos. Great sites like
IMDb or Google exist because people want to look for things outside what
is provided by the public institution of libraries. If you're a film
buff like me, you won't be satisfied by what libraries can give you. And
we wouldn't want to make libraries tell us everything about movies. At
least not most libraries.
This isn't to say you can't publish things, even "serious" things like
electronic journals, on the Web. Though the "serious" ones are more
likely to come with a price. Maybe I should say the Web is a realm that
contains both "raw" and "controlled" data, and librarians select
strictly from the things they've decided are important.
On the Web, it's questionable that one really has an inalienable right
to anything. I'm sympathetic to "Net Neutrality," but I wonder if we
might have to realize that as an entity that exists for individuals'
whims and interests, the Internet may not be able to provide equal
access to everybody. That may be another important purpose of libraries,
to provide a place where individuals who can't afford fast access to it
at home can get it. But capitalism may hold sway on the Web, as in most
forms of publishing.
Here's an example of the value of "loose data." I catalog 19th century
books, and many of them have signatures that are pretty illegible.
Sometimes I can only guess at how to read people's handwriting. Google
is a terrific source for deciphering the signatures at times. LC's Name
Authority File can help somewhat, but it's a lot farther from containing
every personal name that has ever existed than Google. On Google, I can
try different possible readings of the names and see which ones have
matches. After I do that, I may go to the NAF to see if there's a
corresponding heading.
As a library cataloger, my job is to translate that "loose data" into
something that isn't "loose." Of course established headings exemplify
"non-looseness." When something goes from the realm of the private to
the public, looseness has to stop for the most part. Transcriptional
fields like the 246 are looser, but even they are governed by some
strict rules.
--Ted Gemberling
Not an official statement of the UAB Lister Hill Library
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:31 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Down and The Shaft
I found a record for "The shaft" DVD at Vancouver Public Library. The
catalogue record had also
246 $iOriginal title:$aDown
I suppose as a remake, "De Lift" should be a related work heading on any
record for Down/The shaft. A work-to-work relationship in FRBR terms-not
one work issued under two different titles.
This information about "De Lift" came out from the review attached to
the IMDb record-a plus for user-supplied social networking data. An
interesting question arises. Say that the cataloguers would always miss
that data, but a user found this relationship and supplied it. Would
someone then make a more formal link (a 730 field or equivalent) in a
catalogue record in some sort of global next gen catalogue? Or is that
title information just loose data that other end-users could make use of
if necessary? I would say that information from the end-user should be a
trigger for more formal use of data fields with the final decision made
by librarians. If the fields exist and these are the FRBR entities and
relationships of concern for bibliographic control, then the data should
be filled in correctly in the next gen catalogue.
>>Thomas, where did you get the information that "Down" was the original
title? Maybe that's buried somewhere on IMDb, but it's not something an
average moviegoer would know, I think. IMDb says it's a remake of a 1983
Dutch film, De lift.
Thomas Brenndorfer, B.A, M.L.I.S.
Guelph Public Library
100 Norfolk St.
Guelph, ON
N1H 4J6
(519) 824-6220 ext. 276
tbrenndorfer_at_library.guelph.on.ca
Received on Tue May 15 2007 - 09:54:30 EDT