But I think the point is is that it's "cheap" to allow our users to
make relationships between "De Lift" and "The Shaft" if they find it
valuable.
There is no reason that controlled, authoritative metadata can't live
in harmony with community contributed data.
Thomas Mann is not the sole voice or opinion on the theories of
information science.
-Ross.
On 5/15/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> 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 - 13:11:53 EDT