Jonathan,
Yes, that's right to a certain extent. I always try to upgrade Level K
(minimal) records if I can, so others at other places don't have to do
the work again. However, since mine is a medical library, the only
subject headings or call numbers I put on are medical. So any library
that uses a different classification or subject heading scheme will
still have to add those.
It is possible, I think, for them to upgrade the record even after I'm
finished with it, adding other kinds of headings and numbers (OCLC
allows one call number of each "type," for example. A record can have a
Dewey number, an LCC number, a National Library of Canada number, and
others.) But not everyone does that. And some catalogers' bosses might
even prohibit them from doing so, since it takes a little extra time.
Also, different libraries sometimes focus on different things. A
classification that fits in one library might be considered
inappropriate in another. A second library might want to add extra notes
that aren't in the master record, related to local interests. So there
tends to be quite a bit of adjustment that happens in copy cataloging.
--Ted G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:05 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
The question is, how much work of catalogers is being done pretty much
exactly the same, redundantly, by catalogers at different institutions?
Copy cataloging was _supposed_ to eliminate this, but indeed it hasn't.
If you download an unacceptable record and spend time bringing it up to
standards (which of course isn't exactly copy cataloging at all anymore;
you cant' do that without the item in hand, can you?)--I wonder how many
other catalogers at other institutions are doing the same thing with the
same record.
That's just an example. I am not a cataloger, I am not intimately
familiar with how catalogers spend their days. But my general sense is,
the copy cataloging infrastructure notwithstanding, many catalogers
spend much of their time duplicating work also being done by other
catalogers at other organizations.
Do you think this is so, Ted?
Jonathan
Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Allen,
> I'll get into LibraryThing. If that is something that reference
> librarians and patrons find helpful, great. Maybe I shouldn't have
said
> "other library staff."
>
> As for point 2., I don't think copy cataloging has really reduced our
> workload as much as some people think. I remember a coworker at my
last
> job saying, "but that's only copy cataloging you've been doing." I
wish
> I'd told him that copy cataloging is often harder than original
> cataloging. Especially if the original cataloger did a "minimal-level"
> record. So I don't see our workload going down that much for the
> foreseeable future. And if it did, I would think that would mean we're
> not doing a good job anymore.
> --Ted G.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:28 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
> Yes, I agree most catalogers have our hands full with the tasks at
hand.
> Two points though:
>
> 1. You included "other library staff" in your remark. Would this
mean
> that reference staff should not allowed to add tags that they or users
> (researchers and others) might bring up to them that are not
represented
> in a cataloging record?
>
> 2. Much (not all, of course) of the work of copy catalogers,
including
> authority work, is repetitive of work that other copy catalogers are
> doing in countless other libraries. If this paradigm shifts, it might
> be possible for people with the skills that catalogers bring to
> information analysis could be used to help manage and refine
cataloging
> and other information discovery tools, including social tagging.
Would
> you be open to catalogers being involved in tagging, not to mention
many
> other possibilities that are presently not possible because of work
> loads such as authority record development and enhancements,
cooperative
> enhancement of existing bib records so that they are more fully able
to
> be used in FRBR capable systems, and so on. If we weren't doing so
> involved in the present paradigm of doing the same authority work for
> the same records in our individual catalogs, there are a lot of
> possibilities that exist for cataloging skills.
>
> Allen Mullen
> Eugene Public Library
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:07 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>>
>> Allen, basically just because we've got enough work handling
>> the controlled vocabulary and our other tasks. But I'll look
>> at those LibraryThing posts. Maybe that will change my mind somehow.
>>
>> Of course there is non-controlled vocabulary on cataloging
>> records (transcriptional fields), too, and I wasn't implying
>> giving that up.
>> --Ted G.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>>
>> Ted Gemberling writes:
>>
>> "non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be
>> something catalogers or other library staff have to deal with
>> on a daily basis"
>>
>> I'm curious about this statement - why not?
>>
>> Allen Mullen
>> Eugene Public Library
>>
>>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed May 16 2007 - 16:18:11 EDT