> I would agree that it is unfortunate that his is the only sustained
> critique that's surfaced online.
Is it unfortunate, or is it indicative?
Also, Mann has a respectable background, but in that report, yes, he was
writing it for a union. I write that as a former shop steward who
understands why unions exist (because management often forces unions into
existence). Nonetheless, we can't seriously expect a report written for a
union to be balanced in its response.
> I vaguely remember a lot of hub-bub
> attending the report's release, and a fair amount of "Yeah! Stick it to
> the Man!" talk from the Kool Kids of LibBloging,
Uh, speaking of ad hominem... By the way, what posts are you referring to?
It would be useful to see how well or badly these posts discussed Calhoun's
report.
> It's interesting to note that while killing LCSH is the thing everybody
> remembers about the report, it gets only a quick, almost cursory mention
> under item 4.2 -- "Support Browsing and Collocation".
Right, which is why it's so interesting that it becomes the hobbyhorse
ridden by many people who have not read any of the reports I list, including
the one from UC, BSTF, which also discusses reducing the cost overhead of
LCSH.
A lot of us "get" metadata and yet also would like to see how we can improve
the production methods for it. Instead of responding to Calhoun's report by
attempting to debunk it, why not respond with the ultimate retort, which
would be an intellectual framework for cataloging for the 21st century?
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Tue May 22 2007 - 14:18:50 EDT