>> 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?
It *is* indicative of at least two things: 1) The fact that almost
nobody actually *reads* long reports, even librarians. 2) Our
institutional tendency to sit back and wait for the
experts/vendors/standards committees to settle the important questions
instead of hashing them out amongst ourselves. It's not just that I'm
bothered that there aren't more detailed rebuttals of the Calhoun Report
out there, I'm also puzzled why there isn't more "That's a great idea,
and here's why I think so..."
This is potentially a Big Deal. Where's the debate? Why so much
passivity in our ranks?
> 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.
Everybody has biases -- it's the quality of the arguments that count.
Again, Mann gives *details* about why he believes that some current
practices make sense. The Calhoun report just presents the bald
assertion that LCSH is icky and should be jettisoned without much
discussion *why*. "Kids like Google -- let Google figure out catalog
searching" ain't that discussion. As for balance, part of Mann's
pointiness is his own suspicion, detailed in the response and in "What's
Going on at the Library of Congress?"
(http://www.guild2910.org/AFSCMEWhatIsGoingOn.pdf), that LC is quietly
mulling over *big* cuts in traditional tech services. Who knows?
Instead of dissecting motives, it makes more sense to respond to the
actual ideas as they are presented.
>> 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.
So I'll walk-back my snark just a little (but I still *like* my
catchphrase). A quick search of Google and Technorati doesn't turn up
near as much Kool Aid drinking as I remember (A function of faulty
memory, or bad search tools? If a tree falls in the forest, but you
can't find it on Google Maps, does it exist? Discuss.) Again, there's
mostly a lot of "Click here to see the report" without much discussion
of the ideas one way or the other. Some skepticism, some "Go Digital!",
but little sustained analysis. Again, there's a lot to discuss in this
sprawling mess of a document, but outside of forums like this, that
discussion just isn't happening. Or at least the conversation doesn't
seem to be reaching front-line librarians.
>> 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.
I think it gets attention because it's a Big Idea that I would argue is
also an Appallingly Bad Idea. While it's skimmed past in the body of
the report, there is a more detailed discussion in Appendix C under
"Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and traditional subject
access." I'm sorry, but some of the comments in the "LCSH bad" column
of the chart ("How much subject searching is actually done? Now with the
ability to search full text or even TOCs, do we need subject analysis
for textual materials?") are denser than any straw man I could come up
with.
> 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?
Well, if *that's* all I have to do...
Look, I don't come here to praise the Calhoun Report, nor to bury it.
What I *would* like to see ground into the dust is the notion that
subject analysis can be functionally *replaced* by keyword searching, or
that we should immediately stop assigning subject headings because
automatic text analysis is Just Around the Corner.
I'll go back and re-read the UC Report. This is already getting too
long, so more thoughts about LCSH and such in another post...
Ed Sperr
Digital Services Consultant
NELINET, Inc.
153 Cordaville Rd. Suite 200 Southborough, MA
(508) 597-1931 | (800) 635-4638 x1931
Received on Wed May 23 2007 - 07:41:33 EDT