It's always a bit dicey speculating on as yet unknown "big cuts", but,
yes I think we probably should care. We don't know if or what the cuts
might be, but the jettisoning of series tracing points in the direction
of authority control.
>is the Library of Congress the only way to
>provide and use the services the Library of Congress currently provides
>to the library community?
A fair question, perhaps. But (since it's not about the money) who will
be paying, if not LC?
In fact there are compelling reasons to care. I expect that most of us
rely HUGELY on LC's cataloging for our basic data. We may not like
MARC, or AACR2, etc., but we currently still rely on those data
structures and we rely on LC providing cataloging. (We certainly haven't
agreed on anything better.) Who will be stepping up to the plate to
provide basic data, Baker & Taylor? Possibly, but that won't be the
full solution for most of us.
My biggest problem is that LC still retains control of some pretty big
things like authority files and subject headings. It's really LC that
trains and approves NACO participants and DEFINITELY LC that establishes
subject headings. If LC plans to abdicate the throne it might be a good
idea to have an orderly transfer of power to an elected parliament (e.g.
a much stronger NACO, SACO, etc.) But once again, who's planning to step
up to the plate? (i.e. absorb the cost) Many of us contribute to NACO,
but do we have time to do more, to take the "tough cases", create and
maintain SOME (albeit it perhaps a much looser) administrative
structure?
If you don't care about authority control or LCSH because keyword
searching is adequate for all your needs, then you are probably getting
all your records from your vendor for free and there is indeed nothing
to worry about.
That said, I personally think that LC could probably realize some huge
savings by loosening up some on NACO and SACO and making things a bit
more democratic. Just look at a tool like Cataloger's Desktop. Lot's
of good information there; more than anyone could read, much less absorb
and apply! Granted these are reference titles, but does anyone outside
LC refer to some of them? If you have time to refer to half of it you
must have already retired. As a cataloger with more than 20 years
experience and a great respect for cataloging rules, I haven't opened
lots of things there (nor their print predecessors) ever.
A lot of the names that need authority control don't require two hours
of searching. Likewise submitting a new subject heading doesn't have to
be akin to petitioning the House of Lords. We don't really need to sweat
every coma, especially if there are a few more people (outside of LC)
who were able to make corrections to a name or subject authority if we
occasionally mess up.
The crux of the problem, in my mind at least, is that LC's mixed signals
are leading some of us to believe that LC wants to abdicate
responsibility and at the same time retain control, which is what is
giving many catalogers a queasy feeling.
JJ
**Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
the Queens Library.**
Jane Jacobs
Asst. Coord., Catalog Division
Queens Borough Public Library
89-11 Merrick Blvd.
Jamaica, NY 11432
tel.: (718) 990-0804
e-mail: Jane.W.Jacobs_at_queenslibrary.org
FAX. (718) 990-8566
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Andrews, Mark J.
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:58 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Whither LC? Should we care? (was "[NGC4LIB] "Third Order"-- was
"Libraries & the Web"")
"...LC is quietly mulling over *big* cuts in traditional tech services."
Let me stir up the pot a little bit. Why are big cuts at LC such a bad
thing? The Library of Congress is Congress's library before it's our
national library. If LC's management is steering the ship a different
direction that may because they have other problems to solve. Congress
is absolutely free, at any time, and for any reason or none, to change
the purpose and direction of its library. Indeed, the governing and
funding bodies behind the libraries where we work are free to do the
same thing.
Putting this another way, is the Library of Congress the only way to
provide and use the services the Library of Congress currently provides
to the library community? One could productively ask and hopefully
answer the same question about ALA and the like.
M. Andrews
Received on Wed May 23 2007 - 11:18:32 EDT