Shouldn't one also factor in benefits? Costs are not an absolute, but relative to benefits.
kc
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Sperr, Edwin" <sperr_at_NELINET.NET>
>Sent: May 24, 2007 7:00 AM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: [NGC4LIB] Subject Access -- Costs
>
>Tim poses a question that cuts to the heart of many of the debates over
>providing subject access though LCSH:
>"What *sort* of money are we talking about?". To begin to answer that,
>we need to unpack the question of costs into at least two parts: 1) The
>cost of assigning LCSH headings to individual records, and 2) The cost
>of maintaining the entire LCSH ontology.
>
>The cost of adding and editing individual headings seems to be one of
>the main arguments advanced for dumping (Calhoun) or de-emphasizing
>(UC's BSTF) LCSH. There is no doubt that it's relatively expensive for
>a person to analyze an item and then have to apply the proper heading.
>However, it is also expensive to do all the *other* things involved in
>acquiring and describing an item. Folks start off with "There's a of
>waste and inefficiency in traditional cataloging" and move straight on
>into "Burn the Red Books!" without really touching on any of the steps
>in-between. What *actual* part of the total cost is the
>subject-analysis-and-description-part? Big decisions need to be driven
>by data instead of by anecdote (or the giddy thrill of saying something
>Really Subversive).
>
>It's certainly possible that a good portion of these costs could be
>lessened with better tools. Indeed, Dorothea Salo recently
>(http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/archives/2007/04/24/irgrunt/) described
>looking in her catalog and finding that no two copies of Eugene Onegin
>had the same headings:
>
> "This isn't a cataloguer problem. It's a tools-and-processes
>problem. Cataloguing
> tools should have heuristics for recognizing a new translation
>of Eugene Onegin and
> pulling up the other records for such translations. Subject
>assignment at that point should
> be point-and-click, accept what's already in the catalogue
>(with, of course, an option to add
> new subjects if truly necessary-which I can't imagine it is
>terribly often!)."
>
>Again, this stuff isn't rocket science -- just missed opportunities. It
>is to be hoped that as more librarians start building their own tools
>(just as with catalog discovery layers) that we'll see some progress on
>this front.
>
>
>As for the second question, I really have no idea. We're currently in
>a situation (as much by historical accident as anything else) where LC
>is not merely the library for a very special constituency, but the
>de-facto national library as well. I imagine that riding herd over LCSH
>*is* expensive, and that to least some folks over there it looks like
>something of an unfunded mandate. Maybe we *do* need to start planning
>for a future where they just don't want to (or feel they can afford to)
>do it anymore.
>
>The problem for an LCSH sans LC is that controlled vocabularies have to
>be *controlled* somehow. Theoretical rigor with regards to
>broader/narrower/related headings would be nice as well, but at
>*minimum* there needs to be a set of agreed upon terms. Otherwise the
>whole notion of collocation falls apart.
>
>Do we invest The Power in a new authority (OCLC?, LibraryThing?) or do
>we attempt to decentralize? What would a radically decentralized
>Controlled Vocabulary look like in theoretical terms? (no, tag-clouds
>don't count) Are there any current examples we could look at for ideas?
>
>
>
>Ed Sperr
>Digital Services Consultant
>NELINET, Inc.
>153 Cordaville Rd. Suite 200 Southborough, MA
>(508) 597-1931 | (800) 635-4638 x1931
Karen Coyle - on the Road
kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu May 24 2007 - 08:04:48 EDT