Ed Speer raises some very pertinent questions regarding maintenance of
authority data. In addition to discussing these, I'd suggest some
action on the part of the cataloging community.
There is an opportunity now to demonstrate that a collective social
network of librarians can develop and maintain an authority data set for
the series work that LC is no longer doing and that PCC libraries have
not addressed beyond series they encounter if and when these libraries
want to trace them (for those PCC libraries that choose to trace series
- some, like LC, have decided not to) or that libraries feed to them (if
the PCC library staff are open to it and have the resources to do this
work on behalf of other libraries). Clearly, there is a perceived need
among catalogers and, in public libraries at least, among reference
staff.
I'd like to suggest that a wiki might be constructed in such a way that
library staff (and others if they are interested) can enter and edit
data fields for series authority data. The idea is that anyone can
contribute a new heading but that the collective wisdom and knowledge of
those who know how to construct and document AACR2 series name headings
and tracings would maintain the integrity of the data. There is a need
- I construct new series headings several times a week when they are not
on an OCLC record at all or are in a 490 0 field.
This (or some variant that is technically possible) could be a model,
albeit with all of the attendant committees and task forces and policies
and papers that such weighty matters require in the cataloging world (as
well as an enhanced "control" factor that Ed Speer aptly points out is
necessary), for maintenance of LCSH if and when LC ever lessens or
relinquishes its commitment to maintenance of the vocabulary.
However, I'm ignorant enough that the technical question of whether said
data in a wiki setting could be constructed in such a way to allow
export of MARC in a format that can be readily imported into a library
ILS is possible. I'm guessing it is but those of you who are export.
Certainly, the control fields might be a challenge.
If it is possible, let's do it whether it is sanctioned by NACO, ALCTS,
OCLC or anyone else. If it is useful, it flies - if not, it crashes and
some other solution to the lack of reliable ongoing series authority
maintenance for collective use is developed (or, as the case is now, is
not). Is protestation and a return to individual library
decision-making all that catalogers are capable of when faced with
changes that lessen what gets handed to them on a tarnished silver
platter? I don't think so - don't mourn, organize to take
responsibility for what is deemed important.
Allen Mullen
who is willing to devote some time off-work to helping develop and
maintain such a system
>
>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
>
Received on Thu May 24 2007 - 08:56:19 EDT