Here's what I think would really be "next generation" as to cataloging.
When Ted gets those records from a vendor (or from a 'utility') that
need extensive cleanup, and Ted (or his local colleagues) put in the
time to do that cleanup---everyone else should get the benefit of those
changes, nearly automatically, cheaply, easily. Even if they have
already downloaded records for those items--the changes should be
seamlessly merged in. And, better yet---even if they downloaded records
for those same items from a _different_ vendor or utility (this part is
a technical challenge).
That's what I see as the real promising future of next generation
cataloging, allowing us to be more efficient without sacrificing control
or quality. We need to take advantage of what the internet gives us to
take 'cooperative cataloging' to a whole new level. It is a technical
challenge, but it's one our community should be working on. The fact
that we are not in control of our own software makes it hard though, it
may require cooperation amongst ILS vendors---or some vendor to take the
first step and leave everyone no choice but to follow.
[There is one way in which I would advocate _risking_ the sacrifice of
quality----it should not require extensive training or financial
commitment for Ted and his colleagues to be able to submit improvements
and corrections to this hypothetical 'cooperative environment'. We need
to lower the barriers. How far, I don't have a clear idea of. But it is
clear to me that they need to be lowered significantly, to succesfully
reduce duplication of effort. I shouldn't have to repeat what Ted simply
because he could not afford the 'certification' to submit to the
community. If that means an increased risk of bad data---that risk is
worth it, and balanced by all the _good_ data we will now have access
to. Bad data can always be corrected--in fact, we are ALREADY correcting
bad data, and duplicating effort at doing so, which is the whole problem
that needs to be solved.]
[This sort of plan may also require some surrender on the idea that each
of our libraries needs it's own special cataloging that is different
from every other library. I think many/most libraries have already given
up the ghost on this, voluntarily or at pressure?]
Jonathan
Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Thanks for the responses. I guessed it was something like what Erin
> described. Erin, what kind of cleanup do you do after the loads? Does
> this mean having to accept a lower quality record than you would've had
> otherwise? What have been the gains and losses from this arrangement?
>
> I understand one problem with "cleanup" of such records is that if the
> vendor, such as Serials Solutions, changes them in any way, your changes
> will generally be lost. You can ask them for certain general kinds of
> things, but you can't really "customize" individual records for the most
> part.
>
> As I think Charley suggested, though, the situation with monographs,
> even e-books, doesn't seem to be very comparable. Since they're not
> "continuing resources," after you acquire them, the records themselves
> should be stable and open to any cleanup you need to do. Though it is
> true, as with e-journals, that access to e-books is generally dependent
> on an external vendor.
>
> I worked in a library that bought monographic records from vendors for
> e-books and microfiche titles. They did require quite a bit of
> "cleanup": sometimes the original cataloger had done a pretty cursory
> job of subject analysis. Subject headings were real generic, as if the
> records had been done "on the fly."
>
> Sometimes they completely misstated the subject content of titles. For
> example, a number were microfiches of religious tracts belonging to the
> Anti-Slavery Collection, held at Oberlin College. Some had nothing to do
> with slavery, never mentioned it at all. They were on traditional
> religious topics like the need for salvation. But the cataloger had put
> "Slavery" on as the subject heading. Apparently, he wasn't sure what
> they were about and didn't have time to research the proper headings but
> had to put a subject on, so he used the most general heading for the
> entire collection of thousands of titles. It would've been better to
> have no subject.
>
> I think the real purpose of including those tracts in Oberlin's
> collection was to show that the same publishers who were publishing
> against slavery in the 19th century were also publishing on traditional
> religious topics. So I think that sort of "quick and dirty" subject
> cataloging doesn't do a service to researchers. But I'm not saying all
> vendor-supplied records are necessarily "quick and dirty." I suppose
> there might be lots of good ones.
>
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> (205)934-2461
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Erin Leach
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:48 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
>
> Long time reader, first time commenter...
>
> When I read this, I wonder if she's referring to the fact that
> institutions can buy vendor-generated MARC records for electronic
> serials.
>
> I'm a serials cataloger and my institution just purchased
> vendor-generated MARC records for our electronic serials holdings. Each
> month we get a file with new records, records that have been changed,
> and records to be deleted. These records have a generic note in the 856
> field, where our holdings statement used to be, and a URL that
> re-directs users to our A-Z list. The A-Z list is now where our holdings
> information sits and where the URL to the resource is. Having these
> records allows us to have individual records in our catalog for all of
> the titles we have access to at any given time--including aggregator
> databases. After each monthly record load, I do cleanup to our catalog.
>
> These records have certainly provided a change in my job description. I
> have moved from cataloging electronic serials and updating holdings
> statements to doing cleanup after monthly record loads.
>
> I suppose, if we assume that this is what Calhoun means, that catalogers
> will move from creating and editing records in a global database of
> shared records to doing database cleanup when purchased records are
> added to their catalog. I'm not sure how this is revolutionary, though,
> as libraries are already buying vendor-generated records for monographs.
>
>
> Erin Leach
> Catalog Librarian
> Washington University in St. Louis
> eleach_at_wustl.edu
> (314) 935-4823
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
>
> I'm curious to hear from a serials cataloger what the "enormous wave of
> change that passed through serials librarianship in the last ten years"
> is. Apparently it involved "bringing new automated techniques for record
> creation and maintenance and demanding new job descriptions, skill sets
> and tools," writes Calhoun. So, I guess she's saying a similar thing is
> going to happen with monographic cataloging, but we'd need to know what
> happened with serials cataloging to know what she's saying exactly.
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Jul 11 2007 - 08:35:11 EDT