Cynthia,
You mentioned something that connected with some thoughts I've had
lately. I wish cataloging were taught at library schools in terms of
user tasks rather than as a "set of rules." Every time you're trained to
do a certain thing, it should be stated: "you're doing this so the user
can find such and such." (Of course sometimes the "user" is another
cataloger, as in "source of title" notes.)
I think a focus on cataloging as a set of rules has been harmful, at
least partly because when conceived that way, it's really easy to
justify eliminating it. If it's disconnected from the connection to user
needs, then why not eliminate something if you can save money?
I think the focus on rules may also serve to create a class of people
who just obediently follow them, without realizing the importance of
what they do. As Janet Swan Hill and one more person at FoBC pointed
out, cataloging agencies don't get much for the work they contribute.
Why should I make the record improvements Jonathan mentioned, if it's
just out of the goodness of my heart?
But as I believe Bob Wolven suggested in his summary, it's hard to see
how that can be remedied if management wants cataloging to be cheap.
Calhoun and others are, to some extent, asking us to "have faith" that
we'll be able to serve our users as well, or better, with less money and
staffing.
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 Cynthia Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:48 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
Hi Everyone - I will definitely go and listen to Rick Lugg's intro, I
completely agree that we need to let go of the idea of the perfect bib
record. It comes down to "description vs. access". I don't know where I
first heard that phrase (may well have been Karen Calhoun herself) but
it hits the right note for me. As someone who lives in both worlds -
Cataloguing and Information Services, I see both sides of this coin. We
really do have to focus on access not description. I'd rather have
material on the shelf quickly with a short, fairly accurate record than
wait for someone to catalogue it perfectly. Our library uses a vendor
and is part of a consortium and I often bemoan the lack of control I
have over the catalogue; my complaints usually involve turnaround time -
I want the materials I select on the shelf as quickly as possible. How
can I tell instructors who are accustomed to getting a book purchased
from Amazon in 24 hours that they'll have to wait for over a month for
something they want for their students to appear on the library
shelves???? However the next generation catalogue finally looks and
operates, I know my patrons will judge it by how easy it is to use not
by how accurately we follow cataloguing rules.
Cynthia Williamson
Collection Management Librarian
Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology
Hamilton, ON
L8N 3T2
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_KCOYLE.NET>
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
> Erin Leach wrote:
> > The problem, as you point out, is that the records you might buy
> aren't> as "good" as the work you might produce. I think that
> Calhoun would
> > argue that users want access to the information, even if the records
> > conveying that information isn't perfect. Calhoun might say that
> users> don't care as much about subject access as they do about
> whether or not
> > the URL is in the record or if the record can be found at all.
> >
> >
> Just back from the FoBC:
>
> Yes, this was the gist of her message, but also of the messages of
> manyother speakers as well. If you didn't listen to the webcast
> live, do
> listen to Rick Lugg's intro when it gets up online. He really set the
> tone for the meeting, and his point was that in order to function in
> this fast-moving world we are going to have to give up on the idea
> thatwe are creating "perfect" bib records. Many speakers made the
> point that
> we should accept copy from just about anywhere we can find it, and
> onlyfix anything that we think greatly hinders access. They also
> said that
> we should be spending much less time on regularly published works and
> more time on the unique items in our collections. As to Jonathan's
> pointabout sharing, there were a few "digs" at publishers and at
> OCLC for
> hindering sharing. This is an underlying issue that has not been
> broughtto the surface and I wonder when it will finally "hit the
> fan." We
> obviously can't rely on publisher data is a starting point for copy
> cataloging if we can't then share versions of that record with other
> libraries.
>
> I'll try to get my full notes up online shortly, but I really do
> recommend the webcasts when they appear, which should be in a few
> days.Especially the comments and questions, which were often more
> pointedthan the prepared speeches.
>
> kc
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please
notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
the original message.
Received on Wed Jul 11 2007 - 15:01:33 EDT