There were various suggestions at the FoBC for how to manage
"cooperation" using incentives or by developing a "barter" economy for
bibliographic records. The thing is we've come to think of them as being
free, which they really aren't, and somehow our "due." Like any other
social cooperation, people need to have a reason to be part of it. I
think we could develop that kind of social sharing but we'll have to get
rid of some of our current assumptions about where bibliographic records
come from. It would help, too, if all records could be shared, which
isn't the case today.
kc
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>> Why should I make the record improvements Jonathan mentioned, if it's
>> just out of the goodness of my heart?
>>
> I thought you said you were _already_ making them, for the presumed use
> of your own users? If you are already doing that anyway, would you
> really mind sharing it with others with no additional gain except the
> benefit of the library community (and the fact that you will mutually
> benefit from this strengthened community, in a sort of generalized
> reciprocity).
>
> The problem I see is that there are all these record improvemetns many
> people are ALREADY making, but in fact many people need to make again
> and again, duplicating effort. So from that perspective, there is no
> question "why would I do that work", that work is already being done, so
> apparently you already have good enough reason to do it--but the product
> of that work is not being shared very effectively.
>
> But, there is indeed a 'tragedy of the commons' issue there. Right now,
> many people are already making those record improvements---because they
> believe they have to, if they want to get those improvements. If such a
> technical infrastructure allowing better sharing existed, would all
> those institutions stop making the improvements, hoping that 'somebody
> else' would, and they could just take advantage of them for cheap? If
> everyone is waiting for 'somebody else', then nobody's doing anything,
> indeed.
>
> Now, the fact of the matter is, there is a whole lot of duplication of
> effort right now. So from an objective point of view, it should be
> possible to 'cooperatively' share more than we are, reduce duplication
> of effort, and thereby get better data _without increasing person hours
> spent_. Should be possible, but socially politically, how do you pull
> this off without a 'tragedy of the commons'? Maybe that's the situation
> we're already in, maybe that's why our infrastrucutre of cooperation is
> what it is, and we have so much duplication of effort. I don't know.
> It's a political/social challenge as well as a technical to improve our
> infrastructure of cooperation. But I think it's something we've got to
> pull off somehow, to maintain effectiveness.
>
> It is indeed a question of leadership within cataloging departments and
> within libraries.
>
> Jonathan
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jul 11 2007 - 20:01:45 EDT