Jonathan,
Yes, I am doing them when I can. But maybe I shouldn't. I suppose it
depresses my productivity. Someone who never stops to do such things may
have more impressive productivity stats, which are very emphasized at
this point in the library world.
But I think the point Janet Swan Hill made was about "cataloging
agencies," as opposed to catalogers. When I say "cataloging agencies," I
mean the libraries that contribute or use cataloging records. They're
encouraged to engage in data improvement but don't really get anything
for doing so. So the real cost of cataloging is somewhat masked by their
willingness to do these things for free. And if you can get someone to
do something free, it's pretty easy to imagine getting them to do more
for free.
I agree with you that more ways should be found to share data. When I
was reading your post from earlier today, it made me think of how
Weinberger describes Wikipedia. An entry in Wikipedia is okay as long as
no one is still trying to edit it. Maybe it would be good to give up on
the idea that only certain people are qualified to create or edit
high-quality records. For example, there is often an assumption that PCC
(Program for Cooperative Cataloging) records are bound to be better than
non-PCC records, and sometimes that's questionable.
OCLC does have a program for notifying a library if a record they've
used has been "upgraded" by someone. I wonder how possible it would be
to dynamically upgrade different copies of a record without going
through a central "clearinghouse" like OCLC. But then I'm not a software
expert, so maybe it's more possible than I think.
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 Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:33 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Rules--was Calhoun at FoBC
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
Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 05:31:26 EDT