Cynthia:
"of course the point of description is access and the two should be
equivalent but they started to separate into two different things the
moment keyword searching of a catalogue became possible.
... we need to concede that being overly fussy about description isn't
really helping our patrons and they are the reason we do what we do."
I have looked a little bit at Andrew Pace's PowerPoint that he gave at
the first meeting of the LOC working group on bibliographic control at
Google headquarters and from what I can gather there, people who use the
faceted Endeca catalog really take advantage of LCC classification and
LCSH structures - more so than the other options. I get the impression
that a lot of people who use this system seem to like it and find it
useful. Am I wrong to think that a big part of their liking it probably
has to do with the fact that these descriptive and vocabulary -
controlled structures (LCC and LCSH) are being taken greater advantage
of, being presented to them in a way that's easy to use, and hence, in
this way, are increasing access?
So Cynthia, when you say, "I know my patrons will judge [the next
generation catalog] by how easy it is to use not by how accurately we
follow cataloguing rules", I sympathize with you here, but wonder if
this is not a false dichotomy of sorts.
Of course we want a situation where we can make items available quickly.
But if people can only find materials they know about beforehand (known
author or title) - but because of shoddy LCC and LCSH description don't
find ones that they didn't know about and might have been very relevant
to them - we have a problem, right?
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Cynthia Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:33 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
We probably digress from the purpose of this list and yes indeed its a
huge debate but I kinda feel like going there for a moment ... of course
the point of description is access and the two should be equivalent but
they started to separate into two different things the moment keyword
searching of a catalogue became possible. I don't believe for a minute
that we have to throw in the towel totally but we need to concede that
being overly fussy about description isn't really helping our patrons
and they are the reason we do what we do. I'll stop now, I don't think
there is much new to say on this topic, unless someone knows how to get
the two sides of the debate to come together (closer at least)???
Cynthia Williamson
Collection Management Librarian
Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology
Hamilton, ON
L8N 3T2
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
> Cynthia Williamson wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> Of course, the idea that these are two different things is somewhat
> disastrous. The cataloging rules are supposed to be all about
> making the
> catalog easy to use for what patrons need it for, are they not?
> Whetherthey are currently succesful at this--and even how we know
> if they are,
> and if we have enough and the right kind of evidence to know if they
> are--is apparently a topic of great dispute.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > 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
>
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 Thu Jul 12 2007 - 07:48:11 EDT