fascinating discussion folks I've just been catching up on what everyone
has been saying.... but wanted to go back to an earlier note of Ted's:
Ted: "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'm not in agreement at all with doing more with less, I deplore
efficiency for the sake of efficiency; efficiency in one process may
save money there but cost money elsewhere - Karen's point about
materials that have been paid for waiting for cataloguing records is
well made. My vendor takes a long time to create video and DVD records,
we make a brief record and get the things on the shelf and then update
the record when the complete one arrives. Not exactly efficient but
some access to needed material is better than none. There is a step
before eliminating the rules and that is bending or changing the rules.
The catalogue record and user needs are inextricably linked, but
sometimes the very rules hinder the user. It is the ridigity of the AACR
rules that I decry from time to time ... I had a cataloguing teacher who
advised us that it was ok to break a cataloguing a rule as long as you
did it knowingly, purposefully and consistently. In previous places of
work, I've operated on that premise, always keeping the patron in mind,
but it horrifies most of the members in my consortium. Local needs often
differ from the needs of the larger community. And let's not forget,
cataloguing is a human endeavour and not all cataloguers will agree on
any given record. The idea of one or several sets of perfect master
records that we can all use is not a goal towards which we should
strive. Some duplication of effort due to changes/modifications and
tweaks will always be made.
Cynthia Williamson
Collection Management Librarian
Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology
Hamilton, ON
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Rules--was Calhoun at FoBC
> 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
> usercan find such and such." (Of course sometimes the "user" is
> anothercataloger, 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
> userneeds, 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
> thanwait for someone to catalogue it perfectly. Our library uses a
> vendorand 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.
> Howcan I tell instructors who are accustomed to getting a book
> purchasedfrom 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
> responsibleto deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that
> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communicationis prohibited. If this communication was received in
> error, please
> notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
> the original message.
>
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 - 11:53:37 EDT