Ross and Alexander,
Thanks for the really gracious replies. And I also realized yesterday
that I was needlessly argumentative in bringing up the question to Will:
"You're not suggesting we have to trust you that those systems are
better than our current ones, are you?" That's asking for an argument,
which appears kind of counterproductive.
Libraries will need the work of both tech savvy people like you and more
"traditionalist" ones like me. We are carrying the accumulated knowledge
of humanity into the future, so both are necessary.
Thanks again, Ted.
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 Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:40 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Hot (MARC) metadata!
On 8/9/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> Ross,
> I'm a cataloger, working at a time when there's a lot of discussion
> about the future of cataloging. So I am qualified to say "caution is
> reasonable."
>
Ok, fair enough. I think I am also qualified to say that viewpoint
could be perceived as "self-interested". At the end of the day we are
both trying to improve discovery and access of information to people
who are looking for it. I have trust in you as a cataloger to
describe and organize information. Right now there are constraints
that you, as a cataloger, operate under, solely based on 40 year old
technology that you have been tasked to work within.
Do you care how your data is stored? How it's transmitted?
If I, as a technologist, came to you and said, "we now have technology
that can much more efficiently and accurately allow you to define and
classify items and still degrades nicely to MARC" why would you be
skeptical of this?
I do think there is an intersection. The technology and the
cataloging /do/ have to influence each other at some point, but that
dialog hasn't happened in a very long time.
> I have never said I knew as much about computer programming as others.
> But I'm very conscious of the quality of the product I produce for
> users. Often when I enter a cataloging record in our database, I test
it
> out for myself from the OPAC side to see if the various search
elements
> are retrievable. I also showed last week that I was willing to try
> detailed searches of others' catalogs. So I know something about what
> works in catalogs and what doesn't.
But this goes back to the original point. All of these catalogs are
based on the same concepts, the same model. The catalog in this
scenario becomes the end-point; an expectation that the data model is
as good as it gets, we're just swapping out different (yet inherently
similar) interfaces to search it.
My argument is that I think we need to reconsider how we define our
data given the way that technology has changed to better access it.
This could very likely mean no change in the way that you would
catalog an item. The difference may be completely in the way that
your data is stored and how objects relate (for example, the
100/110/111 fields may instead be identifiers pointing towards an
'identity' record). Realistically, if the functionality of MARC could
be replicated (and, for the sake of argument, let's say 'enhanced'),
do you, as a cataloger, really care if it's actually RDF?
>
> This is a "NextGen" list. That means that people like me are qualified
> to express opinions. But I do think we should, perhaps, defer to some
> extent to those who are more involved in the "leading edge" of catalog
> development. So I will make an effort not to impede that. However, I
> think reporting on Martha Yee's new subject browse interface last week
> was a good contribution to the list. And then of course when people
> criticized it, it was reasonable to respond.
>
No argument here, really.
> On my qualifications, I think it's also important to distinguish
> somewhat between cataloging as a language of description and catalogs
as
> access systems. It's possible to know a lot about one without knowing
a
> lot about the other. They're both important.
I think cataloging is important. No disagreement whatsoever. I stand
by my earlier statement that "discovery of information" should be the
end-result, however, not the catalog. The catalog as we know it is
optional. In my opinion, we are blindly holding on to it uncritically
instead of working to improve the discovery of information.
>
> But there was some competition. The Soviet Union developed a space
> shuttle, and I understand that after its fall, the Russians haven't
been
> able to use the shuttle. It's too expensive for them.
>
This isn't exactly the same. The space race was a pissing contest
that two highly militarized countries threw a lot of money at to prove
superiority over one another.
> The main threat to libraries today is not the limitations of our
> catalogs, but the general tendency to starve libraries and other
> institutions of public education of the funding we need to do our jobs
> well. That's why caution is important now, because there's a danger
> we'll give up important tools out of a false faith that "technology
will
> fix everything." Faith in the private sector can contribute to that
> temptation.
>
This paints me as some sort of free market capitalist technosycophant.
I didn't name my son Che for him not to help the workers rise up and
seize the means of production.
It's not my motivation, anyway. In fact, I want technology to help
you to do your job (and my job) even more effectively, not to replace
you. I don't want Robocataloger2000. I would much rather work with
Ted Gemberling, UAB Lister Hill Library, to design the most effective
means for him to catalog something that ensures the most accurate,
efficient and simple discovery of it to users.
-Ross.
Received on Fri Aug 10 2007 - 12:07:19 EDT