Karen Coyle wrote:
> But there are definitely some
> problems with the data in our current environment. As an example, one
> thing that we have all over others is our use of controlled vocabularies
> and authoritative forms of names. But our authority data is designed to
> aid the *creation* of authoritative forms, not the use of those forms in
> a system. The LCSH authority records are virtually useless (ok, maybe I
> exaggerate) because they are based on instructions for catalogers and
> don't include the authoritative headings nor the proper references for
> an online catalog. I think that if we were to re-design our data with
> systems in mind, rather than basing our data on the cataloging rules,
> then we could greatly improve the catalog itself.
I'm not sure I understand about the uselessness of authority records. I certainly won't argue that the way they have been implemented in current OPACs (that word again!) is very poor indeed, but I can't believe that matters have changed so fundamentally that someone who is searching for Léon Nikolaevitch Tolstoi does not want to know that the works by this person can be found by searching under Tolstoy, Leo, graf, 1828-1910. It doesn't matter whether they happen to "agree with the heading" or not. This is how the system works. I think people still want and expect this level of access. The authority record provides this and many other cross-references, and no other tool in the world does this, that I am aware of.
In fact, when I have mentioned these sorts of issues to non-specialists, they are absolutely shocked that Google does not--and cannot--provide similar access. This should not be surprising since it seems to be common sense that when someone searches for "wwi" in Google, the result they are looking at is everything on World War 1. Of course, this is not at all true and when you point it out to them, it's not that complicated of an issue to grasp and they begin to see what is happening. I think one of our tasks is to demonstrate this to people so that they themselves can see precisely how a Google result differs from the result in a traditional bibliographical tool.
Certainly, this system could be, and should be, improved . Authority records are some of the most underused tools in the library. They should have many more cross-references, especially the subject headings. They should be included with keyword searches. The browse capability is very poorly implemented in our current catalogs, and I would say, almost useless. One bright spot is OCLC's Worldcat Identities which experiments with some of this information.
Another issue is where you say, "I think that if we were to re-design our data with systems in mind, rather than basing our data on the cataloging rules, then we could greatly improve the catalog itself." I am not sure I agree with this. It is my belief that we should look first at the task, then design the information necessary to achieve that task, and finally to design the computer system. I have been involved in several projects where we wanted to include certain information, but it was nixed because "the system can't utilize it." Of course, in just a year or two, the system was modified or a new system came along that could do what we wanted. It is my experience that systems will do what you want today, so the focus should be on expanding our imaginations and not on the capabilities of current computer systems. The system can be built and we should insist on it.
In this case, the current cataloging rules are based on the tasks set so long ago in Cutter's time. I personally believe that all of those tasks ("Objects" in his terminology) are still just as valid today as ever. It's hard to believe, but all of the voluminous cataloging rules are based on those few tasks! The way he suggests to solve those tasks (his "Means") may not be the way to go in many cases today and should be rethought.
Does anyone object to this? Is there any evidence that people today do not want to know what a collection has by its authors, titles
, and subjects? Do they not want help in deciding which version (edition) to choose? Of course, they want more than just this today (for example, what is "a collection" today?), and that is fine, so this list needs to be expanded. It has been my experience that people believe they already have these capabilities in Google and Yahoo, but they do not. Without evidence that people no longer need or want this level of access, we should not eliminate what is there now.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Wed Aug 22 2007 - 01:17:28 EDT