I guess I'm looking at it from another way. I've been a traditional cataloger for awhile now, and you can see that I am not for throwing out all of the old stuff. Being a cataloger; working with an old item, and immediately after it a new item; working with new "metadata" records, but also puzzling over the old cards (and in my case, printed book catalogs) by my earlier colleagues, some of whom were very, very good, perhaps gives me a different viewpoint.
As a cataloger, I am very concerned about making sure that the records (and materials) processed before my time are still given sufficient access. I don't want to think that the materials cataloged 100 years ago are much less important to my users than the current materials. So in this sense, catalogers are very "conservative" in that they don't believe so much in the idea that "legacy data" is "less useful data." In their experience, if you decide to do everything new, that means either ignoring all of the old materials, or working yourself to death to bring to old records up to the new standards.
Unfortunately for many people, the *final product* they create is often confused with the *methods used* to create it. For example, there is a big controversy in Italy over how to make certain foods, such as cheese or ham. If the final product is just as good as doing it the old way, but you use automated methods, is it inferior? Some people say definitely yes. They have even started a movement called the "Slow Food Movement." I am a fanatic follower of their restaurant suggestions since the food is normally excellent, but the automated methods don't seem so bad to me--I have had cheeses, hams and so on that can be just as fabulous as those made in the old ways!
It seems to me as if this same idea is at work in many areas--including libraries--where there is a type of "Slow Cataloging Movement." While I think it is vital that the records created by our predecessors need to work well with the new records, some catalogers confuse the *method for creating records* with the *records themselves.* Therefore, any change in methods for creating records can be seen as making the final product inferior. I don't agree with this at all, and in fact, I think new methods may make for much better records, and I hope, with even higher standards.
So, I am a "conservative" when it comes to the final product, in this case, the metadata record. While it can get better and be used in really strange ways, that's fine, but we should be very careful before we decide that our records can get worse in any way.
In the actual process of creating the record however, we can go crazy: international, shared cataloging/metadata workflows, page scrapes for creating initial cataloging, author contributed copy cataloging, automated anything. I figure that even if--in a certain situation--there is a savings of 5% of labor, then that 5% can be added to 2% from another place, to 10% from another, and that adds up to real savings and efficiencies.
Lots of these attempts may not work, but they can be tried, so long as failures can be readily admitted and lessons learned to try something else.
I think it's a fabulous and very interesting time right now. Do I think any of the ideas I have will be tried anywhere? Probably not, but it's still a very unique time to exercise the imagination.
Regards,
Jim Weinheimer
> Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM> writes:
>
> Oh no, I fully understand where the reality of this is ;
> http://shelter.nu/blog/2007/08/resignation.html
>
> Working in the library field in Australia, you must be familiar
> with Sean McMullen's "Souls in the Great Machine."
>
> I'm at the other end of my career, but occasionally wonder how
> much longer I can stand it.
>
> --
> Selden Deemer, Library Systems Administrator
> Emory University Libraries
> Atlanta, Georgia
> EMAIL: libssd_at_emory.edu
> PHONE: 404-727-0271
> FAX: 404-727-0827
Received on Thu Aug 30 2007 - 04:05:17 EDT