Sharon Foster wrote:
>
> There are at least four subsystems being discussed here. The first is
> the internal representation of the data. There is the cataloger's view
> of the data. There is the patron's view of the data. Lastly, there is
> the external representation, whereby data is exchanged with other
> installations.
Talking about NGC, what matters most is the _content_ of the
data, not the structure. Time and again, this discussion drifts off
into heated but pointless debates on formats and data structure.
Meager content cannot be upgraded by any amount of formatting
or representation. Inconsistent content (the biggest issue) will yield
unsatisfactory retrieval results no matter how these are presented or
coded.
Catalog records as we know them are not full text, and no amount of
structuring can do anything about that, only more input could do that.
At least, include ToC data, by all means, but not even this is part
of what's now under way under the big name of RDA. Only in cooperating,
however, can libraries hope to achieve some decent coverage of
their holdings with ToC data. Consortiums in Germany are on their
way to get a grip on this, even to some amount retrospectively. This
will serve as a welcome upgrade to some of the lean data we have from
retro conversions of card catalogs.
There's no technical reason this couldn't be organized in a worldwide
cooperation and exchange. We ingest LC's ToC data already, BTW.
And so does OhioLink, if I'm not wrong.
Unfortunately, those who are in charge of the rules for description
and access, so vital for the quality of catalog content, are not
discussing these matters, they are creating RDA. And unfortunately
the RDA powers are not listening in here, nor (apparently) is there
much listening the other way.
RDA addresses only the traditional, formal aspects of cataloging, not
the subject aspects - the ones far more relevant. But then, everything
beyond the traditional data, with the possible inclusion of ToC, tends
to require more resources than we have.
Another thought:
Legacy data, a heavy burden of inconsistencies and inadequacies, may
still be enough to usefully enrich Google Books. Determined as they are
at G. to do their job with the least amount of metadata, they'll go to
great lengths to avoid it, but G.B. and libraries _might_ profit
a lot from each other. I think there are signs of hope in the
cooperation with WorldCat. It needs to be enhanced by connectivity
provided in local systems.
If this doesn't work out but libraries go downhill because their
value is no longer appreciated and G.B. goes uphill because of its ease
of use and always spewing out _some_ bucketload of "results" in a split
second, and if library resources are less and less appreciated just
because they are more difficult to find and obtain and not because of a
lack of quality, then that will indeed be reason for resignation.
Library attendance and use here, BTW, definitely doesn't point that way.
Books _are_ in demand and the library as a place is also in demand,
we even got money from university administration to extend hours and
buy more books.
B.Eversberg
Received on Wed Aug 29 2007 - 08:44:30 EDT