Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> Are the Working Group's recommendations positive or negative; are they important, or are these simply the last gasps of a soon-to-be extinct animal?
>
I'm going to wait for the written report and time to read it to respond
in depth (I do much better with written communication), but based on the
outline summaries I've seen on blogs, me personally says:
* Generally very positive (although not unanimously).
* Yes, very important.
* Not the last gasps of a soon-to-be-extinct animal, but instead a plan
for saving that animal from extinction. Those recommendations are
generally the right sort to restore cataloging to it's proper place in
the current environment. I indeed think we NEED such a restored
cataloging--it would in fact be disastrous to us to allow cataloging to
go extinct, but I think that's in fact exactly what will happen
_without_ some reformation. I've made this point before because I think
there is a stereotype that the "cataloging reformers" are in fact
"anti-cataloging"---for me, nothing could be further from the truth, if
I thought cataloging was irrelevant then I woudn't care very much what
catalogers did, but that is not so.
My one more complete response I could make to the reccommendations
involves FRBR. We hear all the time "FRBR is untested, FRBR is
uncomplete, FRBR needs work." Now, as it happens, I in fact agree with
this completely. However, that doesn't change the fact that we
_desperately_ need what FRBR is trying to do---a formal and explicit
schematic of how we
model the 'bibliographic' (or 'information resource') universe. Some
agree that we desperately need this, some don't and think it's all a
bunch of hot air. I've made my case for why we need it before, and will
surely do so again. But if we agree that we desperately need this, AND
that FRBR is an untested and imperfect attempt to do this---then then
what? Either we continue to work to improve, analyze, empirically test
and validate, and fix FRBR; we start over from scratch with something
else (which will also need to then be tested by fire etc); or we abandon
FRBR and do nothing. I think the last would be disastrous. The second
also seems undesirable to me---FRBR is the thing we've got, and despite
being imperfect and unfinished, a lot of work has gone into it. How do
we get closer to our goal by starting over from scratch?
So to me, what we need is to convince people that indeed FRBR is an
unfinished product, and we need to put community resources behind
continued work on it. But what I worry is that all this talk of "FRBR
is unfinished" will instead lead to the second case (start over with
something else), or worst of all the last (abandon it with no
replacement). I believe that is in fact the _motivation_ of some of the
"FRBR is imperfect" chatter---and that others participating in it who do
NOT have that motivation may unintentionally contribute to those ends. I
think that would be disastrous.
Jonathan
> Jim Weinheimer
>
>
>> On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:44 PM, B.G. Sloan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Since we're getting close to Christmas 2007, I was wondering how
>>> the list will be evaluated?
>>>
>>
>> I never really figured out "how" the list will get evaluated, and I
>> am inclined to keep it running unless I hear from bunches o' people
>> to the contrary. (That is sort of dumb though. The people who don't
>> think it is worth it will have unsubscribed or never signed up in the
>> first place.)
>>
>> --
>> Eric Lease Morgan
>> University Libraries of Notre Dame
>>
>> (574) 631-8604
>>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Nov 28 2007 - 10:36:22 EST