James Weinheimer:
"Another thing I believe is missing--at least from my reading of it--is
a sense of the unity of the catalog as an entity. As an example, you
mention the whole-part relationship is not handled very well. That may
be true in one sense within an individual record, but if you take the
440, 490/8xx methods for series/analyzed serial control, the catalog as
a whole functions. There may not be a separate record for the serial
aspect (except as an authority record) but the arrangement in the
catalog, by using the series heading recreates the whole."
Here is a recent talk that relates to these issues and I think is
well-worth listening to. Don't let its 90 minute length scare you:
http://www.catalogingfutures.com/catalogingfutures/2007/11/essential-lis
te.html.
It is called "The Genius of Cataloging" by Francis Miska, and I read
about it on Christine Schwartz's "Cataloging Futures" blog (top blog on
cataloging in my opinion - very thoughtful) and Mark Linder's "Off the
Mark" blog. This talk was also recently referenced to by J. McRee (Mac)
Elrod on the AUTOCAT discussion list.
In it, Miska talks about how catalogers "connect informational objects
and informational object users". They create a useful intellectual
space for the users (that has sense and relationships built into it) -
it should really be an idea exploration device. Our users, he argues,
are often grasping... they don't know how to think about something they
are interested in... the catalog should help people to think about the
things they are interested in (i.e. its not just for "mark and park,
inventory"). The catalog is logical *in a loose sense*, meaning simply
that it is purposefully arranged... ordered... it corresponds to real
lives of real people. It is "purposeful and forceful", but not
"rigorously logical".
One thing about the talk - it makes you realize the task is not an easy
one for sure, but is going to require a lot of dedication from some very
gifted person(s). I think his talk brings out nicely the empirical
realities (not positivism / empiricism) the catalog deals with. Give it
a listen.
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:53 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] NGC4LIB evaluation?
Bernhard Eversbergwrote:
> I mean E-R linking.
> Where MARC now has a name or subject heading (100, 110, ... 650 ...),
> there's just the text string of the heading. What belongs there to
make
> it more reliable and versatile is the control number of the authority
> record.
> And so with all additional fields as they might be required by RDA
> to establish "relationships" between "entities". Any
> "entity" will
> be represented by a record (or what else?), and a record needs to have
> an address. (It can be wrapped into a URL whenever communicated in
> an HTML page, but in essence it will always be a control number.)
>
> In current MARC, there are no reliable means at all to link
> bibliographic records with each other! We are badly in need of this
> for whole-part relationships, like multipart records, and then all
> the other work - expression - manifestation relationships envisaged
> by FRBR and RDA. This has been known for a long time, but what has
> MARBI done about it?
Yes, this should have been discussed from a long time back. I suspect
that one of the problems of MARBI handling it is because of the
limitations of the ISO2709 format of MARC. In the MARCXML versions, this
sort of linking is more or less child's play. RDF is entirely based on
it.
I still believe that FRBR is primarily a look backward instead of a look
forward. I see it much more of an explanation of how traditional library
bibliographic records are structured instead of looking beyond. When I
first read it, I couldn't understand a word and felt like a fool, so I
actually read it again. The second time I understood it and realized
that I knew it all already. It just restates traditional library
practice in different ways and using new terminology.
I realize that FRBR is supposed to give a "generalized view of the
bibliographic universe" but that is a huge task and I don't think they
succeeded. I'm not faulting them--maybe when they did it, it was simply
in a time when too many things were changing too quickly. I don't know.
Another thing I believe is missing--at least from my reading of it--is a
sense of the unity of the catalog as an entity. As an example, you
mention the whole-part relationship is not handled very well. That may
be true in one sense within an individual record, but if you take the
440, 490/8xx methods for series/analyzed serial control, the catalog as
a whole functions. There may not be a separate record for the serial
aspect (except as an authority record) but the arrangement in the
catalog, by using the series heading recreates the whole.
Jim
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Thu Nov 29 2007 - 09:26:04 EST