I have been involved in a few different discussions right now on different
lists and they are all interrelated, so I am getting confused as to what I
have written and read on each list. But perhaps I can sum up what I perceive
to be some basic issues between two major camps:
One camp believes that anything that comes from a non-librarian community
cannot be utilized by the library community without massive reworking.
Therefore, we can't take any metadata records or any non-library specific
software, at least not without massive reworking of it. In fact, this mostly
involves so much reworking that it is not worthwhile to take any of it in
the first place.
The other camp believes that we can take non-library metadata records and
non-library software and be able to give them a few little tweaks so that
they will work well enough for libraries.
My own opinion truly is split between the two: down deep, I agree with the
first camp, because I believe that libraries need tools that will do the
unique work that libraries need. Other institutions do not have the same
needs as libraries do, even huge corporate document repositories do not have
the need for, or the basic understanding of, e.g. textual variants (or a
multitude of other types of variants). Other institutions do not work with
the tremendous varieties of materials that are found in libraries (which
literally cover the entire gamut of human culture, in all languages and all
time periods). Although Microsoft or the United Nations or the British
Government have tremendous needs for information management, it still pales
in comparison with the almost unimaginable depth of a library collection as
exists, for example, at Princeton University, which has materials ranging
from the newest printed books, to early prints and drawings, early photos,
busts, manuscripts and palimpsests of the greatest antiquity, written in all
languages and on all sorts of surfaces from rock to parchment, old
recordings, maps and atlases, and on and on. I, and others who know more
than I do, could go on for hours just enumerating the different materials.
It is both a wonder and a true joy to behold. In the library projects I have
been involved in, the disasters often stem from an underestimation of the
complexity of the library and its holdings. This complexity does not exist
merely because librarians are stubborn--the complexity exists because the
materials and processes themselves are complex. Some IT people I have met do
not fully understand this.
But on the other hand, I have some knowledge of the new systems, and I know
they are so much more powerful, and imminently customizable, today than they
were 20 years ago, that well, maybe.... At least, it's worth a really,
serious try. I realize that the new tools are certainly far more powerful
than our traditional library-specific tools. We all know that our present
systems do not work very well at all. The card catalog was almost
perpetually broken at the end.
For me, the overarching point is that there is a massive amount of work
waiting out there: many catalogers desperately want to focus only on the
materials located within the physical confines of their own local libraries
(which is the way it has always been), while their users are focusing on the
immense number of internet resources. As a result, there are more materials
available now than there has ever been before--primarily through the
internet--and few libraries are even touching these types of materials,
aside from making a few links on separate webpages. So, our users are left
confused because they hear in the information literacy workshops conducted
by our reference librarians that they need to use the library catalog and
not trust Google and Yahoo, but then they discover that the only way of
finding these good materials on the web is to use Google and Yahoo because
there are no records for these things in the library catalog. No wonder our
users are confused. I believe that worthwhile web resources must go into the
library catalog, but there are just too many of them for us (Google Books
and the Internet Archive just scratch the surface of what is waiting!), and
consequently, all of these new web materials are going into a super-gigantic
backlog of almost unimaginable proportions. And our users genuinely want the
materials in this backlog. It's very understandable that no cataloger wants
to look into that backlog very closely because it's the biggest backlog
anybody has ever seen before. It's too disheartening and it's easier to
pretend it's not there. And this while our users turn to Google and Yahoo,
sneering at our catalogs.
I also know without a doubt that, barring any miracles, libraries will
definitely not be hiring tremendous numbers of new catalogers to get control
of these materials, and most probably there will be less help, especially
with the coming economic downturn that I am sure everyone is watching with
the same interest as I am. To sum up, we are in a serious dilemma and
absolutely need new ideas. Many may be looking forward to retirement so that
later generations can sort it out, but others want to do something.
Sadly, I see no really new ideas coming from the traditional library
community--at least nothing that can deal with the immensity of the tasks we
are facing. The talk is of RDA and while I respect and appreciate the great
effort that has gone into it, I honestly cannot see a single thing in it
that even suggests how RDA can aid in any of the challenges facing us. To me
(unfortunately) RDA is a total non-sequitur. It will just be something else
we will have to learn but it will achieve absolutely nothing. How in the
world is it going to help us deal with the rising tide of materials? By not
adding the place a publication?! Come on!
So, this is the situation as it stands now as I see it. If there is no
accommodation between these camps, what are we to do? One side says that we
must keep high standards; the other says we have to drop standards to stay
in the game.
When something like this has happened in more life-threatening areas such as
food, medicine, and water, and nobody could reach agreements on standards,
it was the government that forced people to cooperate: they essentially
decreed that everybody *will* conform to minimal standards, and
transgressors will be fined, maybe jailed, and nobody will be able to buy
any products you make. That's why there is no chalk in our bread anymore.
There are lots of people making metadata out there. There are lots of people
making various types of databases, or at least computer applications of
relevance to libraries. Are we in the same situation as those who refused to
agree to standards in the case of food and water? I don't think the
government will force us to change, and if we cannot find it within
ourselves to change for the betterment of all, does that mean we will
forever be stuck on the merry-go-round of mutual recriminations with no one
willing to change?
Perhaps so, but I hope that we can find it within ourselves to compromise
for the ultimate good of all. Libraries do not have the resources to be
major players today and are not in charge of these decisions. I don't know
if they ever were genuinely major players, but they certainly are not today.
To get the cooperation of these other players, we must think in terms of
minimal-level quality, and above all: what will help our users. It's
unfortunate that there is not a one-to-one correspondence among different
metadata repositories, but I have to ask: how does it help our users when we
simply ignore other repositories and web materials they need, and leave our
users to sink or swim for themselves? We need to build tools to help our
users search and use these other resources in the best ways possible, even
though we may not agree with other metadata standards or the final product
is not as good as we would like. While many institutional repositories think
only in terms of their own institutions, I believe it is incumbent upon
librarians to go beyond that today, to create something that at least
attempts to bring everything of value together. Maybe it won't be perfect;
maybe it won't be 100% consistent, but none of our tools are perfect or 100%
consistent today. Still, we can make tools that offer substantial help to
our users instead of leaving them with nothing except "Here are our
materials, and good luck on finding and using other resources!"
I hope that the metadata community can cooperate. Many say that I am an
idealist, and they are probably right. I guess that I am just too frightened
by the alternative that if library catalogers do not change, then we can be
discarded along with our catalogs, and I can't imagine how any library could
function without a reliable catalog. The future would not be very promising
for our profession.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Received on Thu Sep 25 2008 - 05:12:41 EDT