Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Metadata, and along with it cataloging and controlled vocabularies,
> are by now probably an idea whose time has gone. MARC21 incarnations,
> certainly. RDA does little more than refine and extend Cutter's objects
> and Paris principles, it makes no inroads into content text indexing
> like the handling of ToC data as a minimum. It no more than mentions
> subject data elements when all OPACs are long since integrating subject
> access with name and title indexing plus whatever they can get from
> third party sources. To call RDA a code for the 21st century just
> looks a hoax, and the 21 in MARC21 a sad joke. RDA and MARC21 are
> not exactly bad at doing what they do, but nowadays we would need to
> do more and new and different things. Which does not mean all we
> used to do is now obsolete and no longer useful, it's only too
> expensive in more than one way.
While I agree that huge changes are happening, it seems to me that "metadata" is here to stay and will only grow in the future. The question is: will libraries and catalogers be a part of it? They have a very important place in that future *IF* they reconsider what their work really is, and if they can find it in their hearts to (shudder!) change. That is, *really* change.
The Semantic Web is a case in point. If we would focus on that, learn some terminology and some basic concepts, I think we could even take one of the leading roles in its development. Building the Semantic Web with our current tools, methods and procedures would be a total joke, but there are other possibilities.
> Summing up:
> 1. Quality collection building and metadata production is becoming
> unsustainable.
> 2. Metadata-free information seeking is highly popular.
> 3. Search has become a pervasive activity in which everyone
> consider themselves experts in no need of learning.
Concerning statement 1, I append to that "in the way it has traditionally been done in libraries." If we can figure out new ways to make ourselves far more productive (and I think there are many, many ways), then there is still a large chance of success. Perhaps one way of looking at ourselves will be as "quality-control" people who update user-contributed, or even automatically-produced metadata, New and more powerful quality-control tools could be envisioned and developed, plus perhaps tools to aid in user-contributed metadata. You don't need the resources of CERN to begin this type of development today and many of the standards already exist, such as the W3C creation of the Web Ontology Language, OWL (although what little I knew about it, I have completely forgotten!). These are the technologies and tools of the future, not RDA and MARC.
You may be correct concerning your cheerless conclusions for the future, but I hope our field will find it in themselves at least not to go quietly. At these times, I reflect on how weighed down Antonio Panizzi must have been when he discovered that the Royal Commission had been called. Everything he had done was to be called into question, and he would be meeting some really big, powerful opponents who did not like him one bit. He didn't give up, and gave it all he had. As a result of the Royal Commission, it was big news, people loved the argument and everybody talked about it, and it ended up being a huge bully pulpit that everyone could refer to. This led to the beginnings of truly shared cataloging work. Today, there could be some unknown opportunities if we should win.
Let's hope our generation is just as game for the fight!
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Tue Feb 24 2009 - 09:16:52 EST