It isn't unfair. It's a true statement, just perhaps not what you want to hear.
How can RDA be a closed project when the "committee" made available documents for public commenting?
>Some of us have done plenty of testing. Some of us have written bucketloads on the subject.
I admit I am behind in my reading but if you can give me a reference list that would help tremendously.
>we need it to have "change" as a foundation rather than as a sub-field
RDA doesn't refer to subfields. Perhaps you are referring to MARC?
>that doesn't cause trouble
Wow, good luck with that one.
>And we need it to be an open and collaboratory process, not closed and
committee-driven.
About ten years ago I talked with the person who was in charge of The Open Directory Project (http://www.dmoz.org/) because I was so excited about the idea of open indexing--letting everyone work on indexing websites. The guy--I forget his name now, apologies to him--had been a cataloger but was fed up the the "red tape" and all the rules, etc. So I asked him to describe how the open indexing worked, etc. They had such a response, so many people indexing, that they had to start grouping the indexing under "editors" so as to get control of the headings, etc. Every month or so the top-level editors would meet and decide how to finalize categories or change them, relay those changes down to the other editors, etc. He described how they had to start making rules for how things were indexed and that it was getting more and more complex and so on--ironic because he left cataloging for that very reason.
Similarly, the Open Source Classification (OSC) on LibraryThing.com is socially driven/collaborative but still operates sort of like a committee because classification levels are "proposed and ratified". As well--OSC is written "level-by-level" (DDC's classes, divisions, etc.), in a process of discussion, schedule proposals, adoption of a tentative schedule, collaborative assignment of a large number of books, statistical testing, more discussion, revision and "solidification." http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Open_Shelves_Classification )
This is what committees do whether they have ten people or a thousand. The more complex the project/rules/index it becomes the more structure is needed, more control is imposed, people start arguing, and eventually someone starts to complain about "closemindedness" and the "committee". It's impossible to avoid. (By the way, I looked up committee in my beat-up desk dictionary--"a self-constituted organization for the promotion of a common object.")
I'm willing to bet that in the course of the cooperative cataloging rules being created there will be some fundamental truths about information resource description realized and that these fundamentals will be the same as those found in any set of cataloging standards that we have now. (If not I'll eat my paper copy of AACR2) You want something rooted in the current times and not rooted in something 20 years ago---well, what are those fundamental roots to be?
Now, as far as the technology or encoding standards are concerned, ---good god yes, please do make something more snazzier and pragmatic.
most respectfully,
S.
**************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
**************************************************************
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen [alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:55 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cooperative Cataloging Rules Announcement
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 00:48, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_unt.edu> wrote:
> Let me offer something similar:
> Please be patient, especially at first, since RDA is a new initiative and bugs will have to be worked out.
That's somewhat unfair. RDA was a closed project rooted in AACR2 with
an FRBR sprinkle on top. This is an open project, based on a lot of
good practices with good goals sprinkled throughout.
> What I question is whether rejection of RDA is out of fear of change or some other motive.
"Some other." Mostly that RDA is old-fashioned and outdated out of the
box. The ideas are old, even the "new" sprinkles have gone out on
date. It's like buying a cake that's several years old. Not the best
way to celebrate your birthday.
> LC, NLM, and NAL are spearheading the testing of RDA. Testing that hasn't started
> yet and so there is not yet a substantial amount of data to analyze as to whether it
> will work, and if it doesn't, what has to be changed, modified, etc.
Some of us have done plenty of testing. Some of us have written
bucketloads on the subject. Some of us struggle to see relevance of
the "new" things. Some of us cannot fathom that RDA, even if proved to
work with our old systems, can help us make better systems in the
future.
So. We need something that's a bit snazzier (warning: personal bias),
something that's more to the times (ie. not rooted in what we did 20
years ago), and we need it to have "change" as a foundation rather
than as a sub-field. We need something that's pragmatic (we've got
lots of old tools still, but continuously build new), that doesn't
cause trouble, and certainly that open up opportunities for new ways
of doing things.
And we need it to be an open and collaboratory process, not closed and
committee-driven.
> At least we all seem to agree that AACR2 has had its time.
Amen.
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 18:32:30 EDT