Hi Jim,
I read through your announcement this weekend and now I'm taking a
closer look at the wiki.
I have a question and a comment.
You suggest that FRBR is obsolete, but that AACR2 is revisable. So, my
question is: Why do you think a 31-year old standard, AACR2 (1978) can
be updated, but not an 11-year old standard, FRBR (1998)?
Back in May, Tom Delsey, the editor of RDA, gave a presentation on
AACR2/RDA at a CLA pre-conference. He stated that a lot of the content
(of AACR2) hasn't changed. Rather the main change of RDA was structural
(based on FRBR). Maybe retraining will be less cumbersome than we think
if we emphasize the continuity of the two codes.
Chris
Christine Schwartz
Metadata Librarian
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries
christine.schwartz_at_ptsem.edu
> Jim Weinheimer wrote:
>
> Please post this to other lists or other sites as you think fit. JW
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Everyone knows the information world has been changing in response to
> the
> revolution in information technology and it is changing at an ever
> increasing pace. Many of our patrons have discovered they prefer to
use
> non-library tools to find, access, and use information in ways that
> could
> not have been imagined only 15 years ago. It seems natural to ask:
What
> can
> be the role of library catalogs, and even of librarians themselves, in
> a
> future that is so difficult to predict and that threatens to leave
them
> behind? Today it is amazing how quickly, easily, and inexpensively
> computers
> can generate cataloging information (or metadata); new, advanced
> algorithms
> attached to full-text searching have proven very popular with the
> general
> populace. While the power of these tools is undeniable, information
> experts
> can see quite clearly how these same tools can quietly hide
information
> as
> well, but such arguments can be extremely subtle.
>
>
>
> In the field of metadata creation, it would be futile to compete only
> in the
> areas of speed and quantity. Our advantages lie in the high quality
and
> the
> standards of the metadata we create, but since our patrons are finding
> other
> tools highly useful and in many cases, prefer them to our own, we must
> reconsider very precisely what the terms "quality" and "standards"
mean
> in
> today's environment; an environment that is truly shared and where our
> patrons can easily access materials that are completely outside a
> library's
> control. While we can agree that productivity must increase--and
> increase a
> lot--how can we ensure that quality and standards do not suffer? How
> can we
> take advantage of some of that metadata that is generated
> automatically, or
> the metadata created by other bibliographic communities, so that we
can
> improve the final products of all of our work and give our patrons
> tools
> they really want and need?
>
>
>
> Our new website attempts to find answers to some of these questions.
> The
> "Cooperative Cataloging Rules" is now available at
> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/. We want to announce
> its
> existence and to put out a general request for professional metadata
> creators to participate. The site has two primary purposes: 1) to
offer
> a
> serious alternative to RDA and 2) to offer a place for sharing
> bibliographic
> concepts within the general metadata community.
>
>
>
> 1) Alternative to RDA
>
> Many in the library cataloging community have expressed serious
> reservations
> about the wisdom of implementing RDA. They feel that while it will
> cause
> upheavals in the day to day work of catalogers, RDA will not solve the
> truly
> serious problems facing the cataloging community. These issues have
> been
> discussed in many places, including the published literature and many
> library email lists. We will not attempt to summarize the arguments
> here,
> but will merely state that the adoption of RDA is highly
controversial.
>
>
>
> Add to this the serious budgetary problems almost all libraries are
now
> facing, and it turns out the costs of retooling, retraining, rewriting
> local
> documentation, plus online subscriptions, make implementation of RDA
> beyond
> the abilities of many libraries, especially for an untested product.
>
>
>
> Still, libraries have legitimate concerns. They fear the old rules
will
> no
> longer be maintained and updated, therefore, they in essence have no
> choice
> except to adopt RDA because if they don't, they will remain forever
> stuck in
> the year 2009 (or 2010 or so, whenever RDA comes out).
>
>
>
> This is where the "Cooperative Cataloging Rules" step in. It will
build
> on
> the richness of the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations, which
> have
> been placed into a wiki for searching and further development. There
> are
> links into each rule of the International Standard Bibliographic
> Description
> (ISBD). We also have an international group of cataloging experts
> willing to
> become involved in this effort. It still needs the participation of
> many
> more cataloging experts.
>
>
>
> Speaking for myself, I embark upon this course with great hesitation
> since I
> have tremendous respect and appreciation for my colleagues who have
> labored
> so diligently over the creation of RDA. Nevertheless, having said this
> I
> must also take a stand and say that my library is not in a position to
> implement RDA, and I know there are many other libraries out there in
> the
> same predicament. We cannot afford the costs of retraining, retooling,
> online subscriptions and other unforeseen costs that inevitably arise
> in a
> huge project such as this. While I believe that it is vitally
important
> that
> traditional library cataloging adapt in answer to the changes in
> society and
> knowledge exchange, I have grave doubts whether RDA actually achieves
> this:
> does RDA provide either to libraries or to library patrons what they
> want
> and need? I think not, and many others share that opinion.
>
>
>
> For these reasons, alternatives must be found and with the Cooperative
> Cataloging Rules, there is one. All that librarians need do is retain
> their
> current copies of AACR2, supplemented by the LCRIs, but now these
> excellent,
> tried-and-true rules can continue to develop in a genuinely
> cooperative,
> global manner.
>
>
>
> In short, we are interested in giving libraries a real choice, plus we
> want
> to give concerned catalogers a voice in the future of our profession.
>
>
>
> Since nothing like this has ever been attempted before, it is
difficult
> to
> predict how it will develop. That it *can* work, I personally have no
> doubt,
> since we have examples of several successful open source projects
> before us.
> At this point, I foresee something similar to the development of the
> Linux
> operating system applied to library standards.
>
>
>
> Whether it will work is another matter entirely but we can try our
> best.
>
>
>
> In this part of the project, emphasis should be placed on practical
> matters.
> We should not get bogged down by major theoretical debates.
>
>
>
> There is another place for that.
>
>
>
> 2) The Conceptual Outline
>
> The second purpose of the The Cooperative Cataloging Rules is to try
to
> establish a common conceptual ground with other metadata communities
so
> that
> we can begin to understand one another. This is in anticipation of the
> time
> when different communities will genuinely share their metadata in a
> coherent
> fashion and perhaps in ways that we cannot imagine at this point in
> time. If
> we are serious about wanting to share information and cooperate, it
> cannot
> be a one-way street. While others need to understand libraries and
> library
> needs, we need to understand other communities and their needs. To
take
> only
> one example, while superficially the same, the edition information in
> an
> ONIX record and edition information in a record following AACR2 can be
> quite
> different conceptually, leading to great confusion among all
concerned.
> Add
> to this all of the newly appearing varieties of digital resources that
> are
> updated continually, with shared annotations, and the very idea of an
> edition becomes hard to pin down. If we wish to cooperate, it is
> vitally
> important that people try to understand one another. In the
Cooperative
> Cataloging Rules, there is a place for such a discussion.
>
>
>
> Before everyone can begin to work together, there needs to be an
> understanding of what others are doing, and this is especially
> important for
> those working at the practical, everyday level, not only for those at
> the
> top. This section of the Cooperative Cataloging Rules attempts to
> provide an
> area for the sharing and exchange of bibliographic concepts, with the
> emphasis on "cooperative." Currently, I have used the ISBD areas as
the
> foundation for this conceptual framework, but this will probably
change
> quickly.
>
>
>
> Just as in the other section, it is impossible at this point in time
to
> know
> how it will develop, or even if there will be any interest at all,
> although
> I suspect there will be. Yet, if the effort is never made, we will
also
> never know if it could succeed. Although we want everyone to be able
to
> see
> the site and link to it freely, at least at this point we want only
> professional catalogers and metadata creators to make changes to the
> pages,
> although we think anyone should be able to make comments.
>
>
>
> This can also be a place to share other useful information. At the
> moment, I
> confess these are primarily links into my own creations. For example,
I
> added a link to a page I made that I find indispensable, called
"Latest
> Library News" which keeps me up to date on library concerns, and
others
> may
> find it useful as well. There are links to specific cataloging guides.
> For
> example, I included the "Slavic Cataloging Manual," that I created
> originally, gave to ACRL, and is now maintained at Indiana University.
> I
> have also made links to other manuals that I worked on at Princeton
> University, but I have added additional pages that have been useful to
> me,
> from the University of Buffalo on DVDs and Streaming Video. There is a
> link
> to J. McRee Elrod's excellent Cataloguing Cheat Sheets, but of course
> there
> are many, many other wonderful guides as well and I hope that this
site
> may
> even be an incentive to create new and innovative cataloging guides
for
> sharing.
>
>
>
> Since metadata has become such an important concern, a project of
> metadata
> standards being developed in an open manner seems inevitable sooner or
> later, and we feel it is important for librarians and catalogers to be
> involved as deeply as possible. Otherwise, all of these important
> developments will take place without us.
>
>
>
> This project can only work with your help. Remember, this is not my
> project--I am only playing the role of initiator. Please consider
> participating! Go to
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/,
> click on "Join and Get Involved!" and follow the instructions.
>
>
>
> And please be patient, especially at first, since this is a new
> initiative
> and bugs will have to be worked out.
>
>
>
> James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
>
> Director of Library and Information Services
>
> The American University of Rome
>
> Rome, Italy
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 19 2009 - 10:13:57 EDT