James wrote:
>It was never tested among the non-library community (that I know of) and what it says is certainly highly >dubious in today's world, which has new tools that were completely unknown in the 1990s, e.g. pre-Google, >pre-Web2.0.
Can anyone give information on any tests completed in the non-library community? I would be interested in those.
>Nobody could have predicted the explosion that has occurred
I beg to differ. We've seen this in the past--post WWII explosion of scientific literature which in turn provided the stimulus for classification research, automated abstracting, punchcard technology, etc. I would go so far as to say this scenario has played itself over and over throughout history. Perhaps we should say we didn't study our history enough to anticipate the "explosion".
>the public likes the new tools and prefers them to ours in many, many ways.
Which public? Show the data. Otherwise I feel it is just a broad generalization based on the preferences of one group of users, those who are online, as opposed to users across the board. Case in point, the OCLC study on the perception of libraries---they only surveyed people who were online but then generalized the findings as if it represented everyone.
>We may be looking at a time, perhaps very soon, a time period measured in
>months instead of decades, when someone can get a bachelor's degree without
>ever setting foot into a library. How much longer will it be before they can
>get a master's, or PhD?
This is already happening. But, perhaps it is too soon to see if these method of education provides high quality people. I've seen undergrads who boast getting their degrees without ever having set foot in the library---I bet some of them on are Wall Street right now. The creators of Google are of the same cut---in researching their beginnings I finally had to conclude they were the type of guys who hated going to the library and instead wanted the information to come to them so they started downloading as much Web content as they could, gave up on their PhD's in computer science and got financial backing. The rest is as we see it today. Brin's recent op-ed in NYT proves he has no clue what library's can do, have done, and have done well.
>Exactly what will someone be able to do with a record created
>in RDA that they cannot do today? Will RDA make it easier to get
>bibliographic records from other entities? Does RDA create anything that
>people want and is worth the cost?
Isn't the point of testing RDA to answer questions such as these? If we haven't tested yet, then we can't make conclusions yet. Someone posted earlier there has been testing but my request for citations has not materialized.
It seems, as well, that there is a mixing of the construction of bibliographic data and the DISPLAY of that data to the user. How do you address this in your arguments?
>I looked around for a genuine choice and found the Cooperative Cataloging
>Rules, which provides the choice for libraries who cannot, or prefer not to
>implement RDA.
So, if RDA were offered for free then these libraries would use it? If not, then who pays for training them with alternate rules such as those of the Cooperative Cataloging Rules? I'm hearing that the major objection is the cost of implementation? Just want to be clear.
Also, you speak of the "new world" but I ask, again, whose (sp?) new world? Does it include all users of information or just a subset who happen to be online more so than someone who doesn't even own a computer?
Just playing devil's advocate. ;-)
**************************************************************
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 James Weinheimer [j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:37 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cooperative Cataloging Rules Announcement
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:53:04 -0400, Schwartz, Christine
<christine.schwartz_at_PTSEM.EDU> wrote:
>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)?
Hi Christine,
Thanks for some good questions. I'll try to answer them:
FRBR is a theoretical framework, not a standard. It purports to define what
makes a bibliographic record functional, or not. FRBR states that for a
record to function, it must allow people to "find, identify, select, and
obtain" "works, expressions, manifestations and items." It was never tested
among the non-library community (that I know of) and what it says is
certainly highly dubious in today's world, which has new tools that were
completely unknown in the 1990s, e.g. pre-Google, pre-Web2.0. In my own
opinion, what FRBR actually does is to describe the library-centric view of
the information universe as it stood in the 1990s. (But I reiterate that I
am not finding fault with anyone. Nobody could have predicted the explosion
that has occurred) Also, and this is very important: the public likes the
new tools and prefers them to ours in many, many ways. Ever newer tools
appear every day and we are living through a time of tremendous creativity,
innovation and ferment in the information world. With the Google Books
project and the popularity of open access plus new projects, we undoubtedly
are in for even more change, e.g. see the latest in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802360.html.
We may be looking at a time, perhaps very soon, a time period measured in
months instead of decades, when someone can get a bachelor's degree without
ever setting foot into a library. How much longer will it be before they can
get a master's, or PhD? I don't think too many people will maintain that it
can never happen and perhaps it will come much sooner than we can imagine
right now.
AACR2 is a well-established standard that has been continually updated both
with published revisions and the LCRIs, so it does not really date from
1978. Actually, it's FRBR that has not been updated. Although there is a
theoretical framework operating in the background, AACR2 itself is not
theoretical but a highly practical document, and does not talk about record
structure or anything like that; it tells you what information is important
and how to input it.
>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.
This is my understanding as well. Therefore, if things are changing so
little, and retraining will be minimal (essentially learning how to navigate
the reorganized rules and learning new rule numbers, which means that all
local documentation will have to change as well), it is natural to ask: why
do it at all? While our day-to-day work will definitely be disrupted and
made more expensive with online subscriptions, what difference will it make
to our users? Exactly what will someone be able to do with a record created
in RDA that they cannot do today? Will RDA make it easier to get
bibliographic records from other entities? Does RDA create anything that
people want and is worth the cost?
Library catalogs (and consequently, I submit, libraries themselves) are
facing very, very hard times indeed. Especially when there are free
alternatives out there that people like and prefer at the same time as we
are facing ever-dwindling resources.
My library, and many others out there, simply cannot pay for retraining and
the subscriptions to the online RDA. It's that simple. Therefore, there is
no choice for these libraries: they absolutely cannot implement RDA. In
addition, I personally have very strong theoretical objections as to its
ultimate value to our library users or to librarians in general. That's why
I looked around for a genuine choice and found the Cooperative Cataloging
Rules, which provides the choice for libraries who cannot, or prefer not to
implement RDA.
While we must change, it must be in new directions that promise cooperation
and high-standards, and we make must be relevant to our patrons. I think
there are many things we can do in this new world, and most ways are very
inexpensive, but major decisions have to be made, e.g. do I put my data on
the web for free in useful formats for free download and further use by the
world? I confess that I find this potentially disturbing, as Tim Berners-Lee
describes his view of things, where people will take your data and rework it
in all kinds of ways they like. Still, while I may find it disturbing, that
is just the price of admission to the world-of-information-as-it-is-becoming
(apologies to Kant!).
Does this answer your questions?
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Tue Oct 20 2009 - 11:28:46 EDT