Quoting Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde_at_YAHOO.COM>:
> James Weinheimer wrote yesterday :
>
>> For quite some time there have been records
>> cataloged in languages other than English in
>> Worldcat, with subjects and description in all
>> kinds of languages. This seems to be a loss of
>> integrity and/or quality, or something!
>
> -- leading me to ask :
>
> Why is one exclusive and privileged language,
> English in this case, a necessary condition for
> quality ? Why for integrity ? ( Or, put another
> way, Why is not a plurality of languages, rather,
> a welcome enrichment -- an enhancement of
> quality, of integrity, even ? )
This has to do with the so-called "language of the catalog" -- and I
would love to know if anyone has been successful in having a
multi-lingual catalog using today's technology (well, without having a
separate record for each language). In the data format that OCLC uses,
MARC21, there is only one set of fields for description - EXCEPT where
you are dealing with a case of vernacular v. transliteration. So if
one library presents the description in, say, German, and another
presents the data in English, the MARC record doesn't have a way to
store both during de-duping.
This gets me to one of the bees in my bonnet -- if we insist on having
a record that stores the statement "173 p." or "2d edition" then we
will continue to have language problems. If we were instead to have a
data format that stores the number of pages or the number of the
edition rather than a textual description thereof, then we could more
easily create international catalogs, and everyone can create displays
that make sense for their users. (Yes, I know, there's the question of
transcription, etc. etc., but with the right carrier we could make
this possible.)
kc
>
> If, that is, I comprehend correctly what it is
> that you are positing here.
>
> The answers are not obvious to me, and I am
> eager to understand better your thinking.
> Probably I'm missing something important here.
>
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
> Breukelen, Nederland
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 10:34:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the
> OCLC Cooperative
>
> Cross-posting from Autocat. Sorry for the duplication. -- Jim
>
> This discusses the updated OCLC policy at
> http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/default.htm announced by
> David Whitehair.
>
> ---------------------------
>
> There are two main points that struck me:
>
> 1) This all has to do with "Worldcat data" and I still don't see a
> definition of it. The closest is:
> "In connection with Agent's performance of the services specified in this
> Agreement (the "Services") for Library, Library has made or will make
> available to Agent copies of bibliographic data, library holdings and/or
> other information representing Library's own holdings extracted from
> WorldCat, the online database of such information maintained by OCLC Online
> Computer Library Center, Inc. ("OCLC") and its members (hereinafter
> "WorldCat Data")."
>
> I still don't know what this means. If I download a record through regular
> Z39.50 and *not* through OCLC, but the record has an 040 of:
> |a CtY |c CtY |d MH |d DLC |d AIP |d NST |d AIP |d NST |d NSDP |d NST |d
> MH |d NST |d DLC |d NST |d InU |d DLC |d NST |d MH |d FU |d MiU |d NSDP |d
> WaU |d MiU |d OCoLC |d CU-S |d DLC |d OCoLC
>
> Is this record "WorldCat data"? If so, why does OCoLC trump Yale and LC and
> Harvard and everybody else? It still seems as if OCLC is claiming ownership
> over records because they travel over their wires.
>
> 2) In Section D. WorldCat's Viability and Value, and the Need for a Policy,
> there is:
> "If the database does not receive the continued organizational support of
> OCLC members, there is a very real danger that it will become fragmented and
> lose its integrity, that its quality will be diminished, and that,
> consequently, its utility to the OCLC cooperative will be reduced."
>
> I don't know what "integrity" means here, while the quality of the records
> has already diminished and is diminishing as we speak. In any case, the
> concept of "quality" needs to be reconsidered in an environment that is
> truly networked, the environment we are entering now. For quite some time
> there have been records cataloged in languages other than English in
> Worldcat, with subjects and description in all kinds of languages. This
> seems to be a loss of integrity and/or quality, or something!
>
> But more important is the concern that the database will become
> "fragmented." I ask: First, is this such a bad thing, and second, is it
> inevitable anyway? Web2.0 and 3.0 are founded on the concept of each
> individual being able to personalize her or her "virtual space," and
> fragmentation becomes an essential part of that.
>
> The policy is a noble effort by all concerned, but it still seems as if OCLC
> is claiming ownership over the individual records in the database, and also
> they seem to be drawing a line in the sand: we will change up to this point,
> but no more.
>
> I think we need flexibility.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Fri Apr 09 2010 - 14:18:50 EDT