These are some of the points I was trying to make. There is an awful lot that could be done right now to help a record made in Germany or Russia or China, more useful to a English-speaker, and more importantly: vice'versa.
Also, perhaps tools such as Google Translate could help with translating the rather restricted language used in many of our notes. Google may even be willing to cooperate.
So, it's *not* that I am saying that English means higher quality, but that different catalogs reflect the needs of their users. In English language catalogs, people need English language cataloging information, but different catalogs in different cultures have different needs. Russians need Russian cataloging; French need French, Italians need Italian, and so on and so on.
Libraries and librarians must cooperate in this economic climate in all kinds of innovative ways that, in my opinion, may border on the revolutionary or outrageous. These are some of the areas that the cataloging community needs to focus, certainly *not* on RDA, which only continues the same methods and the same problems while making everyone spend a lot more money.
James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kristin Antelman [kristin_antelman_at_NCSU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:11 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative
and if you went ever further and didn't store author names, titles or
subject headings as text strings in records, but rather as identifiers,
there would be even fewer language problems.
-Kristin
Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>>
> ________________________________________
> Kristin Antelman
> Associate Director for the Digital Library
> NCSU Libraries
> Box 7111
> Raleigh, NC 27696-7111
> (919) 515-7188
Received on Fri Apr 09 2010 - 15:32:52 EDT