Karen Coyle wrote :
> 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).
Well, such a catalog certainly exists in various
countries over here, in diverse guises.
Anyway, my question concerned not so much
what the technology allows, but rather the
principle of linguistic diversity, and the presumed
value-judgement. ( Cf. the wording in the original
posting : "a loss of integrity and/or quality, or
something!" -- not, e.g., a loss of uniformity or
of conformity or of language purity. )
And when I wrote of "a plurality of languages",
I was thinking as much -- or more -- of collective
plurality, not just of plurality per record. ( And I
thought also that such was inherent in Jim's
observation. )
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 8:18:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative
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 - 17:36:29 EDT