Ugh, I'm not sure I accept your view as the ultimate definition of what the world wants. My recent experience in consulting with real world developers of user features of library catalogs is quite different. Examples?
Users and public services librarians want icons displayed to visually cue users in on what kind of thing is being described such as book, online resource, dvd, map, etc. Assigning these icons automatically relies on details coded in the records. I fervently wish they were recorded more simply to support this function better and keep programmers from pulling their hair out, but at least they are recorded and can form the basis of this ad hoc user-friendly development in the online catalog.
Facets allow users whose search strategies retrieved more than they want to individually examine to apply suggested limits to zero in on the items that will best serve their needs and desires. Facets are built ad hoc on elements of information recorded by catalogers in specific fields and subfields.
There isn't anyone actually using true MARC in their systems as far as I know. It is simply a communication format that all the other systems already are able to translate through, right? (Unless you want to start over and personally catalog every item in your library you must import some of your records from somewhere, right?) One major block to replacing MARC is actually the bottom line. The expense of developing that specific translation capability in all those various systems for a new communication format, together with the failure of a professionally accepted replacement to have emerged so far are what has kept MARC in it's unique role in the information world.
Catalogers have nothing to do with it. We will adapt and work with whatever comes along, as we have continually adapted to change after change in cataloging rules and in MARC formats since the introduction of online cataloging in the 1970's. I don't think we'll keep quiet about portrayals of the bibliographic universe or user needs as simple, however.
Thanks and have a great day,
Jimmie
Jimmie Lundgren
Associate Chair & Contributed Cataloging Unit Head
Cataloging & Metadata Dept.
Smathers Library
PO Box 117004
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-7004
352-273-2725
352-392-7365 (fax)
jimlund_at_ufl.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 7:09 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] After MARC...MODS?
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 18:51, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> I encounter this type of reaction among non-specialists--which
> includes many librarians who have never done cataloging by
> the way--and I find it highly revealing.
Ugh, you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying we don't need
specialists. I'm saying what you're specialists in isn't relevant to
what the world wants, and unless that is changed, the world will make
sure those kind of specialists disappear.
> Still, I think that the foundational basis of cataloging remains as valid
> as ever
Why? I guess that's rooted in how you define those foundational things.
> and are definitely not supplied by the Googles and Yahoos and
> Mendeleys out there, although they may desperately try to convince
> us that people need nothing else. We need them and they need us.
Prove it. With anything. Prove that anyone needs catalogers in any
meaningful or compelling way. Prove that they are relevant to what's
going on in the publishing and academic industries.
> It may take a few decades for people to realize they need
> specialized-librarian controls
James, you don't *have* two decades for this. This needs to happen now!
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Apr 22 2010 - 08:26:06 EDT