> The whole reason MARC is such a mess is
> that we have a culture that creates, structures,
> and keeps data to meet fringe or even imagined
> uses while not dedicating attention to real uses.
I'd really be quite fascinated to learn more about
what lies -- inductively or deductively -- behind
your firm distinction of imagined uses from real
uses ; what your empirical basis might be for this
distinction and for the eventual assignment of
specific instances to the one or to the other
category. What kind of investigation, using what
kind of methodology, entails the validity and
reliability of drawing such a distinction and of
making such assignments ?
I don't want to be overly ironic -- but you get the
idea, I guess, that I'm extremely skeptical of the
offhandedness and ease with which persons ( *any*
persons, not just you : there are many who do it )
brandish such formulations as "imagined uses" and
"real uses". In our field, the collective ignorance on
this matter is monumental ( and here I emphatically
include myself along with everyone else ). There is
a stupefying dearth of respectable research results,
yes even of research efforts or intentions, and alas
even of useful theorizing or speculation, concerning
the matter. This is imho the one greatest cause for
genuine embarrassment for our discipline and our
profession.
Therefore I have great praise too, may I add, for
Karen Coyle, for her observation yesterday : "We
don't know what elements of our data lead to "user
success" (however that is defined). Without that
information, it's darned hard to know what you can
and cannot eliminate from the cataloging task."
Hear, hear ! I can't tell you how gratified I was to
see that come by : one of the best contributions,
and in just two sentences, to this list that I've seen
in a very long time.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Kyle Banerjee <kyle.banerjee_at_GMAIL.COM>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Fri, June 4, 2010 6:00:47 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Are MARC subfields really useful ?
>
> And Karen, does my memory fail me, or haven't there already been
> (relatively) recent studies about the utility of MARC fields? Admittedly
> it's a moving target, as systems and expectations evolve.
>
The question is when most of this will be moot as a rapidly shrinking
percentage of the stuff people are looking for will ever exist in MARC.
Worrying about whether the subfields are necessary is a lot like wondering
if the indicators are necessary. The real question is whether you can get
the data out that you want. The whole reason MARC is such a mess is that we
have a culture that creates, structures, and keeps data to meet fringe or
even imagined uses while not dedicating attention to real uses. I like to
describe the problem as "measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with
axe" -- describing inconsistent data with a super precise instrument makes
no sense
MARC is just a container. As such, you can normalize the data and structure
to make the data useful for an application. But there is no technical fix
for conceptual problems.
kyle
Received on Sat Jun 05 2010 - 09:40:26 EDT