I think that we were and are substantively in
agreement.
It wasn't quite clear to me what you *in fact*
meant with your peroratio, and perhaps I feared
the worst. If you'd written "Just because it's
represented [ or presented, or characterized, or
described ] as "correct" . . .", or "Just because
it's justified as "correct" . . .", or even "Just
because it was once considered "correct" . . .",
I would not have been in doubt what you were
driving at.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Sat, June 5, 2010 5:18:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Are MARC subfields really useful ?
James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Laval Hunsucker wrote:
<snip>
> Just because it's considered "correct" is not a reason to continue it.
No ? Why not ?
Where would we be if we -- as a person, as a profession, as a nation, as a civilization, etc. --
didn't base the maintenance of behavior on the consideration that what we are doing is correct ?
Think for a moment : What does "to consider" mean ?
One could easily argue that considering something "correct" is *always* a reason to continue it.
Or am I missing something ?
</snip>
You need to reference this to what I had written earlier in my message:
<snip>
We have already seen some of the real bloopers thrown overboard: some of the tags, the old "main entry in the body of the entry" and others. But nobody has asked the bigger questions yet. For example, I have brought up a few times the need to code separately the 245 $a from $b. I understand it had a purpose before (as I wrote to Alex once), primarily to prevent different texts from inter-filing, e.g. my example "War and peace : the definitive edition" and "War and peace in the nuclear age". In the card catalog, it files correctly, but I haven't seen any OPAC do it "right" and it has always been interfiled and therefore, "wrong".
Still, almost nobody browses titles like this anymore, and I have personally never even heard of a complaint, except from a librarian (like me, who it drives absolutely crazy!). But I ask: if there are no complaints and nobody even notices, is it still "wrong" to interfile different titles proper? I think a case can be made that the 245$b is really outmoded.
If this is accepted, then it is open season on all of the other subfields and fixed fields. Do we really need a separately coded 100$b? or 100$q? Why? Just because it's considered "correct" is not a reason to continue it.
</snip>
If the only reason something is considered to be "correct" is for reasons that don't pertain anymore, then we must reconsider what "correct" means. Anybody who has come across a workflow for materials processed in a library that hasn't been reconsidered in 30 years or so will find many things done only because they are "correct" i.e. the old guidelines and rules tell them to do it. Yet, nobody has reconsidered what they are doing or why, but everyone just continues doing what they have always done. When you start talking openly about the reasons for some of the procedures and rules, you are touching on the issue of "change," and some people can get very angry about it.
Catalogs and cataloging practices are among the worst offenders in this regard. The example I gave was for titles proper to file in a certain order, but nobody browses titles like that anymore. It is an axiom for web designers that when you put a printed document for use online, (not just as a pdf or a document for download and printing) it cannot be used in the same way so therefore, it must be "architected" for the web. (I hate that word, but "architect" can be a verb now) Information architecture does exactly that, but our catalogs have never been looked at in this way before. Only in the last few years are people reconsidering them in a comprehensive way.
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
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Received on Sat Jun 05 2010 - 12:49:22 EDT