On 6/7/2010 10:23 AM, Ere Maijala wrote:
> If using subfields is too difficult, it's got a lot to do with the tools
> we use. Who said, for instance, that you need to enter all the data
> directly to a MARC record? I used to work on a system that allowed the
> cataloguer to enter most of the metadata in a form and see the MARC
> record be constructed by the system simultaneously. You didn't lose any
> flexibility or the heart of the data, but you could tab through the
> fields and fill them very quickly. This is just to say that most of our
> user (staff) interfaces don't do a very good job with the data entry.
hear, hear!!!
What was this system?
-anna
>
> --Ere
>
> On 4.6.2010 18:00, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>> So, from the standpoint of working with computer systems trying to
>> make use of Marc data, the biggest frustration in Marc is that the
>> data is not sufficiently structured for actual machine
>> processing/recognition/decision making.
>>
>> If you were _just_ to get rid of sub-fields, and have everything in a
>> field just as one 'narrative' string -- this would make the problem
>> worse. The sub-fields are almost the only thing we've got that lets
>> software pull out the data it wants. Why not take the hypothesis
>> further, and say, why not get rid of marc _fields_ too, why not just
>> have the whole cataloging record in one big string, perhaps delimited
>> by ISBD punctuation, or perhaps even that is 'unneeded expense', just
>> one big string, why not? Well, obviously becuase it would make our
>> data nearly uselsess for machine processing.
>>
>> Now that said, if we're spending lots of time (which is money)
>> creating Marc records -- and they STILL aren't adequately machine
>> processable, obviously something is wrong. I don't think the answer
>> is that we need to spend MORE time, the answer is that we are
>> spending time _improperly_. The answer isn't giving up on
>> structuring our metadata or just "structuring it less" (OR just
>> un-thinkingly "structuring it more"), the answer is on figuring out
>> how to structure it _right_, so the time spent on it actually _pays
>> off_ in metadata that can actually be used effectively by software.
>>
>> Figuring out how to do this right isn't neccesarily easy, there isn't
>> an easy magic bullet answer, but it's work we ought to be doing.
>> Some of the people who are trying to figure it out include
>> Hillman/Coyle/et al's work on RDA vocabulary, and Jenn Riley's work
>> on FRBR metadata.
>>
>> Jonathan ________________________________________ From: Next
>> generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf
>> Of Karen Coyle [lists_at_kcoyle.net] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:55
>> AM To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Are MARC
>> subfields really useful ?
>>
>> Quoting Dan Matei<dan_at_CIMEC.RO>:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> All subfields are useful enough to justify the effort to delimit
>>> them ?
>>>
>>> I thought we are looking for reducing the cost of cataloguing. Or
>>> not ?
>>
>>
>> I don't think we know what "subfielding" costs us. Is it more than
>> adding notes like "Includes bibliographic references" even though
>> there is also a coded element for that in the fixed fields? (Which
>> is up there with the idiocy of the 020 field, frustration that I
>> share with Andrew.) And even if something costs, don't we also have
>> to look at the value? Adding subject headings is very costly, from
>> what I hear, as is doing authority control. I suspect that those cost
>> much more than adding in subfielding. But what are they worth?
>>
>> I've been sitting in on a group that will send a report this ALA (I
>> believe) to bigheads on ROI for cataloging -- not a study, but ideas
>> on what needs to be studied. It's a very difficult task. 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.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph:
>> 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
>>
>
>
--
Anna Headley
Swarthmore College Library
610.690.5781
aheadle1_at_swarthmore.edu
Received on Mon Jun 07 2010 - 10:43:08 EDT