Re: Are MARC subfields really useful ?

I think I'm going to keep this message on file.   It's so eminently
quotable, and full of truth .... especially the observation that "collective
ignorance on this matter is monumental" .... as well as the observation
about the offhandedness with which some will categorize some uses as
"imagined" or "marginal."

Librarians don't have a particularly good record on predicting the future,
either short OR long term, and lack of substantive research is one of the
reasons.  (faith and optimism also contribute) 

Janet Swan Hill, Professor
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
     *****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler


-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Laval Hunsucker
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 7:39 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Are MARC subfields really useful ?

> 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