On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Laval Hunsucker wrote:
> I'm inclined to doubt that those who effectively determine
> (have determined) what "comprehensive cataloging" means or
> involves have ever given much serious attention to what it is
> that information seekers want and need ... since they
> probably mostly had not much inkling anyway of what
> information seekers genuinely wanted and needed, and didn't
> consider it a priority, or perhaps even worth their effort, to go
> and find out ... The incentive was largely absent.
I think we agree on the cynical absence of appropriate motive in the
development of RDA, but I see it as more of a general inability to
consider the problem of "cataloging standards" (or anything else) from
multiple (even reverse) perspectives rather than predetermined
self-focused priorities.
Part of my emphasis, of course, is to suggest reflection upon the RDA
"process" as an example of inadequate process development itself. Think
of it as a further example of how librarians might contribute to the
general knowledge from experience rather than focusing too narrowly on
pedantic trivia.
> But is it in fact "library science theoreticians" we're talking
> about here?
OF course not-- I'm just being kind in including the RDA developers in
that category. Would that they were in that category. Would that there
was a rational and comprehensive "theoretical" basis to RDA.
> And I'm almost positive that [theoreticians are] quite different
> animal[s] from those who in the real world determine (have determined)
> how cataloguing is done.
We've already demonstrated that the developers of RDA were out of contact
with the "real" world of information seekers, and, I would insist, only
theoreticians could be capable of defining "reality" (g*d forbid
committees and politicians be given that responsibility!).
> Or am I badly out of touch ?
The problem is that being in touch with any particular form of "reality"
(e.g. what RDA is??) apparently has to require being out of touch with
several others (e.g what RDA need and need not do). RDA is thus an
excellent example of the primitive state of human rhetoric (what is said
and what can be done with what is said are unfortunately limitedly related
concepts, but I would have to give "political" examples to demonstrate
thoroughly).
> ( Is the concept of comprehensive cataloguing any longer -- if
> it ever was -- an important, a useful, or even a viable one for
> the library/information services world in general?)
(Just to demonstrate the "rhetoric" problem, a *constructive* approach
would be to reverse that question: "What would be important, useful,
viable, and socially pertinent activities for persons with an interest in
"cataloging" to engage in?")
The psychology of cataloging would make an interesting essay in its own
"write."
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Wed Sep 01 2010 - 18:18:48 EDT