In Karen Coyle's replies to James Weinheimer, she wrote:
> Jim, it seems that when you say "standards" you mean "library/ISBD
> standards." . . .
> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the publishers for producing
> *publisher* data, not *library* data.
I didn't think he was criticizing publishers, but just pointing out the differences. If criticism is to be applied, then perhaps he (but I speak only for myself here) is criticizing our library movement to accept low quality data as good enough, because it's somewhat more mobile and/or available at low cost. I like the idea of the iterative process - - to start with some data and upgrade it; what's missing most of the time is advocacy for staffing (with skills in language and subject areas) who will actually do the upgrading. As Jim wrote: "The cataloger dealing with the records here might as well start from scratch."
> What you are saying is that the only bibliographic data that you find acceptable is that data created by libraries ...
If you work in a library, that's pretty on-the-mark; that's what we should be saying. At least, that should be our end point.
Karen went on to ask:
> While this may adhere to a "high standard" questions arise such as:
> - is this really what serves users best?
Yes.
> - is this affordable in today's economy?
Yes.
> - what are we trying to accomplish?
From ALA Code of Ethics. Principle 1:
"We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; ... equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests."
Karen finished with:
" why are we so unable to compromise, e.g. with publishers, to make it possible to share data and thus be more efficient? Is the library way REALLY the only right way, or are we just being stubborn?"
But I think she has ignored the challenge to the idea of efficiency presented by Jim and which I agree with. He laid out some of the issues that make the idea of efficiency a questionable result. Freely available data that we can gather and then re-work usefully has some efficiencies to it. Just accepting the data and never re-working it, though, is something else.
As to the question of stubbornness; I find the personal characterization distracting. I'm usually called resistant to change if I don't like the change being proposed. Stubborn is a new wrapping, But it doesn't matter - - someone might or might not be stubborn.
I disagree with Jim's statement that "we must honestly question that perhaps our current standards are set too high since apparently so few can achieve them," but do agree that few are achieving them. It's a question of priorities.
Daniel
--
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Brooks Library
The library: Not just DVDs and Internet access: We've got magazines and helpful people, too!
Received on Tue Dec 28 2010 - 12:06:14 EST