On 10/10/2013 7:27 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
<snip>
> I see no reason why any of this is either/or. We can do linked data
> w/o RDA, w RDA, w/o FRBR, w FRBR. The main thing is that we cannot do
> it WELL with MARC and we cannot "upgrade" MARC to linked data in a way
> that will be worth the time and $$. If we had resisted database
> technology and Internet technology to the extent that we are resisting
> linked data, we'd be either further behind. (BTW, libraries were very
> cutting edge in embracing network technologies, from OCLC's
> pre-Internet network, to the fact that the first Univ of California
> campus-wide network was one built to deliver the online catalog to
> everyone. Only later did it become a general technology.)
>
> Doesn't solve any of the problems? It's not a total solution, but if
> there were obvious solutions I hope we would have embraced them by now.
>
> Jim, I wish you'd quit railing against things and find something to be
> FOR. Not your personal cataloging rules, but something that is likely
> to entice others to move forward with you. As one learns in
> dog-training classes, no one comes toward you when you are yelling
> angrily at them. But they will come if you use a soft voice and offer
> a treat.
</snip>
Sorry Karen, but I can't agree. There is a world of difference doing it
*with* RDA/FRBR or *without* RDA/FRBR. One costs lots of money at a very
difficult time for libraries and still makes us wait for an unknown
amount of time, but years at least, and by that time we will be even
further behind. Without RDA/FRBR, it can be done now, with a minimum of
costs.
Why is everybody waiting? I don't know, but I suspect librarians may be
scared of what they will find in the linked data universe
http://ubuntuone.com/5FC7aRIV1nIr3flvB2nRQz
I have said from the beginning that we should go into linked data, but
do it as cheaply as possible and have minimum expectations. To do it
*with* FRBR/RDA is fabulously expensive and will take a lot more time.
To do it without FRBR/RDA is a lot cheaper and easier, and I think,
wiser, just as other organizations have done. That is just stating facts
and is not yelling angrily. I agree that libraries cannot use the MARC
field/subfield numbering to do this, but that is pretty much irrelevant
since producing the formats for linked data sharing can be done in a
myriad of ways. If the ultimate idea is to go into the linked data
universe, there is no hurry to change library use of MARC (which we must
all admit won't happen for a *long* time anyway). We can port out other
formats as so many systems have done. I have said all of this for years.
Yet the fact remains: we *do not know* that those other formats will
solve any of the problems we are facing. They might. They just as well
might not. Sure, we can do something like OpenAgris and we should, but
the question remains: is aggregating all this stuff together in ways we
think are cool what the *public* wants, or what *we* want? I am not the
only one asking these questions. Many think people want something else.
The first step is to find out what they want, and that is not at all easy.
In theory, our records will be more widely available in the linked data
universe, but I have gone to some pains to point out that this is not
the underlying problem with our data. On the other side, our data has
value that is being overlooked. So if the idea is to go into linked
data, do it *now*, just as FAO did. (I was involved with some of that,
by the way)
What is one of the main problems is that the pro-RDA people refuse to
deal with the real, everyday problems of those libraries who have few
resources, and are trying to deal with the changes that RDA has thrust
upon them. Many libraries are just refusing to deal with the RDA changes
at all because they have no resources and already would be overwhelmed.
The richer libraries may have more options, but others (the vast
majority I think) are hurting seriously. At the same time, the RDA
people don't have to demonstrate the changes are practically useful or
even wanted by the public. But nobody seems to care.
I think I have been FOR a lot of things. There is plenty to do. For
instance, I have been for research into discovering what the public
really wants, not just mouthing the same, tired old mantra from FRBR, in
itself a rehashing of 19th century suppositions/superstitions. I have
been for enhancing the Lucene-type indexing that allows for facets, as
we see in Worldcat and many other library catalogs (many of them
available for free). This could have some of the greatest positive
effects on the public. I have been for introducing real cataloging
standards that could even lead to certification. These standards would
be similar to water or food standards and would necessitate punishments
to those who break them. That may sound harsh, but when you can break a
standard and nothing happens, it's tough to call it a standard. It is
also difficult for others to take you and your "standards" seriously. To
do that would require lots and lots and lots of changes, but if done,
would raise our credibility. I have also been for entering the linked
data universe, so long as it is done cheaply and easily.
The RDA folks refused to come up with a viable business case, as the
national libraries actually admitted(!), but it was accepted anyway(!).
Now everyone is reaping that harvest.
If people think linked data is the solution, then just do it. Nothing is
holding anybody back from achieving it right now, just as FAO and
multiple other organizations have done. I'm sorry that this may not be
the "sweet" method people would prefer, but sooner or later we have to
look at the world around us as adults. We learn that we do not have
unlimited resources and not everybody is waiting breathlessly while we
make up our minds. The world moves on and leaves us behind. Decisions
have consequences that may some may like for their own reasons (the 1%)
and is a disaster for others (the 99%). We either deal with those
consequences or ignore them.
By the way, where have I come up with "personal cataloging rules"?
Please point to any rules that I have made up on my own. The closest
could be to the Slavic Cataloging Manual, but those were the ways
Princeton interpreted current rules and RIs, and I always referred to
the rules I was interpreting. (OK, it's been awhile. Maybe not always
but as often as I could)
I don't consider any of that to be yelling angrily, but simply stating
the plain facts.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com First Thus
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters
Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Received on Fri Oct 11 2013 - 04:02:55 EDT