"Well, no one uses LCSH anymore do they? I mean, it's all just keyword searching now."
Nooooooo. All those hours trying to get those semantic relationships just right...please tell me that someone cares!
After all, Great Britain -> Foreign Relations -> United States
is the total opposite in meaning to
United States -> Foreign Relations -> Great Britain
and if the book was about both, then LCSH give you a way to exhibit both.
Not quite the same as just typing 'Obama' and crossing your fingers now is it.
Tsk.
Showing posts with label Cataloguing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cataloguing. Show all posts
Thursday, 20 November 2008
FRBR
Functional requirements for bibliographic records; the conceptual model which is about to redefine the bibliographic universe. Group one entities finally give us a more precise terminology to use when dealing with reference questions; after all, 'I want to read this book' is a substantially different statement to 'I left this book on the desk a second ago but now it's disappeared.' Thus we now have a work, an expression, a manifestation and an item. We are able to draw together and cluster all results about a work. Take for example Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. In accordance with the new database structures that are growing up around FRBR principles, we could have one record for the work, and then attach multiple manifestation records to that to include original text, different editions, film adaptations and even Baz Luhrman's soundtrack.
FRBR is starting to have an impact on standards, evident in RDA. RDA, designed as the next step from AACR2, is structured very closely around the principles of FRBR. FRBR looks at user tasks, namely: to find, to identify, to select and to obtain. The bibliographic record is then checked for these elements to determine the extent to which the catalogue is meeting the needs of users. Which is great. But one of the main problems, and not to sound condescending, is that quite often our users are not sure what they want until they browse the catalogue. Currently the OPAC may bring up books about Romeo and Juliet as well as the text itself. For FRBR, this is a problem. However, in the interests of serendipity, perhaps this is not such a bad thing.
With a modicum of search training, a user is able to use the OPAC sufficiently. And dates of editions are always displayed. It worries me that the FRBR model would lead us to provide new 'manifestation' link records for each reprint of a book; technically it is a new entity although the intellectual content remains identical. I can see how useful FRBR would be to literary and musical works, but the impact seems reduced within the sciences.
The other major issue concerns the impact upon MARC21. If AACR2 is seen as predating computerised cataloguing, then MARC21 can be viewed as a means of creating nothing more than a computerised catalogue card. However, despite the format's limitations in terms of data extraction, we currently have several million records in this format worldwide. Quite what will happen to them is unclear. Perhaps it is time for a new encoding set to be introduced, one with more flexibility and functionality. And yet somehow the idea of converting all those records from one format to another seems like an awfully big adventure.
FRBR is starting to have an impact on standards, evident in RDA. RDA, designed as the next step from AACR2, is structured very closely around the principles of FRBR. FRBR looks at user tasks, namely: to find, to identify, to select and to obtain. The bibliographic record is then checked for these elements to determine the extent to which the catalogue is meeting the needs of users. Which is great. But one of the main problems, and not to sound condescending, is that quite often our users are not sure what they want until they browse the catalogue. Currently the OPAC may bring up books about Romeo and Juliet as well as the text itself. For FRBR, this is a problem. However, in the interests of serendipity, perhaps this is not such a bad thing.
With a modicum of search training, a user is able to use the OPAC sufficiently. And dates of editions are always displayed. It worries me that the FRBR model would lead us to provide new 'manifestation' link records for each reprint of a book; technically it is a new entity although the intellectual content remains identical. I can see how useful FRBR would be to literary and musical works, but the impact seems reduced within the sciences.
The other major issue concerns the impact upon MARC21. If AACR2 is seen as predating computerised cataloguing, then MARC21 can be viewed as a means of creating nothing more than a computerised catalogue card. However, despite the format's limitations in terms of data extraction, we currently have several million records in this format worldwide. Quite what will happen to them is unclear. Perhaps it is time for a new encoding set to be introduced, one with more flexibility and functionality. And yet somehow the idea of converting all those records from one format to another seems like an awfully big adventure.
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
RDA: a Really Decisive Action or a Relatively Disappointing Area?
So. Resource description and access has landed. Sort of. Every time I glance at planet cataloging, open my Update magazine, or happen to browse the CILIP website, there it is. Draft proposals. More draft proposals. And yet more - well, you get the idea.
Ann Chapman provides a really concisive overview of the new code in Update magazine this month. Yet, the more I read about it, the more I feel that I'm missing something.
I understand that AACR was developed in a pre-computerised world. In this world, the catalogue card was King. The main access entry point was Queen and the added entries were really just some half-royal illegitimate infants running blindly through the castle keep. Most information was printed in books. The nearest we came to the concept of multi-media was listening to cassette tapes on our oh-so-trendy walkmans. It is amazing that since then the world has changed so rapidly. Many people conduct so much of their lives in an online environment, not least their education. Although I am wary of falling into trap of believing in the simplistic "information society" worldview, no one can doubt that the impact of digital resources on many people's lives has been enormous.
In practical terms, for the library user this meant the development of the OPAC and enhanced searching facilities. In this environment, the card catalogue Kings were deposed by the people's republic of the online public access catalogue, thus rendering the concept of main and added entries obsolete for the user. As new forms of media developed, it became problematic to catalogue electronic, digital and mutli-media items within the world of AACR2.
Thus changes needed to be made, but I can't help wondering whether they have been the right ones. RDA seems to be concerned predominantly with updating the language and the layout of the cataloguing rules, which is fair enough and makes good sense. It also lets us catalogue non-print items in a more meaningful way; again, big points there. Yet attempting to have one code to cover all media, when said media all behave in such wildy different ways, is perhaps (and I say this only tentatively) not the easiest concept with which to identify. There is also issue of the millions of MARC records currently doing their job perfectly thank you very much; what will happen to those?
As RDA works on a FRBR model, there is a need for functionality, which is great. However, the concept of 'preferred' and 'variant' access points is a little worrying, especially when so much work is currently going into the NACO project.
The simplification of terms, for example ‘s.l.’ being replaced by statements such as ‘place not recorded’ or ‘place not known’, might be easier for new cataloguers but it concerns me that it may lead to a gradual decline of skill and a steady decline in the quality of bibliographic records.
It is a concern that, the further we simplify the skill of cataloguing, the further we thus move to a library management who believes that cataloguing could be automated. After all, save the salaries of cataloguers and speed up a mechanical process. Except that it isn't mechanical. It involves skill, a clear vision of local practice and user needs, and an ability to apply rules with skill and panache. However, I'm not saying that RDA will lead ultimately to this future, but we do have to be careful as cataloguers to raise our advocacy within the wider library community.
Practically, there seems like there will be little change. I suppose only time will tell.
Ann Chapman provides a really concisive overview of the new code in Update magazine this month. Yet, the more I read about it, the more I feel that I'm missing something.
I understand that AACR was developed in a pre-computerised world. In this world, the catalogue card was King. The main access entry point was Queen and the added entries were really just some half-royal illegitimate infants running blindly through the castle keep. Most information was printed in books. The nearest we came to the concept of multi-media was listening to cassette tapes on our oh-so-trendy walkmans. It is amazing that since then the world has changed so rapidly. Many people conduct so much of their lives in an online environment, not least their education. Although I am wary of falling into trap of believing in the simplistic "information society" worldview, no one can doubt that the impact of digital resources on many people's lives has been enormous.
In practical terms, for the library user this meant the development of the OPAC and enhanced searching facilities. In this environment, the card catalogue Kings were deposed by the people's republic of the online public access catalogue, thus rendering the concept of main and added entries obsolete for the user. As new forms of media developed, it became problematic to catalogue electronic, digital and mutli-media items within the world of AACR2.
Thus changes needed to be made, but I can't help wondering whether they have been the right ones. RDA seems to be concerned predominantly with updating the language and the layout of the cataloguing rules, which is fair enough and makes good sense. It also lets us catalogue non-print items in a more meaningful way; again, big points there. Yet attempting to have one code to cover all media, when said media all behave in such wildy different ways, is perhaps (and I say this only tentatively) not the easiest concept with which to identify. There is also issue of the millions of MARC records currently doing their job perfectly thank you very much; what will happen to those?
As RDA works on a FRBR model, there is a need for functionality, which is great. However, the concept of 'preferred' and 'variant' access points is a little worrying, especially when so much work is currently going into the NACO project.
The simplification of terms, for example ‘s.l.’ being replaced by statements such as ‘place not recorded’ or ‘place not known’, might be easier for new cataloguers but it concerns me that it may lead to a gradual decline of skill and a steady decline in the quality of bibliographic records.
It is a concern that, the further we simplify the skill of cataloguing, the further we thus move to a library management who believes that cataloguing could be automated. After all, save the salaries of cataloguers and speed up a mechanical process. Except that it isn't mechanical. It involves skill, a clear vision of local practice and user needs, and an ability to apply rules with skill and panache. However, I'm not saying that RDA will lead ultimately to this future, but we do have to be careful as cataloguers to raise our advocacy within the wider library community.
Practically, there seems like there will be little change. I suppose only time will tell.
Friday, 14 December 2007
Z3950 and a very English mental picture.
Last Wednesday I attended a cataloguing course which focused on using our software client, creating and remotely searching for bib records. About half way through the day, the talk turned to the Z3950 protocol and its correct use in searching remote databases such as the Library of Congress or CURL.
Apparently, it is vital that one only searches one of these remote database at a time as they all speak in subtly different languages and offer different search options. However, it is fine to search multiple local databases as they all speak the same language and can communicate with each other. Thus, all the libraries in my part of the UK that use the voyager cataloguing client may all be remotely searched at once. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, a mental picture sprang up in my head and I started to chuckle.
In my mental picture, all the local databases were politely requesting information from each other in 'eh I say, old chap' voices, as wine glasses are heard twinkling in the distance whilst swan ice sculptures adorn the room. The butler announces that another local database is on the telephone, upon which Sir Pompideou III of Tidinburke shares his recipe for the most divine salmon and cucumber sandwiches.
Suddenly, thunder rolls across a hiterto bright blue Autumnal sky. Each of the local databases present exchange dark looks filled with a scathing sort of hatred and resentment. Suddenly, the door to the country house shakes and is thrown from its hinges to reveal a crazy looking wild Z3950, who shouts "eh eh eh 'ola amigoes" whilst sounding his pistols in celebration. He procedes to break the priceless collection of royal doulton, and nobody likes conversing with him.
As you can see, too much cataloguing does strange things to the brain! I must stop anthropomorphising my cataloguing protocols.....
Apparently, it is vital that one only searches one of these remote database at a time as they all speak in subtly different languages and offer different search options. However, it is fine to search multiple local databases as they all speak the same language and can communicate with each other. Thus, all the libraries in my part of the UK that use the voyager cataloguing client may all be remotely searched at once. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, a mental picture sprang up in my head and I started to chuckle.
In my mental picture, all the local databases were politely requesting information from each other in 'eh I say, old chap' voices, as wine glasses are heard twinkling in the distance whilst swan ice sculptures adorn the room. The butler announces that another local database is on the telephone, upon which Sir Pompideou III of Tidinburke shares his recipe for the most divine salmon and cucumber sandwiches.
Suddenly, thunder rolls across a hiterto bright blue Autumnal sky. Each of the local databases present exchange dark looks filled with a scathing sort of hatred and resentment. Suddenly, the door to the country house shakes and is thrown from its hinges to reveal a crazy looking wild Z3950, who shouts "eh eh eh 'ola amigoes" whilst sounding his pistols in celebration. He procedes to break the priceless collection of royal doulton, and nobody likes conversing with him.
As you can see, too much cataloguing does strange things to the brain! I must stop anthropomorphising my cataloguing protocols.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)