Over most of the Labor Day weekend, I didn't have access to a computer. But I did make a few blog notes. Here's one:
How we think about [the future of] cataloging needs to be based on evidence.
So, I was intrigued to find Lorcan Dempsey's post, An evidence base?:
In all the discussion about bibliographic data and catalogs, and about their advantages or disadvantages when compared to other approaches, it is striking how little appeal there is to actual evidence. Evidence about value. Evidence about cost.
I found it worrisome that someone so high on the bibliographic food chain was saying this. My first thought was--isn't this what the Ph.D.s in LIS programs are providing for us "working librarians" who don't have the time or resources to do research? Tom's comments in, No evidence on bibliographic issues, makes a similar point:
I expect the framers of RDA are using a wealth of such research data diligently compiled by the researchers at our library schools to compile the rules. With this much academic research behind us, Amazoogle doesn't stand a chance!
However, back in July, Mark Lindner's post titled Library & Information Anecdotes echoes Lorcan Dempsey's thoughts:
Having watched a fair amount of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control’s 3rd meeting via live webcast yesterday, along with attending the 2nd one in Chicago, toss in a few other odd reports and such here and there, and one should quickly notice that we have pretty much nothing but anecdote. Not a damn shred of actual evidence for anything anywhere. Just a lot of talking heads talking about what they think is wanted by users or about what systems and data we need to supply that to them.
So, what are we basing these future of cataloging and catalog decisions on? Any thoughts?