Cataloging Futures

LC Working Group Report to be Released for Public Review

This just in: The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control will present their draft report to the Library of Congress on November 13th. It will be available for public review until December 15th.

After a year of careful and comprehensive study, the group will present its draft report to Library of Congress managers and staff in the Coolidge Auditorium at 1:30 pm EST on Nov. 13. A live webcast will allow librarians around the country to view the presentation, and a comment period on the draft report will open immediately following the presentation and last until Dec. 15, 2007.

So, be prepared to read, study, and comment.

Via Law Librarian Blog

Cataloging Education: Moving Forward After the MLIS

I've been encouraging my new colleague, Nicole Engard, to jump right into continuing education even though she's just finished her MLIS degree. I'm not being a meanie. My reason is based on my own experience of not getting enough cataloging training in library school. Anyway, here's a comment from Nicole reflecting on her recent experience:

On the subject of teachers - I have had two great instructors at PALINET continuing ed courses over the last month and it makes me wonder why these aren’t the kind of instructors I had in library school. Is it because they’re actually out there doing the work? Is it because they love their jobs (which you can really tell?) or is it just the setting? I don’t know, but I do think that if you’re just out of library school and feel like you’re maybe missing something or if you’re a librarian who wants to beef up your skills, taking a course from a librarian who is out there doing what they’re teaching is the way to go!

Wondering where to begin on your own post-degree educational journey? Start with the Library of Congress website, The Cataloger's Learning Workshop. I've taken many of these courses and they're excellent!

Google Using LC Subject Headings

One can't help see the irony here. Just a little over a year ago, the Calhoun Report [PDF] predicted that we would be doing away with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in favor of keyword searching a la Google and Amazon. Now it appears that Google is using LC subject headings to enhance the search capabilities of Google Book Search. Interesting. Jenn Riley takes a close look at this new feature over on her Inquiring Librarian blog.

ALA President-Elect and the Future of LC Cataloging

Yesterday, the American Library Association (ALA) issued this press release. Some excerpts:

On Wednesday, October 24, American Library Association (ALA) President-elect Jim Rettig will testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' House Administration Committee at an oversight hearing on the Library of Congress.

Traditionally, the Library of Congress has served as a de facto national library, upon which thousands of libraries across the country rely for bibliographic records and services to the blind and physically handicapped, among other things. Countless users rely on the Library's records every day to find the books and materials they need.

“The diminution of the quality and quantity of Library of Congress cataloging has had an enormous financial impact on the nation's libraries,” Rettig states. “Cataloging that the Library previously provided must now be performed by multiple libraries, often doing duplicative work, thereby wasting tax dollars.”

“ALA strongly recommends that the Library of Congress return to its former practice of broad and meaningful consultation prior to making significant changes to cataloging policy.”

UPDATE: Here's a link to Rettig's complete testimony [PDF].

Via District Dispatch

Catalogers Answer to Higher Powers

In a couple of other posts I've argued that catalogers, in general, are user-centered. What I'm talking about is a mindset or attitude. How we think about our work and the users we serve. Continuing the conversation, Thomas and Nicole, made the point that even with a user-centered focus, we're encumbered with cataloging rules, standards, and tools that restrict and over complicate.

So, I left out a point earlier that I should have left in--cataloging, as a process, is a highly standardized set of rules and structures that working catalogers apply, but don't design. RDA development is a good case in point. If memory serves me, when it got started as "AACR3" the drafts were not available for public review. That changed along the way.

So, as catalogers we answer to higher powers: LC, OCLC, ALA, etc. We're trained to follow these standards for good reasons--sharing records, consistency, etc. My problem is--lately, those in charge, the standard developers, "the higher powers" are now criticizing catalogers and the work we do. I don't see how blaming those librarians applying the rules is going to move us forward.

Michael Gorman's Presentation Available on CD

Michael Gorman spoke on the future of cataloging last summer at the American Association for Law Libraries (AALL) Annual Meeting & Conference 2007. The audio CD for his presentation, The Future of Cataloging, is now available for purchase from the AALL website for both members and non-members.

Update on the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Hot off the press--One of the working group members, Robert Wolven, gave a presentation this week at the New England Library Association's Annual Conference. He reported on the work of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (whose website I obsessively check daily).

Report of working group was supposed to be out by this time (10/16/2007), but is still being written, discussed and debated. A draft of the report should go public in the next couple of weeks.

Via NELA Conference Blog

The Future of MARC, XML, and Interfaces

A couple of bloggers have picked up and continued the conversation about the future of MARC. I think it's a conversation worth having. It would be great to have some kind of vision statement from MARBI or the MARC Standards Office as to where they see MARC headed. In the meantime, we'll just have to speculate.

Anyhow, Carlos Lopez observes that we're not using unadulterated MARC (a scary thought) but instead MARC parsed in a human readable template. He continues:

There are alternatives to MARC, some even built from MARC (MARC-XML come to mind). But what many cataloguers imagine when they look at MARC-XML (and the anti-Marc lobby haven't exactly disabused them of this), is that they'd have to work on records at the XML level. Why? We do not work directly on MARC now, why would we have to work directly with XML in the future? that's what interface designers do; they design applications that allow us to work on the records without ever seeing what they really look like!

Actually XML is a lot more human readable than raw MARC, but he makes a good point. In the future we'll be working as we do now--using an application that makes whatever schema we end up with more user-friendly.

Anti-Cataloger Statements - My Rebuttal

Just when I think I've read the last anti-cataloger statement, I run into another one. This time it's in an article found on the JSC's RDA website. While there's much good in Chris Oliver's article, Changing to RDA [PDF], some problematic rhetoric has slipped through. This time catalogers are accused of "looking at the record in isolation." In writing about FRBR's influence on RDA she states:

FRBR has illuminated the deep bones of the bibliographic record and has underlined the centrality of the user’s needs. It has changed the perspective of cataloguing from a cataloguer looking at the record in isolation to a user seeking the record within the context of a large database or catalogue.

I find this statement insulting. This is so far from what really goes on. I've said it before--catalogers (at least the good ones) are user-centered. We work within the context of the local library--its users and collections. We focus on users' needs as well as the larger bibliographic universe of OCLC WorldCat. Also, we work within the context of the arrangement of LC classification and LC subject headings in the local library. We are not "looking at the record in isolation." (Actually, one of the best argument against outsourcing is that the work is done outside of the local library context, but that's another post.)

Earlier in the article, Oliver says about RDA:

RDA focuses on users and the information they need. The guidelines are based on principles that guide, not rules that constrict. The goal is to facilitate the process of resource description by following a logical decision process. The standard is designed to be easy to use and to generate records that contain data that is relevant and important to users.

Aside from the fact that the last 3 RDA drafts are anything but "easy to use", we are told that we will be creating "records that contain data that is relevant and important to users." Sorry, but I think we're already doing that. Trying to "sell" RDA with such anti-cataloger/cataloging statements isn't going win over anyone. RDA may be a "radically different approach", but it's not when it comes to our central focus--the user.

Uber-Excellent Reading for the Future of Cataloging Debate

You'll want to read this uber-excellent article by Alan Danskin, Manager Data Quality & Authority Control, British Library, "Tomorrow never knows": the end of cataloguing? [PDF]

You know I've been reading all this stuff. And I can say, hands down, this is the best summary of all the issues involved in the future of cataloging debate. Hence the "uber." So, go read (when you're not too busy cataloging) and let me know what you think. (By the way, this article was also published in the most recent issue of the IFLA Journal.)