Cataloging Futures

Library 2.0 in the backroom: catalogers implementing wikis

I've been wanting to highlight one of my favorite new cataloging blogs, The Cataloguing Librarian. Yesterday, Laurel Tarulli, the blog's author, writes about her cataloguing department's wiki which she just got up and running:

Although not fully implemented, my first step with our Wiki was to introduce the cataloguers to its possible functions and uses. I put up many of our cataloguing “cheat sheets”, links to relevant cataloguing sites, department announcements and recent cataloguing decisions from LC and LAC. Sending them the link to the Wiki, I asked them to have a look around, get use to the navigating aspects and layouts. Upon reviewing the site, I asked for their feedback: What did they like? Dislike? Ideas for adding new content?

With my excitement in this project and by taking the time to answer questions and explain the possibilities of the Wiki, all of the cataloguers began suggesting ideas or providing me with feedback. One of the most rewarding moments was when one of the cataloguers suggested we put our “working” New Lists on the Wiki.

Another example of using wikis in technical services is described in a PowerPoint presentation by Jennifer Lang, Creating a Technical Services Wiki: Improving Communication and Increasing Productivity:

The Electronic Resources Cataloging Committee (ERCC) at Princeton University Library created an internal wiki in order to improve its effectiveness. Since its implementation, the ERCC wiki has not only introduced staff to a new technology, it has also reduced the number of committee‑related emails, provided a one‑stop place for drafting and revising policies, helped the committee be more timely in making decisions, and has encouraged more widespread participation among all committee members. This presentation demonstrates the process of setting up a wiki and covers some of the benefits and drawbacks of using a wiki to facilitate group work.

And last (and definitely least!) is the technical services wiki, that I'm putting together at work. It's a work in progress, so please be kind with comments. I am trying to re-write our old documentation in a more web-friendly style and still have a lot more to add. I'm loving the wiki--it's so well suited for documenting local procedure, etc.

Karen Schneider on the cataloging establishment

Karen Schneider challenges the cataloging establishment in a post she wrote recently on the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (or what is now fondly known as WoGroFuBiCo, Bill Denton's stylish acronym). I think it's worth listening to what she says:

I read LC’s report as comfort food: yes, yes, we should do many things… real soon now… but since there’s no plan or timeline attached to any of this, rest assured you can just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s all part of the task force pyramid scheme, in which one report begets many more.

I like that Roy keyed in on the word, “control.” Every time I hear someone talking about “controlling” bibliographic data, I chuckle, a low throaty laugh intended to convey my disbelief that anyone thinks we will still be controlling anything in fifty years. Thirty. Ten. Five. Now, will the Big O yield some of that control itself?

Many of us in LibraryLand worry that we’re just one black swan away from “game over,” but not the muckety-mucks of cataloging. They remind me of Bush on global warming: needily grounded in beliefs and practices the rest of us see as not only foolish and outdated, but pernicious.

I have to disagree with Karen. I actually think the picture for the future of cataloging is one of a new type of order and data control based on Web developments, like the Semantic Web. How we do things may be very different, but much of what we value now: shared standards, controlled vocabularies, unique identifiers, etc. is exactly what leaders in the Web community are working on also. If you don't believe me just start reading a little about the Semantic Web initiatives to see that they're goals are similar to our traditional library goals.

Also, please don't take this as an attack on uncontrolled data, e.g, tags. Surely, in the future there will be room for both.

OCLC, Talis, and the future of cataloging debate

I know I'm supposed to be baking Christmas cookies or something, but this latest development in the future of cataloging debate is way too interesting.

Last weekend, Lorcan Dempsey posted a letter from Karen Calhoun, OCLC's official response to the LC working group final draft report. It's really essential reading--a succinct summary of OCLC's thoughts on these issues, their own plans for the future, and the role they can play as a collaborative partner with the Library of Congress and others.

And then yesterday, Rob Styles of Talis posts his response to Calhoun and OCLC. He looks at OCLC's business model in relation to the concept of the starfish and the spider--taken from a book with that title. It's an interesting book (I just started reading it) on decentralizing organizations.

Rob argues that OCLC is in the postion to step in where LC use to reign, as the leader for library metadata services. He goes to suggest that OCLC needs to "let go of control" on several fronts--adoptingsuggesting a more decentralized business model. That is--becoming a starfish rather than staying a spider.

New RDA drafts available

The draft of RDA sections sections 2-4 and 9 [pdf] is now available for comment. It's a biggie--463 pages!

In terms of the previous organization of RDA drafts, these draft chapters correspond to Part B: Access Point Control.

Comments to the LC working group

Dear LC Working Group:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this significant draft final report. Due to the short length of time for review, these comments will be very brief and impressionistic.

• Overall, I think the report envisions positive steps forward for the Library of Congress and the library community as a whole.
• We seem to lack not only, a vision for the future of bibliographic control, but also a vision for the future role of libraries. In the “guiding principles” section, I recommend starting one level up before “redefine bibliographic control” with “redefine libraries.”
• How about suggesting decentralizing the CIP program?
• I don’t recommend halting RDA development until further testing is done on FRBR. A better scenario (and one that JSC has probably already considered) is to start beta testing RDA during this next year before it’s published in 2009.
• Consider recommending the funding of the DCMI/RDA work.
• One of my problems with this report is that it fails to mention the human, intellectual role in bibliographic control and metadata creation. Effort needs to be made to encourage and inspire librarians involved in bibliographic control. The anticipated changes and complexities will require cataloger’s judgment now more then ever. And our professional skills will be applied in new and challenging ways.
• I thought the report was vague on a few of important issues: the future of the MARC format, Library of Congress Classification (LCC), and OCLC’s role in the future of bibliographic control.
• The section titled “redefine bibliographic control” could use some work. It seems to contain contradictory statements: at one point talking about “a unified philosophy of bibliographic control” but in the next paragraph describing the complex diversity one encounters and the need for less consistency in bibliographic description. It’s a little fuzzy.
• On p. 11, when the current cataloging practice is described as “to transcribe, by hand” it sounds like we’re writing out cards in library hand! I’m not sure how to reword it, but it sounds very antiquated and somewhat misrepresents our computer-based work.
• There needs to be a recommendation on the licensing and sale of bibliographic data. It would be helpful if the Working Group shared their opinion on this issue. Is there support for open access and re-use of bibliographic data?
• Please clarify with an example the reference to “cost recovery” on p. 13.
• 1.2.1 “share responsibility for creating bibliographic records” lacks a recommendation for OCLC to reevaluate their business model and its effect on whether or not libraries can actually share responsibility for the enrichment and correction of bibliographic records.
• On p. 22 in 3.1.1.1 the word “carrier” is used. Would “schema” be a better term? Also, if you’re talking about a replacement or transformation of MARC, could it be explicit in the recommendation.
• On p. 31 there is no mention that LCSH headings can function as keywords. One does not really need subject expertise to benefit from LCSH headings (although the addition of tagging and folksonomies would help also).

Respectfully submitted,

Christine Schwartz
Head Cataloger
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries

OCLC WorldCat: Redundancy and Collaboration

I wrote this post almost 2 weeks ago on the back of the LC working group report, but it got lost in the shuffle. Anyway, this theme (or meme) is in the air right now, so here goes. As I read the report, I keep thinking that a significant part of our redundancy problems lie with OCLC's model. It's not conducive to collaboration.

I work with OCLC WorldCat everyday, and there seem to be a lowering of standards with regard to the quality of the records that are dumped into the database. If OCLC is lowering its standards, then why can't we modify data in OCLC? They need to open up the editing capabilities and let us (the members) add to and enrich all the records in WorldCat.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines about what we should and shouldn't modify. But OCLC needs to start trusting the library community. Let quality control and added value be a collaborative effort. With the current model, we aren't taking full advantage the skills of the library community. Currently, we are very limited as to what we can correct or enhance. It feels like a straitjacket.

The OCLC leadership talks the talk. Vice President, Karen Calhoun, has frequently argued that we need to have a different understanding of "quality." And Roy Tennant writes:

So here's the thing: you may or may not have noticed it, but we just went from a world where we were the gatekeepers to information to one in which we are hanging on for dear life. We can either wise up or get out of the game. I prefer to wise up. For me this means forgetting about "control" and getting good about "enrichment". [emphasis mine]

So, my message to OCLC is--throw caution to the wind and let us cataloger-types get in on some of this collaborative Web 2.0 lifestyle! Let us correct data. Let us enrich data. WorldCat will be a better resource for it.

Related: Open WorldCataloging?

Embracing the future - my paradigm shift

I confess, I was once a hard-core cataloging traditionalist. I use to wax eloquently about Thomas Mann and Michael Gorman (2 librarians I still respect a lot). But more and more I see things differently. I'm now much more in the "modernist" camp (or actually the moderate, eclectic freethinker camp) in the sense that I've embraced the future--I'm there.

I've written about the need for catalogers to upgrade their skill set. Now I'd like to recommend this mental exercise if you haven't gotten around to tackling anything on that hefty skill set to-do list.

A few weeks ago, I made the paradigm shift (in my head, not my job description) from cataloger to metadata librarian. So, I recommend this exercise. It's a small, but significant step toward change. Just start thinking of yourself as a metadata librarian, and then see where that takes you.

Another related recommendation: change what you read. For example, during my holiday break I'll be spending some quality time with:

• RDA drafts (rereading)
• FRBR (rereading)
• FRAD
• Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM)
• A very cool book titled, Thinking on the Web (if you're looking for a good book that explains the Semantic Web--this is it.)

So, traditionalists, take a break from AACR2/ISBD/MARC and embrace the future! And hey, earth to Gorman: we are the metadata community (some of us just don't realize it yet).

RDA development: An iterative process

The cataloging discussion lists were all a buzz last week with opinions about the future cataloging code, Resource Description and Access (RDA). This was spurred on by the perfect storm: the LC working group's recommendation to halt work on RDA; Martha Yee's new cataloging rules, an alternative to RDA; and Michael Gorman's scathing criticism of RDA in his new, yet to be published article.

It seems the defenders of RDA are in the minority, but if I had to weigh in I'm with them. The RDA drafts do have problems. But I agree with Shawne Miksa, who said on AUTOCAT:

How about a reality check? RDA is not scheduled to be released until 2009. It is not going to be released tomorrow and it certainly is not going to be implemented tomorrow. The library community doesn't seem to be ready for a lot of things, but a lot of things happen regardless. If we don't actually take a step forward, then we don't actually move forward.

And I think Laura Smart has it right also:

All I really know is that RDA will be an imperfect work-in-progress for quite a long time. We all have to accept that we will have a release-refine-release cycle and that we won't get perfection the first time out. Otherwise we'll wait forever.

Diane Hillmann thinks we should look at RDA development as an iterative process:

I think that, should the RDA process stumble along and a few checkbooks open to provide some money for the DCMI/RDA work to get started soon, what we'll end up with is something that is a decent first iteration of what we want to do. If you think, as I do, that we MUST move to a process of iterative development and experimentation (and then back around again) in order to move sufficiently swiftly to play in a world with Google, Amazon and that mob, then what we end up with at the end of the process (rocky as it is) has to be good enough to start with, and we'll work on it to make it better. Because, frankly, we don't have the time to go through something more ponderous and stately to come up with a perfect standard. It's no longer that kind of world. To some extent, it never has been--those with long memories will recall how long it took to get AACR2 off the launching pad, and what we have now is quite a bit different than what we started with.

So, here's my two cents. A lot of work has go into RDA to develop a cataloging code that will provide us with a standard for a digital and print collections in a Web environment. That is where we need to be because that's where our users are. So, let's trust the process, roll up our sleeves, and continue on with the tedious, but essential task of studying and commenting on the RDA drafts.

Michael Gorman on RDA

Okay, I haven't read this yet, but I know you all will want to. Thanks to Mac Elrod for posting this article by Michael Gorman, RDA: The Coming Cataloguing Debacle [pdf].

Diane Hillmann's comments on LC working group report

I'm just about to start my second read through of the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control's draft final report. So, as I come up for air--I just wanted to mention that the most interesting comments so far are those of Diane Hillmann. She posted them originally to the RDA discussion list in parts, but now they're available as a single document. Well worth reading.