Cataloging Futures

Reading RDA: a few comments and questions

I've read most of the recently released RDA drafts and sent comments in for the constituent review. I'm fully behind moving forward with RDA development and I'm anxious to see the complete draft due out this summer. Here's are a few general thoughts and questions about the latest drafts, RDA, section 2-4, 9 that were issued in December 2007:

• In general, catalogers familiar with AACR2 are going to get confused deciding when something is a “work” and when something is an “expression.” Even though these terms are defined in rule 5.1.1 there is the conceptual problem of never having had to think about these entities that much before, especially expression. This will be a important area for RDA implementation.
• The new organization of RDA chops up the rules putting them into many different chapters. Again, rather than simplifying the rules this adds complexity. Consider collapsing some of the chapters, e.g., chapters 5, 6, and 7 could be collapsed. As RDA gets revised I hope complexity is checked. Let's keep it when necessary, but prefer to simplify and streamline the new code when possible.
• Does the new organization of RDA lock catalogers, et al. into one conceptual model—FRBR? Also, does the new organization locks the user of RDA into one interpretation of FRBR?
• Some of the language used in these rules is so precise and technical because of the strict application of FRBR concepts and terminology. The rules force the users to think in terms of work, expression, manifestation, and item at every turn. Does RDA have to be so closely tied to FRBR? Can the rules be more open to other conceptual models?
• More emphasis should be placed on flexibility in applying the level of detail in RDA. I don’t see enough of this type of guidance in the current drafts. Catalogers and metadata librarians should feel free to apply as much or as little of the RDA rules as they need.

Essential reading: LC subject headings report

A must read: Library of Congress Subject Headings: Pre- v. Post-Coordination and Related Issues [pdf]. Some snippets from the press release:

In 2006, the Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access (ABA) at the Library of Congress (LC) requested the Cataloging Policy and Support Office to review of the pros and cons of pre- versus post-coordination of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The final report recommended, and the ABA Management accepted, that LC catalogers continue to apply pre-coordination of LCSH terms.

... Many of the pre- vs. post-coordination decisions documented in this report address recommendations recently made in the report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, especially section 4.3 “Optimize LCSH for Use and Re-Use.” LC will be responding to specific recommendations from that Working Group report later this year.

Library 2.0 and the cataloging community

One of the most thoughtful library bloggers, Rory Litwin recently wrote on his blog, Library Juice:

These days, when reading the library literature or a conference program it’s hard to find much that is not about the Library 2.0 idea. It seems to me that many librarians have forgotten that there is something worthwhile in what we do already, and that “Library 2.0″ is an update rather than something completely new. Lots of people would not want to hear this, but I think many librarians should have more respect for librarianship as a profession and don’t know as much about what they are doing as they should. If there were a little bit more about librarianship per-se in our professional discourse it would be harder to dismiss our own profession in favor of a mode of information (access, organization, use, and conceptualization) that others have invented. [emphasis mine]

Looking at this quote in terms of cataloging (this blog's niche). I agree with Rory, that traditional cataloging often get short shrift in our professional discourse. Our legacy cataloging standards and tools were awesome for their time. For example, I worked with a card catalog for almost nine years. It's a pretty cool pre-computer device. So, taking some time to  understand our library legacy is key. Yes, we should have a healthy self-respect for and understanding of our profession.

But to play devil's advocate, the cataloging community needs to take more seriously that the Web is the communication device of choice for our users. The first line of library communication has changed to digital mode. This shift requires us to rethink everything--the how, what, and why of cataloging. We need to have an openness and willingness to incorporate the new and unfamiliar (I write this at a time when I'm studying XPath and XQuery--didn't foresee this trajectory back in library school!). So, I don't think we're there yet. I think we're only just beginning to come to terms with Web technology and what it can do for us cataloger-types. We're not exploiting it and using it fully. So, a little bit of nudging from the Library 2.0 crowd is a good thing.

LC working group report: an insider's view

I'm still on the lookout for blogging coming out of last month's ALA Midwinter conference. Here's one you'll definitely want to read: Anthony R. D. Franks shares the text of his presentation at the ALCTS Cataloging Management Discussion Group. The topic was the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control's final report. Franks is the Team Leader, Cooperative Cataloging Team at the Library of Congress.

Two of the many buzzwords flying about are "sustainable" and "unsustainable" The way we have done things at LC is unsustainable. Either we now no longer have the staff, or soon we will not have the staff, to support our habitual labor-intensive workflow for cataloging, training, review, and editorial functions. We will no longer be given the staff and the funding to go on as we have done.

I don’t think that I’m shocking anybody who does not work at LC by saying that there are things others do better than we do. So, let’s let everybody do what they do best, accept the communal results, and move on. This is not a burden. It is what each of us is already doing. We simply must find a way to share the products of this labor.

This analog girl finds her digital dream!

You probably know by now that my colleague, Nicole Engard, is no longer the Metadata Librarian at Princeton Seminary. She has moved on to work at LibLime as their Open Source Evangelist. Fortunately, with the Web we are only an email or IM away.

Reorganization has been going on in technical services for awhile. And this time around, I was offered the position of Metadata Librarian and have accepted it! So, I have a new job! I am thrilled and grateful to have this opportunity. I'll be working on the digital collections and spending lots of quality time with non-MARC metadata. (I will hopefully have some time for traditional cataloging also.) So, my mental paradigm shift has become a reality. I will keep you posted as I embark on this excellent metadata adventure!

Interoperable metadata - How do we get there?

Interoperability is a buzzword in the library community. In the past we had pretty much one system of standards with regard to metadata creation. Now we're grappling with diverse forms of metadata. Here's a document, Harmonization of Metadata Standards [pdf], that nicely lays out the issues involved.

Via DigitalKoans

LIS education and technical skills

Here's an interesting post by Allan Cho, The Future of Digital Librarians. He looks at the issue of skill set needs and LIS education. Here he writes of the difficulty of studying and learning new technologies for on-the-job librarians.

In my own experience as an information professional, I find that these skills are sorely lacking in my own education. I'm finding it increasingly my own initiative to get caught up in the literature and the technologies. Who really has time to learn OAI-PMH metadata standards, XML, EAD, and TEI? Many librarians keep abreast of their field -- but on top of their current duties. But the problem remains that LIS schools do not to train technicians even though that is what they're doing - their mandate is to nurture scholars. Which I can understand. Yet, we can't fit a square peg into a circle. There lies the conundrum: something's got to give. But what? That has remained the intense tension in the field of LIS since its inception. With the advent of the Web and newer technologies, this gap will only widen.

Deadline for comments on new RDA drafts

I won't be able to blog much this week because I'm reading the new RDA drafts [pdf] and typing up comments. The US deadline for submitting comments is February 7th. You can find the RDA comment form and more details about submitting comments over on the CC:DA website.