Cataloging Futures

ALA 2008: There's no catalog like no catalog

I definitely don't write enough about the future of the library catalog. There are several reasons for this--one is that so many other people are working hard in this area.

Well here's an ALA/LITA program,There’s No Catalog Like No Catalog: The Ultimate Debate on the future of the Library Catalog that tackles this issue head on. The panelists were: Karen Coyle, Karen Schneider, Steven Abram, and Joe Janes. The moderator was Roy Tennant. The complete program is available as a podcast. It's well worth listening to if your interested in the future of the library catalog (and cataloging).

One good thing I took away from this debate is a rediscovery of Patrick Wilson, librarian and philosopher. Joe Janes mentioned how forward-looking his thought was. So, I went back to my library school cataloging notebook (yes, I still have it) to find one of his essays. I'm reading it now and hope to write some more about his ideas soon.

David Bade's new book

One of the voice I've been listening to in the future of cataloging debate is David Bade. So, I was glad to know that David's new book, Responsible Librarianship: Library Policies for Unreliable Systems, has just been published. Also, you'll be interested to know that Thomas Mann wrote the foreword.

The three papers in this volume were written in the wake of a single policy decision at the Library of Congress: the decision to cease the practice of distinguishing and collating series through the use of distinctive headings maintained in an authority file. These papers examine library policies and organizational structures in light of the literature of ergonomics, high reliability organizations, joint cognitive systems and integrational linguistics. Bade argues that many policies and structures have been designed and implemented on the basis of assumptions about technical possibilities, ignoring entirely the political dimensions of local determination of goals and purposes as well as the lessons from ergonomics, such as the recognition that people are the primary agents of reliability in all technical systems. Looking at various policies for metadata creation and the results of those policies forces the question: is there a responsible human being behind the library web site and catalog, or have we abandoned the responsibilities of thinking and judgment in favor of procedures, algorithms and machines?

Via Library Juice

Let's Get Rid of the Urgency

I'm like a dog with a bone. I just can't let this one go. Maybe it's the title, The Catalog's Last Stand. Is it really?

I'm not convinced that libraries, library catalogs, and cataloging are "in peril." I don't think we're standing at the edge of a precipice looking down. And there's not necessarily tension between the desires of users and the direction libraries are going in. These future of library memes haven't rung true for me for awhile. But I'm not a traditionalist at all.

Here's an academic librarian, Wayne Bivens-Tatum, whose asking the same questions in a post titled, Are the Users Ahead of Us?

This brings me in a very roundabout way to the question in my title. I often read library blogs that argue we should be adopting new information technologies because that’s where our users are at. I’m not so sure. I think that those librarians are ahead of their users in this respect, as I believe I’m ahead of most of my users. As a reason to change, catching up with the users might not be a very good one, because I suspect most of the users might not be caught up with us.

Does this mean we shouldn’t play around with new modes of communication and information technology? Certainly not. It just means that some of the urgency of calls to change ring hollow for me. We must change QUICKLY and NOW! But that urgency doesn’t seem to fit the facts.

Anecdote or Evidence in the Future of Cataloging/Catalogs Debate?

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?

Role of the Library Catalog--More Questions than Answers

Karen Coyle writes in her blog post on March 17, 2007:

"This tension between the user view and the management view is something that I keep coming up against. Whenever the question comes up of how we will define the library catalog of the future, most librarians exhibit an interesting schizophrenia, trying simultaneously to satisfy the library management need of inventory control and the much broader needs of users who simply want the best information now, no matter who owns it. We really must resolve this conflict if we are to move forward." (Emphasis mine)

There is another question also: Who will provide for "the needs of users who simply want the best information now, no matter who owns it"? As we all know, before the days of the Internet, Library catalogs had a narrow scope providing access to the local library's collections.  There was the understanding that, in no way, would the library catalog solve all the user's needs. For a comprehensive search, a user needed to look beyond the catalog. I'm still comfortable with this traditional definition as long as search engines like Google link to local catalogs or local library holdings (e.g., Open WorldCat).  However, I'm also very  interested in  exploring alternatives to traditional library catalogs--catalogs  with a more seamless interface to materials outside the library's own collections.  So it seems worth asking--who will provides the information that users need? Internet search engines or the local library catalog? (All this stuff is in the air, so this is hardly an original thought.  I just thought I'd reiterate it one more time.)

Library Catalogs and Cataloging Blogs!

Here's a new resource for cataloging and metadata librarians who want to keep track of blogs in their subject area:

Stephen Francoeur at the LACUNY Blog compiled a list of blogs about catalogs and cataloging. (I know there are a few here I need to add to my RSS reader!) Thanks, Stephen.