Cataloging Futures

New book on tagging

A few weeks ago I bought Gene Smith's book, Tagging: People-Powered Metadata for the Social Web. This looks like it's going to be a great read!

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.

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?

LC Subject Cataloging and the Open Library

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that there's a post on subject cataloging over on the Library of Congress Blog. It refers to an interview with Aaron Swartz about the Open Library. Again here's another example of the Web 2.0 crowd's interest in quality bibliographic data (I've mentioned this before.).

I'm encouraged by Web 2.0 projects like Library Thing and the Open Library. Read the interview and the LC blog post and let me know what you think.

"Why Web 2.0 Is Leading Back to Full Cataloging"

A few selections from an interesting post by Rory Litwin from his blog, Library Juice:

"We often think of Web 2.0 sites in terms of the idea of “tagging instead of cataloging.” In fact, rich 2.0 sites, the ones that do a lot of data processing to create their services, usually have both free-form tagging by users and standards-controlled metadata about objects, and it is actually often the latter that drives the main functionality of the sites. This is the case with both Last.fm and LibraryThing."

"The real functionality of both Last.fm and LibraryThing, though, rests not on user tags but on the standards-based metadata for the objects in it - books for LibraryThing and music tracks for Last.fm. In both cases, casual users can simply rely on the data that the system loads into their profiles automatically ..."

"The functionality of LibraryThing is enhanced because of the fact that it makes use of cataloging that has already been done by professional catalogers. Data in LibraryThing that comes from Amazon is not as rich or as accurate as the data from research libraries, but in most cases it is quicker to get, and it is still based on essentially the same Z39.50 standard, which is in turn based on cataloging standards."

"So… If sites like Last.fm eventually become a part of life for the majority of people, I think there will be an emergence of support for the role of professional catalogers somewhere in the system, so that the majority of users, who “just want it to work,” will be satisfied. Free-form tagging has its place, but where consistency and accuracy counts, as it does in many Web 2.0 sites, I think reliance on users will turn out to have been a dead-end, and there will be a new appreciation for our professionalism."

At a time when catalogers are feeling a sense of uncertainty as to where their future lies (as well as the future of the AACR2/MARC metadata they are still faithfully creating), it's refreshing to read a post like this as a reality check.