Catalogs/Cataloging Memes

Yesterday, after reading The Catalog's Last Stand [PDF] as well as an email from a colleague, I wanted to look at two memes circulating these debates. A couple of things I find odd, if not downright perplexing:

1. At a time of increased importance of metadata creation and the Semantic Web, we're "trying to get rid of catalog librarians." The librarians who've been creating metadata all along. Rather than encourage catalogers to expand their skills as digital projects come along, I keep hearing about how administrators want to "get rid of cataloging and catalogers."
2. There's a meme going around that catalogers are obsessed with "descriptive cataloging." That our main focus is bibliographic description. When the reality is good catalogers have always emphasized access over description. Providing access to library materials for users has always been our main focus. Catalogers are user-centric.

By the way, we ignore bibliographic description to our own peril. It's primary purpose is the identification of library materials and isn't "identify" one of the FRBR user tasks?

So, that's my two cents. I find the focus of the discuss short-sighted. I think these administrators lack real vision about the catalog's future. Most of all I think they lack good will. They don't really value the work that catalogers have done over the years. People go on and on how wonderful OCLC WorldCat is, what a great resource. But recognizing that it's the cataloging community that built that resource--Why doesn't somebody write an article about that?

Via LISNews

Comments

[David Miller]

Hi Christine --

Yes, puzzling phenomena, both. I haven't read the document you mention (so many documents, so little time), so I'm not responding to that at the moment.

Regarding 1), it seems like we have a set of convictions, based in card catalog days, in collision with the reality of more recently developed systems capabilities. The interesting thing is that for a very long time we've been saying that we're building for the future, that we're creating not-used catalog data now because it will possibly or probably be used sometime later on. That's often been a difficult sell. But in recent years, we've seen that this conviction is increasingly justified. One question is, will the -view- of cataloging based in the card era (not the practices, that's different) prevail? The attitude that metadata which is not of immediate value to the enduser (or immediately understood by same) is therefore a professional self-indulgence, is an attitude which really refers to the limitations of card catalogs, seems to me. I tend to think this view will not prevail, but surely in some local situations it will.

About 2), well -- we often berate ourselves for not describing or explaining what we do sufficiently to our colleagues. But communication is not a one-way process. Our colleagues have to be willing to listen and understand. Many do, many others refuse. It's a perpetual challenge.