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me of Bush on global warming: needily grounded in beliefs and practices the rest of us see as not only foolish and outdated, but pernicious.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 their 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.

Comments

[K.G. Schneider]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments in re RDA... makes for great reading.

The LC report appears to have multiple authors (as indeed it does). Some of these authors have held sway on the idea that we need to stop work on RDA, that no user studies exist demonstrating how users interact with bibliographic data (that's complete hooey, q.v. Karen Markey's 2-part series this past summer on user studies), and basically that we need to stop future movement.

Other voices have come in strongly with a vision of enhanced description and of excellent reforms such as Web authorities.

Perhaps the biggest problem of the report is that it thinks the future of cataloging rests in the occasional publication of monolithic guidance documents. This cannot do. Cataloging guidance must become more lithe -- more iterative, responsive, and nimble.

I agree with some of the OCLC report's findings with the caveat that Talis provides: OCLC needs to eat its own dog food. The OCLC report reads too much like an ad for WorldCat and doesn't fully face the question that if people are going to trust OCLC to be the One True Database they're going to have to change their practices. OCLC fears loss of control (look at its governance: the majority of its trustees are self-elected). I understand that... it's scary... but trust is a two-way street. OCLC is asking a lot of its members; it should consider meeting them at least halfway.