I had an “Aha” moment at ALA MW. There I was, sitting and listening to the Big Heads of Technical Services (no, really, that’s what it is called), when suddenly my brain began to function. Let’s see it if works in essay form.
I believe I have seen the future – the bigger picture – the reason for the seemingly meaningless changes. We are moving completely away from the traditional ILS (or the more hip acronym LMS), Discovery models, ERM, etc. That, we are hoping to merge all these different systems all built for specific purposes into one system (with modules, scalability, etc. etc.). This makes perfect sense.
Copy cataloging began as a way to share so each library did not have to “reinvent the wheel“. We developed ILS to manage all (at the time) known aspects of the library: Cataloging, Acquisitions, Circulation, and the good ol’OPAC. This made life oh so much easier as we hooked all the areas together.
Along came CD-ROM and, eventually, online databases. Vendors have completely separate systems we learn to manage. Perhaps we added the acquisitions portion to our traditional ILS and maybe, just maybe, some added aspects to their catalog but in general, these are considered separate from ILS. We have separate Admin, separate search, separate statistics, etc. Oh yes, we piddled around with something called “federated search” to enable a user to search across all databases. It didn’t work too well and many felt burned by the experience (thus we now call the same concept “Discovery”).
As we began collecting more e-resources, we needed an easy way to provide access. It quickly became apparent the traditional ILS catalog would not suit – too much information too fast and rapidly changing. Thus began the, oh how to say without using proprietary product names? A product that allows a long alphabetic listing of e-resource specific titles. This product allows the user to click on a specific title to see the contents and read/print/email particular articles from the list of contents. This is yet another system to manage in the library.
As e-journals and packages began Big Deals, we added ERM to our arsenal of management tools. We needed somewhere to store things like license agreements, ILL information, title lists, etc.
Back to my aha moment…why are we fooling around with things like RDA and a new MARC (or, as Beecher Wiggins termed in the Big Heads meeting, Bibliographic Framework Transition) or the newly coined Web Scale Management? Well to merge all these varying systems together – to have one place to put our acquisitions information and it share along appropriately. For one place to search, and it searches all appropriate areas. For one ‘catalog’ in which everything collected (physical or ephemeral) by the library is noted.
On the OCLC-Cat list for November 2010 there have been several posts of interest. Let’s look at some, shall we?
First, let’s look at Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz’s “November 2010 Memorandum Against RDA Test” from November 2, 2010. In this post, Wojciech instructs OCLC:
Immediately suspend coding the test RDA records as acceptable records and recode them as substandard records with a code “RDA” (no PCC, LC, etc. coding should be allowed on these records). The encoding level for these records should be “K”, which usually triggers a full review of the record by highly trained technical assistants or professional catalogers. The LC records should be coded as level “7”. The RDA test records should be treated the same way as records coded with Spanish, French, German, etc. codes. This would allow catalogers to create parallel records for 040 English records according to existing and widely accepted AACR2 rules. Under no circumstances should RDA testers be allowed to create conflicting NAF or SAF records in LCNAF or LCSAF. This has already created a great deal of confusion and has been universally rejected by catalogers involved in the discussion.
We instruct agencies responsible for the RDA test to instruct its testers to follow above mentioned rules as a way to avoid workflow complications and growing confusion in libraries around the world.
We understand that the RDA test is just a test and in no way is an indicative to a future cataloging procedures and rules that would replace universally accepted AACR2 rules
Subsequent posts include a November 3, 2010 “Petition to support Wojciech’s memorandum” created by cataloging managers at Indiana University, Bloomington. The link to the petition is http://bit.ly/noRDAtest.
The discussions on both threads have been fascinating. This culminates in a November 16, 2010 post “Update on the Petition to Support Memorandum on OCLC’s RDA Testing”. Another very interesting read.
On November 17, 2010 a post appeared cross-posted to several lists “US RDA Test and OCLC”. This does not directly address the Memorandum or Petition postings but certainly it seems to be aimed at them.
What I find interesting, in reading all of this, is that the idea is no duplications should be allowed in the OCLC database. I understand and applaud this. However (you knew that was coming, right?), why is it considered a duplication when we already have “parallel” records?
Parallel records? What’s that?? Check out OCLC Technical Bulletin 250: Parallel Records. Starting back in October 2003 OCLC began to allow “parallel records within WorldCat by language of cataloging”. Huh? OK, let me break this down for you. If I, in my little library in anywhere, USA, catalog the latest James Patterson using my AACR2 (or whatever) rules then add it to the OCLC database as the first bibliographic record ever to describe the book then it exists and others can use it, right? OK, now a few days (or weeks) later a cataloger in Spain catalogs that very same James Patterson book and also adds it to the OCLC database. Duplicate? NO!! Parallel record!
Identifies the language for those portions of the record, which according to cataloging rules, appear in the language of the cataloging agency (e.g., notes). Subfield ‡b is in records created by libraries for which English is not the language of the cataloging agency.
Huh. So basically this is to accommodate the different rules and language of different countries. Why then can we not have AACR2 records and RDA records?
Perhaps I’m missing something but that seems to be the same concept…or am I being blonde again?
Have you seen this “A Librarian Takes on Google Books“*? It is just brilliant on so many levels:
- librarians not just recognizing the need but taking action
- non-librarians seeing the worth of the project
- purchasing and utilizing appropriate technology
- quality AND quantity being considered and acted upon
Best of all? This near the end of the blog entry:
The librarian believes he has found a new cause for his profession, to give a secure home to digitized texts produced with the highest quality standards and available freely to all. “These are huge benefits,” he says, “and should be fought for by all of those who care about unimpeded public access to knowledge.”
I think Andrew Green is my new hero (then again, I haven’t yet seen what he is doing about metadata).
*Please note, the idea of the Google Book project is lovely. Let’s get everything so everyone can access it. The issues involved in such an endeavor are incredibly complex (from copyright to access to cost to quality and beyond). I admire the ideal but am not enamored with the reality. For your edification, Library Journal has published a list of links regarding the topic. You can also just search for tons of for/against articles, blogs, etc.
Ivy, Diane, Ana, and a variety of posts found on other blogs … they’re all making me think and giving me new things to read [and I thank them]. Diane pointed me to an article by Kristin Antelman “Identifying the Serial Work as a Bibliographic Entity,” Library Resources & Technical Services, 48:4 (2004) and we discussed it via email a bit which started me on a new bend in my mind. Follow along!
So – I’ve discussed changing MARC and ranted about changing now and lots of other stuff. Last night I had a thought whilst brushing my teeth (what, doesn’t your mind wander?), why can’t libraries have a system similar to how Amazon works? And, I use Amazon because they have a huge variety of things for sell (unlike Borders or Barnes & Noble which are also quite excellent for their products). You can find both professional and non-professional reviews of any item sold at Amazon. You can find details on the items themselves, in many cases you can even ‘sample’ the wares.
So – what if we have books, journals/magazines, videos, music, etc. etc. all in the same catalog. We allow the patron to choose where they wish to search OR if they want to search the whole kit-n-kaboodle [breaking the results into the groupings]. We link things – “you searched X title which is #4 in Y series, do you wish to see the series?” or “you searched B movie which is based on C book, do you wish to see the book?” etc. and etc. Either noting whether or not the library has X or C in the collection or perhaps noting you can get X or C via ILL (or even purchase is commercial purposes are allowed by your local governing body) or perhaps just showing what is available at that library – it should be flexible to allow the librarians to make that decision. Huh. Even as I type this my mind is exploding with possibilities.
Some ILS are already doing the groupings bit – providing the results in groups of format for the patrons to determine if they were looking for a video or a book or a sound recording or whatever. Some are also making the links and allowing for reviews to be added/searched/read. Brilliant! We’re just a hop, skip, and a jump away!
One key, I think, is getting our data in usable format. Getting ALL data into usable format. Standardizing input across the lands. Maybe an ISO is needed. Read more about my epiphany on this in several posts start with MARC and machine readability (revisited) and move on from there.
Another key would be getting the various publishers, vendors, jobbers, etc. to agree to allow taking their data into the BIG database rather than using their propriety searching. Or maybe we could link in via our catalog to their database. This would have to be worked out. I tend to think, in my cynical way, the insertion of their data into our system would not be permitted. It’s all about $$$ baby.
Huh. I wonder if Amazon uses an off-the-shelf system or home-made. Betcha we could adapt is to our needs…
A couple of weeks ago Ana discussed privacy Mixed Reviews, Creating your Online Identity, and Follow-ups and Web 3.0, Facebook, Privacy, Identity Control on May 6 (it won’t let me link direct). Then another friend (hey Jon!) pointed me to It May As Well Be On the Front Page of the NYT.
So, what does this have to do with the library? I’m so glad you asked! Librarian creed is steeped in things like ‘get the patron the information desired’ and ‘keep the patron’s information private’. In fact, most automation systems will automatically ‘delete’ patron checkout records once the item is returned. We do not record who looked up something, just that something was looked up. Read what ALA has to say about about issues involved with the USA Patriot Act (or search [insert preferred search engine here] the topic “libraries and the patriot act” and find tons of information)
Have you ever heard of a little ol’online bookstore called “Amazon“? They do a remarkable thing – they allow their customers to review the books [and lots of other stuff] and post those reviews for the world to see. Wow! I can see what others thought before I purchase the book! Cool!
Now to the catalog, given that we librarians are vehemently against divulging the patron’s information how the heck could we add this in? Perhaps we could take a note from Evergreen which allows patrons to opt-in on retaining their borrowing history AND allows them to post reviews on materials. I do like that Evergreen does not automatically open up the patron’s record but that the patron must flip that switch.
Of course I cannot discuss adding reviews without bringing up Tim Spalding and LibraryThing! LibraryThing for Libraries can provide the LibraryThing reviews for the titles in your catalog AND allow your patrons to add reviews. Check it out, pretty cool stuff.
One big difference needs to be noted here, on social networking sites it is very easy to hide your identity. You can set up an email address for your pseudonym. In a library, where you have to show proof of identity to obtain a library card (and thus access their system), you do not have that anonymity.
I guess it comes down to, does the library decide for the patron with regards to privacy OR should the library allow the patrons to determine privacy for themselves?