Re: [ARSCLIST] cataloging sound recordings

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Eric Jacobs wrote:

> With respect to search tools, Google et al are good tools for
> unstructured searching through heterogeneous data.  The
> question is, do sound recordings lend themselves better to
> structured or unstructured searching?

>From my perspective, recordings required structured entry, but the
searching should be less structured. I hope this makes sense.

 In an ideal world,
> metadata for sound recordings would be captured with some
> consistency, making structured searching the way to go, and
> make "finding a needle in a haystack" more feasible.

Data could be prepared with a structured set of screens. I would suggest
no authority work (horrors) and having one take what one gets.

For me, libraries have assumed too much responsiblity with authority work.
Is authority control important...absolutely yes, but who should have that
responsibility. If someone calls themselves Prince or whatever, is it up
to a cataloger to provide authority control to those various forms of the
name? I say no...it costs too much. Sure Rigler Deutsch isn't perfect, but
it seems that it was a step in that direction. Does it mess up searches in
RLIN, yes. But then is the fault with the entry or with the limited search
engine of RLIN?

Otherwise
> unstructured searches may still leave you with thousands of hits
> to sort through.

You still have that problem even in the best case scenarios. Consider the
ways in which you try to track down a recording of a Symphony by
Mozart...how many screens do you go through before you get to what you
want? How many complete records do you need to look at before you can find
what you are looking for?

  Google and its ilk are not necessarily the
> answer to all of our search problems - you need the right tool
> for the job, and it all starts with the data.

I believe there needs to be a shift in the emphasis from the data
preparation to the navigation tools. Consider RLIN, you have the option
for only two keywords. RLIN was willing to mount Rigler Deutsch, yet OCLC,
with the option for three keywords, was not. Seems odd to me.

> As for digital libraries, I couldn't agree more that they are
> the future.  But when?  Widespread digital access across all
> socioeconomic groups is an important prerequisite, otherwise
> the content becomes available to only the more privileged.

I believe that there are the information haves and have nots. I also
believe that the encumbered process of cataloging gives us information
haves and have nots. There is more information that is uncataloged than
that which is cataloged. It is very expensive to get an item cataloged.
Outsourcing a book for MARC costs about $28 per item. Other materials cost
more. A CD of excerpts from several operas could easily require a full
day of a cataloger's time.That is more than the cost of the item. True,
that information can be shared by many libraries, but then, even the taging
of that record costs money...subscription to the bibliograpphic utility,
staff time to recognize a "hit," and usually staff time to upgrade the record.


I certainly don't suggest that I have "the answer." I just think that
there has got to be a better way than what we have now, because it seems
to me that what we have now leaves so much information out of the reach of
those who could benefit from it.

  But
> digital libraries need to become a reality.  And like sound,
> they must grapple with issues of copyright as well - another
> issue that must be addressed to make the digital library a
> reality.

Not quite sure what you mean by a digital library.

Karl