Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloging sound recordings

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 6 May 2005, A. Ralph Papakhian wrote:

> if there is a problem, it is not the rules or format.

I would disagree. From my perspective, the construction of the MARC record
is so encumbered and filled with (sorry but I cannot think of another
word but) idiosyncratic rules that it slows down, and ultimately inhibits
the process of cataloging.

> please don't refer to cataloging rules and "MARC format"
> as the problem. what is the problem?  at least in the library
> world, administrators routinely try to minimize the
> amount of information provided by catalogers as some
> kind of "cost saving." even at that, the result hasn't
> been so terrible.

It depends on one's perspective. From my perspective, it represents
addressing the immediate needs of the many at the expense of the immediate
and long term needs of the few, and potentially the long term needs of not
the many, but perhaps more than just "the few."

> i'm guessing the situation is going to get much worse
> than it is now (because of googlemania).

While I don't see goole as a solution, I believe it shows a different, and
perhaps more viable perspective. To remain viable, google will have to
develop more sophistication in its searching abilities.

> so, as soon as someone comes up with a cheap(er) way to
> discover and record all of this data, in a standardized
> shareable format, you can probably bet that we'll all
> being doing it (we'll all be forced to do it, unless
> googlemania eliminates library cataloging altogether in the
> next few years, which is a real possibility).

I believe we do have cheaper way available and that the construction of a
simplified process for the data entry could be developed based upon the
current technology designed for the digital information environment.

Would it not be better for catalogers to take the leap and work systemically with
the currently available technology, incorporating some of the thinking of
a google (a multiplatform search engine), instead of developing an AACR 3,
or holding on to a format which they might be forced to abandon? What is missing
in my reasoning?

Karl