Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloging sound recordings

[Thom Pease <thompease@xxxxxxxxx>]

Another important note to make about the perceived
"duplicate information" entered: it's going to happen
in any standard we use, whether it's library
cataloging or metadata creation.  Why?  Because
certain fields like 0xx and the fixed fields are meant
to be machine-interpretable, much like certain
metadata tags.  Variable fields, such as 5xx notes
allow text to be entered and displayed to catalog
users, but themselves can't be understood by systems
(that is, until the Semantic Web is finally built and
implemented into our systems).  Some systems can link
certain fields or substitute one field's information
for another's if that information is missing.

And on the message about dates, one date is required
to be entered into the fixed field "Date" even if it's
an unpublished recording.  Two dates may be entered
there, though: usually the recording and the
publication date under "p" for DtSt.  Or a copyright
and a publication date may be entered, which happens
with books all the time.

As has been noted earlier, catalogers have been
entering much valuable and deep data about recordings
for many years, but many of our systems aren't
adequate to display them or make them useful for
searching or browsing.  But then maybe a simplified
display with less information is what your individual
library or archives' patrons want.  Everyone has
different needs for their local systems.

Thom Pease
Graduate Student, School of Library & Info. Science
Indiana University-Bloomington
tpease@xxxxxxxxxxx
(Graduating this summer!)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

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

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs