Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloguing again--ARSC responsibility?

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, steven c wrote:

> In going from a catalog "discography"/database (which lists the data on
> SPECIFIC
> phonorecords) to a discographic database, you are assuming the general from
> the specific...that is, you are assuming that every copy of Victor 12345
> is the same. This is usually...but NOT always...true; thus, there is a
> caveat in making that assumption. As well, a catalog database may (usually
> will) include data specific to the single copy of a phonorecord to which
> it refers. For example, that specific copy is on a certain shelf in a
> certain room of a cetain building, and cost its owner a specific price.
> None of those facts would apply to EVERY copy of Victor 12345!

Reading the mention of price...I am reminded of the OCLC records I have
encountered which have included not only the price the library may have
paid for the item (or the cost listed on the item) and the barcode as
well.

 There are
> some facts which would apply to all copies (the artist, the label, the
> number, the size, etc.) and some facts which would have to be verified
> for each copy (the label design/variety, the take used, etc.)...the former
> can be copied from a discographic database to a catalog database, while the
> latter need (at least in theory) to be confirmed as correct for the copy
> being catalogued.

Again, there is that point where the notion of an "average" user comes
into consideration. It seems to me that many with an interest in pre
microgroove recordings could very likely be interested in a take number.
True, some, especially those new to research, might not even be aware that
multiple takes were issued. So, would the inclusion of a take number for a
MARC record of an early recording be as important to include as a stamper
number for an LP.

> On the other hand, if your (or someone's) catalog database happens to
> include a phonorecord for which no corresponding data record exists
> in a discographic database which should include it, you can copy the
> data for that specific phonorecord into the discographic database...
> and by doing so assume the data applies to EVERY copy of that phonorecord.

I guess I don't see the need for the differentiation between catalog and
discography. I understand the each can have its own functionalism, but for
me, a discography is only a selective part of a catalog.

I believe we complicate finding information making such distinctions.

> And therein lies the problem! In practice, there is no such thing as a
> "typical user." In fact, it's folks like me that are the *A*typical users!
> For example, the person cataloguing the phonorecord holdings of a
> library may be thinking of "typical users" who are looking for
> current hit CD's...meanwhile, an Atypical user may be looking for
> "Chamber quartet works of the 18th century" and another looking
> for "recordings with Benny Goodman as sideman." Finally, I wander
> in looking for a recording which includes the alternate take of
> a given Ellington side, just to see whether it was ever reissued
> and if so on what CD label...and the vice-president in charge of
> cataloguing will be found in some secluded corner tearing out his hair!

Well, actually my guess is that you will find the cataloger in some corner
hidden by the piles of recordings needing cataloging, someone highly
trained in the rubics of AACRII and the MARC format, and less trained in
the particulars of recordings. If however, from my perspective, one had a
system that used the technology creatively (making the "rules"
transparent), it could open up the process to increased efficiency and to
those with discographic knowledge.

> Agreed...and what fascinates me (and, in fact, has done so since personal
> computers finally became reality) is the tremendous power these machines
> have to help us organize and collect data!

Yes, and consider that the MARC format and the related methods for data
entry haven't changed in over FORTY years! How many people do you know who
are still using software designed 40 years ago?

> However, the problem is that at some point data entry has to be done...
> and data entry, at least at present, requires human beings...but, at
> least ARSC could help standardize which data needs to be entered (and
> into fields of what name and what approximate size, so somebody
> could in theory combine my catalog data with Joe Gabroni's catalog
> data...)

Well, that is what OCLC-RLIN tries to do. However, your catalog and Joe's
won't work with theirs...they won't trust your "uncertified" data...and,
as far as I can tell, they just aren't interested in thinking outside of
their little box.

>From my perspective, a tragic loss to those who could find value in that
information...and a tragic waste of already limited resources afforded to
libraries.

Karl