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

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "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
>
++++++++++++++++
1) PRICE is an important item in my own personal catalog...though used 78's
don't have barcodes! OTOH, as I understand barcodes on current recordings,
having the barcode could make a fair amount of data on the recording
available in "one fell swipe" :-)

2) Actually, take numbers on 78's are vital to serious users of either the
phonorecord users (who may be seeking a specific take) or data researchers
(since it can verify the usage of a given take). They are also advisable
for LP/CD tracks (mainly for the first reason above). Do "stamper numbers"
on LP's often indicate different content? I'm not familiar with those...

3) Well, to make the differentiation between "catalog database" and
"discographic database" clearer, I'll venture into the world of books!
We can have a CATALOG of books held by a specific library. This may
indicate that the library has two copies of a given book. The first
one is a First Edition, with some uncut pages, autographed and
inscribed by the author and annotated by the recipient who was also
of some note. The second is a much later paperback edition and part
of a circulating collection of paperbacks (thus of minimal value and
will be eventually discarded or sold for a quarter). However, there
can also exist a corresponding entry in a BIBLIOGRAPHIC database...
a collection of data covering "Who wrote what, and when." Since the
latter database does NOT refer to specific physical books, both the
above REAL books will be referred to by one data record in it, which
relates only to the IDEA of that book, in any form.

My phonorecord catalog (when/if completed) will tell me about specific,
physical, REAL phonorecords I own. If Ecru (the cat) knocks one of my
78's to the floor, shattering it, I then delete the corresponding
DATA record in my catalog (and direct some intemperate language at
Ecru...). However, the destruction of that phonorecord does NOT
require the deletion of the corresponding data record in my discographic
database (even if it was the only known copy!), since the concept of
that phonorecord, including the performer, catalog number, label,
date recorded, usw., exists whether or not an actual copy does!

4)
> 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?
>
Well...MARC did, and does, a great job of collecting the data needed
for CARD catalogs of PRINTED WORKS (I assume, anyway...) which, forty
years ago, was what "librarians" viewed as their primary, if not only,
function. Since this is when the first (sadly underpowered by current
standards!) "computers" (IBM 360 mainframes, et al) emerged, simplfying
the task of what had not so long ago involved carefully typing out
innumerable 3x5 cards (and inventing a way to make them non-removable
from their drawers [possible puns omitted here]), it was probably seen
as a great improvement! However, in the same way that I have dBASE III+
running on my Wintel Pentium III, "reverse compatability" is often
seen as an asset! This means that, because all too many institutions
still have gazillions of their books carefully entered into MARC...
and still own said books...every version of MARC must be able to
read those c.1965 data records (if a way can be found to read the
"IBM cards" on which they still reside?!).

In fact, the problem isn't as formidable as it sounds...if I had
the time and ambition, I suspect I could use Visual Basic 6 to
create an application which would make it not only possible,
but easy (and transparent) to complete MARC data records on
phonorecords just by answering questions and entering the
appropriate data into a series of labelled text boxes! I
already have a program which allows the user to fill in
eight textboxes and save the result as a valid data record
in "C8T" format!

> > 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.
>
5) Ahhh-h-h-h...here we have (to use an expression I created accidentally
and like the sound of...) a horse of a different question! In our hunter-
gatherer days, it was important to the witch doctor(s) that the ordinary
members of the tribe NEVER find out that these W.D.'s were ordinary
humans just like the tribespeople...and great efforts were made to this.
Today, our "witch doctors" (at least per our discussion) are "highly
qualified librarians" with graduate degrees in Library Science...and
they must remain in our awe to justify their importance! Thus, my
"uncertified" data (in spite of the fact that I have authored one
of the standard works in 78rpm discograhy?!) can't be mingled with
their "official" data (even if I solved the "secret MARC code!").
We'll ignore the fact that much of the RDI data is, well...less
than reliable...having been entered by disinterested part-time
student help who may have assumed that "Use Victor Needles" was a
composer credit (to the noted Mr. Needles?! :-) )

> >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.
>
6) As I noted, I am more of an information collector than a shellac
collector...
and have been totally fascinated by the way that personal computers and
database programs have simplified that task...whether I ever reach my
goal of creating the ultimate discographic database, detailing every
78rpm phonorecord ever issued in North America is, however, open to
question...

However, I don't plan to quit soon...

Steven C. Barr