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

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, steven c wrote:

> 1) PRICE is an important item in my own personal catalog

Why do you find this to be important?

> 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...

Many believe that the lower the stamper number, the better the quality of
the impression.

> 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).

The bibliographic record should indicate the date of the particular
edition, and there is room within the MARC format to indicate things like
an autograph, etc. That indication can be done to enhance a local record
or can be included in the OCLC record.

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.

I guess I understand the distinction, but I don't find it significant.

> 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!

Yet, there are bibliographic records in OCLC where no copies are held.
Sometime a library may have an item and it will be lost, stolen,
withdrawn, etc. An OCLC record may have been created when the item was
held. Once that particular library "withdraws" its holding, the original
bibliographic record may be retained by the system, providing cataloging
information for some other institution should they acquire the item, or
informing a researcher with the information that such a recording did
exist.

> 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,

Indeed, MARC was a remarkable development for its time, especially keeping
in mind that most saw the computer as a means to simplify a linear process
of information.

> 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 is indeed true, however, I believe the abandonment of MARC need not
keep us all from accessing those records. Because the format was so well
done, that information could be uploaded to other systems. That is already
the case with those library systems that place the MARC formatted records
into different online access systems.

However, that does not mean that one needs to maintain that old format.

Further, there is the notion that the available information doubles every
ten years. Consider how little of that information is being cataloged in
the MARC format. The cost is too great and the resources too small. There
needs to be a systemic approach which might have those who create
information provide the markers to access that information...just as we
have WEB site owners providing the keywords for search engines.

Within the context of the old thinking (MARC), not only can we not keep up
with what information is being created, we haven't even come close to
addressing what was created.

> 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!").

I think it is important to keep in mind that those "witch doctors" have
but about 36 hours of graduate study. Even if many of them are excellent
with things like HTML and many applications which are used to create WEB
pages, they rarely, if ever, have any training in the basics of data base management,
programming, or the concepts of data management.

>From my perspective, it requires a rare combination of skills to recognize
and implement the possibilities that the technology presents. One needs to
have those who are trained in things like educational psychology,
graphics, communications as well as the fundamentals of computing etc.
PLUS, subject knowledge. I certainly know I don't have all of those
skills, but at least I believe I am willing to admit there are fundamental
problems within the thinking of libraries.

Some library schools are making attempts to
address many of these considerations, but the real problem comes, at least
from my perspective, from the top of information organizations. There
needs to be people of vision and great imagination who can take libraries
past the linearity of their past. This does not seem to be happening,
hence the rise of parallel organizations like yahoo and google who seem to
have vision and a willingness to change. From my experience, those who
claim to be taking libraries into the online age seem to be a bunch of
lost souls who have no sense of the economic limitations, potentials
of the technology, user needs (which they address with things like coffee
bars), costs of producing quality products and understanding their place in the
information chain. They seem to be grasping at straws using outmoded thinking,
equipment, and software, working with staff that came from a time when information
was not as viable of a product in the world of commerce...or maybe it was,
perhaps the modes of access were so encumbered as to inhibit is economic
viability...

I still wonder, maybe so few people are interested in those old shellac
discs because so few people know they exist, what is on them...and
can access them.

Karl