Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
1. Do each provide a source for clean, full, Marc cataloging records?
2. What percentage of records sought are found in each database?
3. What are the relative costs for the services?
4. What are the notable efficiencies of each system?
5. Does the system accommodate file downloads of vendor cataloging records?
6. Do the databases provide full name authority records and Library of Congress subject headings?
7. What vital services, if any, are not provided?
Friday, November 18, 2011
In addition, the catalog primarily organizes things; resources, books, CDs and DVDs. Where we need to go is to KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION. Not STUFF organization.
This is Karen Coyle's declaration, in her October 2011 keynote address to LITA, linked here.
And she is right, absolutely. It's just that we actually still have a large amount of stuff that needs to be organized.
Other interesting points include,
Why does Google (Yahoo, Bing) use keyword searching? Because it's easy. It is mechanical. It is a match between a string in a query and a string in a database (even with all of its enhancements, that's the bottom line). It requires no knowledge of the topic, no human intervention, no experts. Keyword searching is NOT knowledge organization. . . .Did you ever wonder why so many searches turn up Wikipedia in the first few hits? Wikipedia is ORGANIZED INFORMATION. To me it is the proof that organized information is needed, works, and helps people find and learn. Wikipedia does have pages for concepts, it does have links between related subjects, it IS organized knowledge.
Where does this leave us? We've spent the last 15 years re-making cataloging (for the fourth time in 50 years), but we are still using the Knowledge Organization (Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal Classificatin, Library of Congress Subject Headings) from a century ago; three Victorian era knowledge schemes. They are like information retrieval of Brideshead Revisited. Yes, cookery has just now become cooking, but that is simply too little, too late. All of these knowledge schemes precede computers and have the limitations of the analog world. Today's technology could help us do much better topical access.
We've got to move beyond the catalog. It is not longer an end in itself, and it is no longer a primary user service. Yes, we need the metadata that describes our holdings and our licensed resources, but this inventory isn't for our users but is fodder for services that will be used in a larger information environment. It needs to be like the OpenURL server database that sits between information resources on the network and the library user. This also means that FRBR and RDA will have to evolve. The catalog that they address, that they create, is no longer serving our users. Our data needs to focus on making connections outside of the library that will bring library resources to users as they interact with the world of information. Those connections can't be limited to connecting to the names of authors and titles, or to works and manifestations, but absolutely have to have a knowledge organization component. In fact, our main emphasis should be on knowledge organization, quite the opposite of where we are today.
An interesting talk!
More from Karen Coyle here.
- The 26 RDA test partners felt that, "were the limitations of the MARC standard lifted, the full capabilities of RDA would be more useful to the library community." This says to me that it's likely no ILS vendor will bother trying to do much with the RDA format until we've figured out what will replace MARC, and those wacky 3xx fields are going to be hanging around with us for a while.
- "Several of the test organizations were especially concerned that the MARC structure would hinder the separation of elements and ability to use URLs in a linked data environment."
- As the creation of MARC enabled the vast sharing of catalog that records that goes on today, with the side benefit of lowering the cost of cataloging, so to will this new resource "broaden participation in the network of resources. Librarians will be able to do a much better job of linking their patrons to resources of all kinds (from the library and many other sources) and costs can be better contained."
- There will be a need to continue to support MARC during the transition and for many years to come, given the millions of bibliographic records that currently exist in the MARC format.
- Links to the Bibliographic Transition listserv, contact details and all other official information, announcements, and resources related to the Bibliographic Framework Initiative are available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition
- Requirements for the new framework environment include:
- Broad accomodation of content rules and data models, i.e. it should be "agnostic to cataloging rules," accepting RDA, AACR2 and its predecessors, DACS, VRA Core and CCO among others.
- Provision for types of data that logically accompany or support bibliographic description such as holdings, authority, classification, technical, rights and archival metadata.
- Accomodation of textual data, linked data with URIs instead of text and both
- Catalogers may not see or understand all the metadata involved.
- Consideration of the needs of all sizes and types of libraries
- Continuation of maintenance of MARC until no longer necessary
- Compatibility with MARC-based records
- Software to move data from MARC to the new framework and back, if possible, for experimentation, testing, "and other activities related to the evolution of the environment."
- "Embracing common exchange techniques (the Web and Linked Data) and broadly adopted data models (RDF) will move the current library-technological environment away from being a nich market unto itself to one more readily understandable by present and future data creators, data modelers, and software developers. It is anticipated that all of those considerations, taken together, will result in greater cost savings for libraries. For example, libraries will be able to take advantage of a broader selection of technological solutions and leverage the knowledge and skills of current and future professionals. these professionals are, or will be, deeply conversant with more contemporary data creation, data modeling, and software development practices. "
- LC is developing an application for two-year grant funding to organize groups and support development and prototyping activities.
- "We're excited about this transition and hope you are too."
Comments on these proposed romanization tables may be sent to Bruce Johnson, Policy and Standards Division (email@example.com) by January 16, 2012.
Information for this article found in Catalogablog here and here.
It also appears to be related to other OS ILSs called the Next-L Enju Root and the Next-L Enju Flower, but I do not know what those are like.
The developer is Project Next-L, described as "a project to build a new integrated library system maintained by Japanese volunteers interested in libraries"
Thursday, November 17, 2011
This article describes how the editorial staff of Colorado Libraries, the journal of the Colorado Association of Libraries, transitioned from print publication to open access publishing using Drupal E-Journal Module. Although this particular Drupal module isn't widely used, it's interesting to learn what publishers need to consider when moving to an open access model.
Monday, November 7, 2011
NISO Launches New Open Discovery Initiative to Develop Standards and Recommended Practices for Library Discovery Services Based on Indexed Search
In a press release dated 25 October 2011, the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announced that their voting members approved a new Open Discovery Initiative work item to develop standards and recommended practices for next generation library discovery services. Using an aggregated index search of a wide range of resources, licensed and free, from multiple providers, these discovery services have the ability to deliver more sophisticated services with instant performance, compared to the federated search techniques previously used. Individuals interested in participating in this working group should contact Nettie Lagace (firstname.lastname@example.org). An interest group list for this project (email@example.com) will be available for those who would like to receive updates on the Working Group's progress and provide feedback to the group on its work. The full press release is available at: http://www.niso.org/news/pr/view?item_key=21d5364c586575fd5d4dd408f17c5dc062b1ef5f.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
"For reports of one court not ascribed to a reporter or reporters by name, eliminate the need to determine whether the reports were issued by or under the authority of the court. Instead, base the authorized access point on the authorized access point representing the court. Otherwise, different manifestations containing the same reports could have different authorized access points depending on whether they were issued by the court."
"Switch the order of the remaining instructions for a more logical sequence, dealing first with the exceptional case (reports ascribed by name) and then with all other cases (reports not ascribed by name)."
The proposed revision may be read in its entirety at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-1.pdf. John Attig is the ALA representative to the JSC; his blog is available at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxa16/blogs/resource_description_and_access_ala_rep_notes/.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Library of Congress is pleased to release for dissemination, sharing, and feedback the initial plan for its Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative.
The plan is available at:
Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Website
Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Listserv
Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control Website
Ann Della Porta
Chief, Integrated Library System Program Office
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540-4010