This link has been bookmarked by 81 people . It was first bookmarked on 16 Jan 2007, by Fabiano Caruso.
-
19 Mar 17
-
29 Jul 15
-
07 Mar 15
-
20 Jan 15
-
There they not only get the bibliographic information that they sought but also find themselves in a reassuring online community that reviews, recommends, and encourages them to take part.
-
-
18 Oct 14
rmtorresmedinarda COYLE
-
13 Dec 13
-
More effort to acquire and manage these materials will require different cataloging approaches than used now on the published products collected redundantly by libraries, as well as a more flexible infrastructure.
-
"Built on foundations established by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), RDA will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media. The new standard is being developed for use primarily in libraries, but consultations are being undertaken with other communities (archives, museums, publishers, etc.) in an effort to attain an effective level of alignment between RDA and the metadata standards used in those communities
-
Users spend less time with bibliographic description and more time browsing through full texts; less time searching and more time interacting in social environments that lead them to information
-
. But new calls for the integration of social tagging mechanisms, reviews, and use-based recommendations, inspired by experience with sites like Amazon, challenge even more the traditional assumptions about library catalogs
-
RDA is being presented by the JSC as a change in practice that will position libraries for the electronic age.
-
. the need to integrate data produced using RDA into existing files (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards) is recognized as a key factor in the design of RDA." This declaration of fealty to the data included in current databases of bibliographic information permeates the discussion about RDA.
-
The focus of RDA is called "the resource" and the resource is a FRBR manifestation/item described using the same concept of a pre-coordinated "record" as we find in AACR2.
-
Similarly, relationships between works or derivations have been expressed using textual citation-like forms in notes. These legacy practices fly in the face of the reality that in the digital world, identity is rarely expressed in a textual way, but instead standard linking technologies with Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) are preferred.
-
Clearly, if future library metadata approaches are expected to incorporate machine created metadata and support advanced machine manipulation, as recent reports from the Library of Congress and the University of California have stated, the views of computer scientists should be taken seriously
-
Even within the library world there is beginning to be some questioning of the cost-effectiveness of library cataloging conventions. Acknowledging this, one of the RDA goals is "Ease and efficiency of use" [17]. Instead, RDA drafts reveal highly detailed rules with large numbers of special cases.
-
Dissatisfaction with the RDA process and the already distributed drafts has recently surfaced in the ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA) documents. In a response to the most recent chapter reviews, CC:DA noted:
"There is a growing crisis of confidence within ALA regarding the RDA development process and its ability to produce a viable standard" [19].
-
the JSC seems convinced that the new standard can be built on the crumbling walls of AACR2 and that other communities will flock to adopt it
-
accept the offers of help from outside their traditional community, the advantages to all could be considerable
-
The Dublin Core and IEEE LTSC, while not focused on catalogs, are interested in interoperability with the library world and in reusing the experience of libraries in their own arenas. The archival community and the museum community, who considered themselves marginalized by AACR2, might well return to the fold if RDA could break the bonds of the AACR2 legacy.
-
It does not seem to matter to most users that libraries currently are the only conduits for a wealth of published literature that is not available for open access on the public Internet. Users will engage with services that provide materials quickly and with the least effort.
-
The "invisible library," like the dark web, is of no interest to those who do not know that it exists.
-
The new generation of users begins each information quest with a few typed keywords into an online query box. When seeking a book whose title they only partly remember, many of them turn to Amazon. There they not only get the bibliographic information that they sought but also find themselves in a reassuring online community that reviews, recommends, and encourages them to take part.
-
-
08 Sep 13
-
08 Jul 12
-
19 Jun 12
Marla McDanielAbstract: There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era.
(by Karen Coyle and Diane Hillmann, D-Lib Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007) -
15 May 12
-
15 Mar 12
-
25 Oct 11
-
librarians need to undertake a broad analysis of how the changing information technology and our rapidly evolving information resources are changing user behavior. The goal of that analysis should be to mold the user service of the future, recognizing that users and their information needs should be our primary focus. This will mean that our vision of the catalog and of cataloging must make a radical transformation.
-
The library online catalogs made use of the data elements produced according to the rules of AACR2. Those data elements, however, were encoded in a machine-readable cataloging record (MARC) that was developed in the 1960's as the carrier for the library cataloging data. Initially, MARC records were used exclusively by the typesetting operation at the Library of Congress that produced the printed card sets. By the late 1970's the MARC records themselves were becoming the entries in the computerized library catalogs
-
This new generation of users (not limited to the young) finds library OPACs stodgy, difficult to use, and unnecessarily limited by a single library's boundaries. They are comfortable with the search engine's abbreviated search results, in part because the ability to click on a result and determine quickly its suitability is far more satisfactory than the detailed "full record" description that is provided by the library catalog.
-
Libraries that take seriously the calls for re-examination of their mission are increasingly looking as well at changes in thinking about library collections as they attempt to retool for the future
-
Sandler, and others looking at the future of library collections, see the focus on the published products of scholarship, where libraries have traditionally put most of their effort, making way for a new focus on primary collections of research materials. These collections, often unique and organized with emphases on geographic relevance, programmatic needs, and faculty interests and strengths, are not the product of the scholarly enterprise, but instead the precursor. More effort to acquire and manage these materials will require different cataloging approaches than used now on the published products collected redundantly by libraries, as well as a more flexible infrastructure.
-
Resource Description and Access (RDA) is a standards effort to develop cataloging rules that would supersede the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2) [8].
-
This quote succinctly expresses a typical contradiction in the RDA effort: the desire to continue the AACR tradition while acknowledging that a greater change is needed. RDA cannot be successful without addressing the key changes in the information environment that have caused libraries to fall behind as primary information providers.
-
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR
-
The increase in web-based information resources, including a wealth of scholarly materials, has led to debate in the library profession on the primacy of the catalog as a discovery tool.
-
Users spend less time with bibliographic description and more time browsing through full texts; less time searching and more time interacting in social environments that lead them to information.
-
integration of social tagging mechanisms, reviews, and use-based recommendations, inspired by experience with sites like Amazon, challenge even more the traditional assumptions about library catalogs
-
Examples of legacy approaches abound in RDA.
-
Clearly, if future library metadata approaches are expected to incorporate machine created metadata and support advanced machine manipulation, as recent reports from the Library of Congress and the University of California have stated, the views of computer scientists should be taken seriously [15, 16].
-
It is hard to see how these rules can be anything but daunting, unnecessarily complex and expensive to implement.
-
a top-down process, beginning with agreements about models and general principles for description and setting the stage for detailed extension by any specialized community
-
This group, which includes representatives of most of the major library associations plus Microsoft and Google, is asked to: "Present findings on how bibliographic control and other descriptive practices can effectively support management of and access to library materials in the evolving information and technology environment; Recommend ways in which the library community can collectively move toward achieving this vision; and Advise the Library of Congress on its role and priorities
-
The emerging concepts of the Library Without Walls and Library 2.0 [26] are the progressive librarians' response to a changing information environment and the need to interact directly with a multitude of information providers and the networks that connect them.
-
Too many librarians still consider themselves the only true experts both in bibliographic metadata creation and in service to information seekers, behaving condescendingly to others newer to the information enterprise
-
But users have spoken with their keyboards, overwhelmingly preferring non-traditional and non-library sources of information and methods of information discovery
-
But users have spoken with their keyboards, overwhelmingly preferring non-traditional and non-library sources of information and methods of information discovery.
-
The "invisible library," like the dark web, is of no interest to those who do not know that it exists.
-
These users are increasingly ones who have never known a world without computers, much less a world without the Internet. The new generation of users begins each information
-
quest with a few typed keywords into an online query box. When seeking a book whose title they only partly remember, many of them turn to Amazon. There they not only get the bibliographic information that they sought but also find themselves in a reassuring online community that reviews, recommends, and encourages them to take part.
-
But institutional change today cannot be gradual, not when technology is setting the pace. Activities like the mass digitization of books being pioneered by the commercial information sector show that if libraries do not step up to the challenge of change they will become increasingly marginalized in the information age to come.
-
It's hard to imagine where the energy and resources for such a "next time" effort will come from, given that it is far more likely that, should the current process fail to look forward rather than backward, others will claim the territory
-
set a new goal to achieve consensus on the top layer
-
-
22 Oct 11
-
21 Aug 11
-
18 Aug 11
-
08 Aug 11
-
22 Jun 11
-
09 Jun 11
-
(This Opinion piece presents the opinions of the author. It does not necessarily reflect the views of D-Lib Magazine, its publisher, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, or its sponsor.)
<!-- Abstract or TOC goes here -->Abstract
There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era.
<!-- Story goes next -->Introduction
Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
The Catalog
Changes in the context in which libraries function have brought the library and its catalog to a crisis point. Today the development of computer technology and electronic document production presents a significantly different challenge than libraries had only fifty years ago, a time when information resources and the libraries that held them were still rooted in the era of books and periodicals, and the card catalog was the entry point to the library's physical holdings. The effect of computers and networks of information resources on the mission of libraries i
-
-
22 Apr 11
Steven TatumKaren Coyle and Diane Hillman on the need for more of a departure from AACR2
-
30 Mar 11
-
18 Mar 11
-
17 Feb 11
"There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era."
-
04 Dec 10
-
28 Oct 10
Claudette BrownCataloging rules for the 21at Century
-
27 Oct 10
-
04 Jul 10
marin dacos"Resource Description and Access (RDA) is a standards effort to develop cataloging rules that would supersede the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2) [8]. Work in this area has been taking place for at least a decade, starting in 1997 with the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, held in Toronto [9]. The work on the standard takes place under the auspices of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (JSC).
Initially, RDA was envisioned as a third edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, and was accordingly called AACR3, but in an effort to emphasize the break from the past it was renamed to Resource Description and Access (RDA). In its prospectus for RDA, the JSC expresses its intentions as:
"Built on foundations established by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), RDA will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media. The new standard is being developed for use primarily in libraries, but consultations are being undertaken with other communities (archives, museums, publishers, etc.) in an effort to attain an effective level of alignment between RDA and the metadata standards used in those communities" [10].
This quote succinctly expresses a typical contradiction in the RDA effort: the desire to continue the AACR tradition while acknowledging that a greater change is needed. RDA cannot be successful without addressing the key changes in the information environment that have caused libraries to fall behind as primary information providers. The challenges of this rapidly changing environment may be more than the developers of RDA can accommodate, given the firmness of their ties to AACR. What follows is an analysis of some of the serious issues in the RDA drafts to date, issues that may spell failure for the future of library catalogs. " -
21 Jun 10
-
25 May 10
-
31 Mar 10
-
30 Mar 10
-
28 Feb 10
-
24 Feb 10
-
19 Feb 10
-
15 Feb 10
-
13 Feb 10
-
14 Jan 10
-
02 Oct 09
-
15 Sep 09
Bridget SchaumannD-Lib Magazine
rda cataloging metadata library library2.0 libraries cataloguing standards
-
24 Jul 09
-
A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
-
All of these factors have been bound together to provide the service that embodies the main mission of the library: to put the desired resources into the hands of users
-
The library catalog and its conventions, valued by libraries as both an inventory of regularly published items and as the sharing mechanism for catalog entries, does not have a means to respond to this new, more chaotic information environment.
-
The fact that users have become comfortable with the result of a search leading seamlessly and instantly to the delivery of the resource to the user's workstation undermines the whole notion of the value of a detailed catalog. A complex metadata surrogate describing resources in detail is unneeded when the actual item can be viewed within a few seconds and with little effort on the part of the user.
-
For the traditional cataloging community, full and detailed descriptive cataloging is still the gold standard. They believe fervently that this level of description is essential to the continuation of scholarship, and resist most challenges to this view of their role and mission, even as Google seduces their users.
-
The notion that different communities of practice might welcome the ability to manipulate a catalog record display in ways not anticipated by rule makers, and that this capability should be considered essential as rules are formulated, is generally dismissed by this group as unworkable.
-
We must set the stage, with our standards and our use of technology, for library bibliographic services that serve today's users.
-
-
20 May 09
-
05 May 09
Melanie WackerArticle by Karen Coyle and Diane Hillmann published in D-Lib Magazine.
-
01 May 09
-
27 Nov 08
-
29 Oct 08
-
09 Sep 08
-
04 Aug 08
-
01 Jul 08
-
25 Jun 08
-
13 Jun 08
Garret McMahonD-Lib Magazine
-
08 May 08
-
The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
-
Initially, RDA was envisioned as a third edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, and was accordingly called AACR3, but in an effort to emphasize the break from the past it was renamed to Resource Description and Access (RDA).
-
-
19 Feb 08
-
12 Feb 08
-
11 Dec 07
-
21 Nov 07
-
06 Sep 07
-
29 Jul 07
-
09 Jul 07
-
04 May 07
-
28 Apr 07
-
16 Mar 07
-
20 Feb 07
-
17 Feb 07
shaitanThere is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an increm
catalog cataloging catalogue libraries library opac opacs library2.0 RDA metadata
-
02 Feb 07
-
24 Jan 07
georgiakharperKaren Coyle and Diane Hillman article about next gen cataloging rules.
-
17 Jan 07
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.