RE: Displaying Work/Expression/Manifestation records

Posting to Autocat

This has turned into a very interesting thread indeed! I will only point out once again that there is the Cooperative Cataloging Rules at http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/, so there is a choice! For many libraries out there, there is no choice since they no longer have a budget that could cover the costs of redoing everything.

Concerning:

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:03:59 -0500, Kevin M. Randall wrote:

>Mac Elrod wrote:

>> Seems to me we are thinking in terms of philosophical categories, not
>> patron needs.
>
>The philosophy behind FRBR is quite definitely geared toward meeting patron
>needs!

This idea that FRBR is geared toward meeting patron needs requires serious rethinking. Why do we believe this? I have seen absolutely no evidence for it, but it seems it is just accepted. Are our patrons demanding to find works/expressions/manifestation/items by their authors/titles/subjects? Not my patrons. They want something else. In fact, in the many reports I have read discussing what people want and expect from information today, I have never seen mentioned anything similar to FRBR user tasks.

And yet, the cataloging sector of the library world insists that people want the FRBR user tasks. In examining this, we must first recognize that the library catalog *right now* allows people to do the FRBR user tasks. The current library catalog *right now* allows users to search by varying types of uniform titles, authors, subjects, and to bring together *right now* the works, expressions, manifestations and items, as shown in FRBR. FRBR does not posit *anything new* (except for some possibly useful new attributes, e.g. extent of an expression). FRBR describes in another way exactly the same thing that we do now and have done for a long time. This fact needs to be accepted, understood, and examined.

What FRBR defines as "new" are the *displays*, it posits nothing new in the way of access, and in essence, eliminates the unit card (or unit records). So, if I have 100 different versions of Beowulf in various translations and editions, the user can find all of these right now using traditional catalogs, but in an FRBR world, would not have to look at 100 or so different unit cards, and they will get the FRBR displays, which are almost exactly (if not exactly) the same displays as those found in 19th century printed catalogs.

Once we recognize that FRBR does *not* bring in anything new to the matter, but is a matter of display, and changes nothing in access (aside from eliminating the rule of three, which is only a single rule change that does not need an entirely new cataloging code), other things start to make sense, e.g. typing out abbreviations, or changing "1962-" to "born 1962", which are also matters only of display.

What would be new are the attempts to eliminate ISO2709/MARC21 and to put catalog information in RDF, or any other type of XML format. But this could be done today and you do not need FRBR/RDA to accomplish this.

Research has shown that fewer people are finding the library catalog useful, and are turning to other tools. The scientists left some time ago; the social scientists have been leaving for awhile; and now even the humanities are starting. These problems that people find with our catalogs: are they based on "display"? Or do they lie elsewhere? I ask, does FRBR merely restate the functions of the traditional catalog in late 20th-21st century terminology, or does it offer something new? To me, it is obvious that it offers nothing new. And to be fair, I don't think that FRBR even suggests that it does.

I am not claiming that we give up, or conclude that the records we create are useless. I believe completely the opposite! But we must rethink what we are doing in this new reality (which isn't even so new anymore!), and this can be a terribly daunting path to embark upon.

This is what I am trying to discuss in my podcast series of my "personal journey", by the way. (Apologies for yet another bit of self-promotion. Series at: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/search/label/podcast)

Discussion of Cooperative Cataloging Rules

There has been a lively discussion on the listserv NGC4LIB about the future of library services under the topic ALA Session on MODS and MADS: Current implementations and future directions. I have taken the chance to mention the Cooperative cataloging rules and explain them in some more depth.

It's an interesting conversation.

RE: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty

A discussion on the RDA-L list about the new rules concerning how to deal with treaties turned very interesting.

I hate to make lots of copies of my postings, so here is a message I posted today, which is now on my personal blog.

RDA, Worldcat Policies and so on

There has been a lot of thought-provoking and active comment concerning the draft policy on WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative on Autocat and NGC4LIB and I have taken a rather active part. I think this discussion has a lot to do with the very future of librarianship so it is a vital debate.

In a lot of ways, I feel that the Worldcat issue is realted to RDA. Both want to create environments that are primarily closed instead of opening up our data to the world for sharing and innovations. Who knows who is right?

You may wish to follow along and/or join in on Autocat or NGC4LIB.

By the way, I added a link to a tool in the upper-left corner that has come in handy for me: an easy way to keep up on the Latest Library News.

RDA, AACR2 and a simple, commonsense implementation plan

I sent this posting to Autocat, in response to Alan Danskin, Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

Dear Alan,

Thank you so much for your answers, but the main question still has not been addressed:

You state: "In developing RDA JSC established guiding objectives and principles, including the objective of consistency, which we defined as follows, "The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards)." This consistency helps to control the burden of training and will reduce the impact of implementation on productivity. Future changes are planned to bring RDA closer into alignment with international principles and standards, but it was agreed with constituencies to take a gradual approach rather than making all of the changes at once."

While I understand and sympathize with this sentiment, I still do not see how the adoption of any RDA rule, or collection of rules, that I have seen will change the situation in a more forward looking way. Which rules will do this? Elimination of the rule of three? Changes in the abbreviations? Using "place of publication not identified"? Changing from "Selections" to "Works. Selections."? These look to me like mere changes in procedures that are neither positive nor negative. In fact, in general I do not understand how changing any cataloging rule, i.e. a guideline on input for describing and/or arranging resources for later retrieval, could have that much of an impact on our user communities. Getting rid of the rule of three will most probably have an impact on cataloging productivity, but I doubt if any patrons will even notice it because they don't understand the rule of three in the first place. Certainly they will not notice any other of the current changes, except for the administrators of our budgets who will notice when they decide whether or not to pay to retrain catalogers and rewrite the current local cataloging documentation to refer to the new rules. Plus, the administrators will have to decide whether or not to pay for online subscriptions to RDA *on an ongoing basis*.

On the other hand, sharing our data in accessible formats (i.e. non-MARC) and enabling URI linking to authority records could make a huge difference to our user community. Look what happened already with the CERN library that simply let their catalog records out and within just a couple of days, people were using them in innovative ways. http://www.bibliothek2null.de/2010/02/03/open-data-works/ Just think what people could do with our stuff! There are many things that the cataloging community could do right now that would make a difference to our patrons.

Also:
"AD: While we all look forward to the day when funding is not under threat, experience suggests it would be a mistake to sit on our hands until it arrives. The underlying business model for resource description is changing and RDA is part of the adjustment libraries are making in response to that change."

This is difficult to answer. If there simply is not enough money, there will be no choice for many libraries. They simply *cannot* adopt RDA even if they want to because the funding does not and will not exist. I personally do not see any advantage in RDA over AACR2 aside from ethereal statements such as: "JSC would contend that this is the most exciting aspect of RDA development. RDA is based on the FRBR and FRAD models with a focus towards the semantic web and its use of linked data. Aligning RDA with these models positions us to benefit from future convergence of the conceptual models for the different sectors within the domain of resource description," which, while I am sure you and the JSC are sincere, such a statement is exceedingly vague and unsatisfying.

I would like to close this by once again emphasizing that I have the greatest respect and appreciation for all the work everyone has done on RDA. I understand it has been a massive undertaking by some of the best minds in cataloging in the world. But at some point, if a person honestly thinks something is seriously wrong, that person has to stand up and say that we are going down the wrong road and therefore we must find another path.

Libraries need a real choice and that is the reason why some concerned librarians have put forward the Cooperative Cataloging Rules to provide an alternative that would promote consistency with current practice as well as providing a forum for continued development. For more information on the initiative, see: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

James Weinheimer

FW: [NGC4LIB] The future of the academic library

B.G. Sloan wrote:

<snip>
Barbara Fister writes a nice essay on the future of the academic library:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6714965.html
Bernie Sloan
</snip>

Thanks for pointing to this excellent article. It's a nice summary about how various people are dealing with a world they see as disintegrating. The main problem is that we are in a moment of transition and it is impossible to know which way choose. These are matters that seem much easier in retrospect, and I'm sure in 30 or 40 years as people reflect on whatever is in store, many will conclude that, "Well, really they had no choice but to do ..." So, people often conclude that Lincoln had no choice, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson (just to take U.S. presidents) were all compelled by outside forces to do what they did and had little personal choice. Of course this ignores their reality which in fact, was filled with anguish and doubt.

It seems to me that there are essentially two ways of dealing with major transitional moments like this: the technical, bureaucratic way (or as I prefer to call it, CYA :-), or the dynamic way.

Both ways assume that the future cannot be foretold, so the 1st method wants to avoid eventual blame if something goes wrong (as it most probably will), so you include as many people as you can; you form committees with pro/con papers, debates, maybe even take votes occasionally along the way. This method may take quite literally forever, but it has the undoubted advantage of diffusing any blame when bad decisions are made because no single person, i.e. "nobody" can be found to be at fault.

The other way is much more dynamic. Someone gets an idea and runs with it, fixing problems encountered along the way. Some ways may turn out completely wrong and those involved have to face up to their mistakes, but if they are allowed to admit the problems quickly enough, the mistakes may not be so dire. More importantly, they may find others doing something similar and they can collaborate. Therefore, we have the old idea of "trial and error" which works so long as people have the freedom to make "trials," while "errors" are freely admitted and not punished, or at least not too badly.

One method is not necessarily better than the other--a lot depends on the moment of time you happen to be living in. In peaceful, predictable times when changes are more or less predictable, the first method may be fine and in fact, much better than the second method, which is almost always highly disruptive. But in moments of tremendous change, the first method can lead to extinction.

And now, to bring this back to the topic of "Next Generation Catalogs for Libraries," it is obvious that libraries are prime examples of the first method, while Google represents the second.

I think libraries must begin to freely admit that some things they cherish most are obsolete today. (This appears finally to really be happening now) But once they accept these truths, I believe that libraries, i.e. as a collective endeavor, *can* have a huge advantage over organizations such as Google which, after all, is a company that must show a profit. As a result, Google needs to drive people to Google products in all kinds of innovative ways, but we know that there is much, much more out there than Google products. Google is only one tool for us. As a result, we have far more at our disposal then Google does.

If we to build tools that take what Google has, plus Yahoo, the Internet Archive, Gallica, scanned library materials scattered around, open archives, etc. plus input from academics, and most important, really and genuinely *cooperate* closely with our colleagues from all over the world in the areas of libraries, archives, publishing, open archives, and on and on, broadening and building on our traditional tasks of: selection, description and organization, we could build something genuinely new.

For example, one thing is clear to me: the public (both academic and the general public) desperately wants *selection* and may want it more than description or organization. Just look at the emphasis in Information Literacy classes about "evaluating resources." Instead of putting all the onus on the end users, what can the library community do about it? Well, how about we do "selection?" After all, the public trusts us for books. Then however, multiple questions arise from all over the place: 1) How in the world can we do selection of web materials in any kind of practical way with the resources we have? (Answer: not the old way!) 2) What does selection mean when related to materials on the Internet? 3) Who else can we involve? ...

These are just a few questions which in turn provoke other questions, including those of description and organization. They go on and on. Are there solutions? The *only way* to know if solutions even exist is through trial and error, not by committees and position papers. Google has demonstrated this brilliantly. Choosing this method is provocative by its very nature, yet if (and I hope when) the library field solves these problems, I'll bet we could create something that could really appeal to the public. And the public could respond very positively.

Naturally, there would be lots of mistakes along the way. The dynamic method is exciting, but frightening at the same time.

A few musings.

James Weinheimer j.weinheimer@aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992

RDA, AACR2 and a simple, common sense implementation plan

Posting to RDA-L concerning the thread RDA, AACR2 and a simple, common sense implementation plan

This has been an interesting thread, especially in light of the Cooperative Cataloging Rules initiative.

To point out once again, the idea of that initiative was to give librarians a real choice, and not only a choice of staying with a dead and never-to-be-updated AACR2, but to ensure those rules can continue after RDA arrives, but even more importantly, each cataloger can become a part of the bigger world of metadata production. Instead of waiting passively for the next set of RIs to issue from the gurus at LC, each cataloger can become an active participant in their creation and evolution.

Does this mean that I think AACR2 is "better" than RDA? No, not necessarily, but I haven't seen the opposite either. The question is beside the point: I just have not seen how RDA will improve the situation for cataloging in any way, except for some vague, theoretical promises involving FRBR tasks, which I question as well. So if there is no improvement, why go through the costs and hassle of implementation?

We are facing some major challenges from Google Books et al. and of course, from our budgets. At the same time, we must deal with the realities of a reading public who use full text keyword searching all the time and are finding the tools we make increasingly strange.

For example, I have discovered that when many people search for an author named "john white" they actually expect to go through zillions of items about the white house, the white pages, perhaps racism (all from "white") on the one side, and then combing through pages about toilets and prostitution (all from "john"), plus the hassle of finding a specific "john white" out of all of that informational goo. Today, this is seen to be just business as usual for many of our users. They have come to expect this level of sheer chaos in their information retrieval and believe there is nothing wrong with it. In some sort of bizarre twist, they think they are very good or expert searchers as well!

Many, if not most of our users, do not even realize that there is an option. Yet, this almost hopeless conclusion presents us with what I think is our greatest opportunity: a lot of what we need to do is to educate people that there is an easier way for them to find things, that is, so long as we are willing to build tools that meet them halfway, which OPACs do not do. Plus, we must shift the focus of our efforts into the directions that our users want: into the digital world. Just because library catalogers want to ignore the world wide web (and they may have good reasons for doing so, since they have so many incoming books, catalog maintenance, backlogs and so on), it does not follow that our users are not using the WWW, but rather they find it incredibly useful, and for their purposes, more useful than our catalogs, and by extension, our libraries themselves. Finding a specific "john white" in the OPAC is all right, but what would excite our users is if they could do the same thing on the WWW.

We ignore the needs of our users to our own peril, because they can ignore us just as easily. When the millions of full-text books in Google Books come online eventually, it will be easier than ever to ignore libraries, and the consequences could be disastrous.

What are the solutions? I can't say that I know them, but one thing I am sure of: it's not with the cataloging rules, to change "s.l." to "n.p." or "no place" or "nowhere" or "unknown." It's not by getting rid of the rule of three, or anything like that. To me, that's like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The changes must relate to our outputs, i.e. updating catalog processing, increasing cooperation, and maintaining standards so that we can increase our productivity and efficiency to a point where it is noticeable by everyone. On the other end, now that keyword access has proven itself useful, we need to discover how keyword access has changed the equation: how can it be used together with controlled vocabularies in the best ways?

I don't know what will be the purpose of the local library catalog, or even the local library collection once tools such as Google Books comes out, but I still maintain that the traditional library tasks will become perhaps almost exclusively important: selection, organization, and reference.

James L. Weinheimer

RDA, AACR2 and a simple, common sense implementation plan

Elaine Sanchez from Texas State/San Marcos has begun a discussion on Autocat in the last few days that is highly relevant for the CCR. There is a realization setting in that the implementation of RDA may not be worth the costs. I suggest people see the discussion and share your own opinions.

If you don't already subscribe to Autocat, I think this link should work.

http://search.gmane.org/?query=RDA%2c%20AACR2%20and%20a%20simple%2c%20common%20sense%20implementation%20plan&group=gmane.education.libraries.autocat&sort=revdate

Jim Weinheimer

Experimental ISBD Tool

We have added an experimental tool to the CCR Wiki: a search tool that works with Adobe Acrobat. If you go to the ISBD Outline, you will now see a search box. This will use the PDF Open Parameters to search the word(s) inside the current ISBD.

It takes a moment to download the ISBD, but then it works very well.

FW: [RDA-L] www.rdaonline.org

Christoph Schmidt-Supprian wrote:

<snip>
A very interesting project - and one I've told all my colleagues to watch. But as long as there are no detailed AACR2-type rules (so far only the various rule interpretations seem to be available), this is not a replacement for AACR2 or RDA. It strikes me that, at least so far, this site is rather an alternative to Cataloger's Desktop than to RDA. In other words, it's an aggregator of rule sets, not a replacement of any one set of rules.
</snip>

The Cooperative Cataloging Rules initiative is not designed as a replacement for anything. There are two separate parts to it.
First, it is a continuation of what we have been doing and second, a common meeting-ground with other metadata communities for discussion of bibliographical concepts.

1) The sections at: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/library-of-congress-rule-interpretations and http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/isbd-areas
To use this site correctly, catalogers need to retain their copies of AACR2. Then, the rule interpretations from the Library of Congress, which your library, and any library, follows every time anyone accepts a record with 040 $aDLC$cDLC or from any other library that follows LC cataloging. These rule interpretations are now more widely available, and you can interact with them, through the CCR. AACR2 is under copyright. Therefore, you need to keep your copy of AACR2, while the supplementing rules (in many cases, rules that are far more readable, more understandable, and more useful) are available online for everyone.

The ISBD is available on the web to everyone and it serves as the basis for AACR2. Therefore, there are links into the ISBD because we can't put AACR2 online.

The CCR can provide new resources for catalogers, e.g. a page made by Becky Yoose on cataloging kits at: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/kits. Even though it is still a work in progress, it is useful already, and for others in the Wiki, it can be built cooperatively.

RDA is intended to replace AACR2 and the LC Rule Interpretations and this will involve costs of retooling and retraining, plus subscription costs. The reason for the CCR initiative is that many libraries simply cannot do this since we are going through the terrible budget cuts, and my library is one of those. There can be no discussion about this. In addition, I have brought up very serious theoretical questions as to the correctness of the RDA/FRBR model, and that it is highly probable that this model is obsolete. So, it is not wise to spend lots of money and resources to make a better horse & buggy which will be ignored in our modern information society, at a time when we need to provide something genuinely useful for our public. What our public needs from information and how they interact with it is highly unclear because we are in a transitional moment, although much research is going on right now.

Therefore, I feel that options are absolutely necessary for libraries today. Cataloging rules need to continue to develop when work on AACR2 and the LCRIs ceases, and now the CCR will be able to continue to follow and develop the rules we already use. In this way, libraries have the simplest option to *continue doing what we have done* until there is some kind of clarity on how we should best prepare ourselves for the future and how best to spend our resources. For instance, it is a no-brainer that MARC21/ISO2709 format absolutely must change, and I believe it is only after some real experiments have been made in sharing our records with the public, how they accept them and what they do with them, that we can begin to decide how we should continue.

If this is a revolution, it is probably one of the most conservative revolutions I can imagine. While I think we can all agree that we desperately need basic, fundamental changes, in my opinion, RDA provides only cosmetic changes. As I have written in other posts, RDA does not attempt to solve the fundamental problems faced by libraries, catalogs, cataloging, or our users. While I have great respect and admiration for those in this effort, someone must take a stand at this highly important juncture and proclaim: This is the wrong road to choose. And thus the Cooperative Cataloging Rules.

This leads me to the second part of the CCR.

2) The sections at: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/conceptual-outline and http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/cataloging-ru
To help determine what needs to be done, the CCR also attempts to bring different rules and practices together. If we are to cooperate with other metadata communities as everyone says we must, it cannot be a case of: everyone else can change everything they do to follow our rules, and then we can cooperate. Cooperation means change from everyone concerned, and that can only come from a common understanding of what everyone means, and what everyone does. Therefore, we must begin to understand the rules and practices of others, and the CCR attempts to provide this common meeting ground in an open and cooperative fashion.

This dual purpose may not be very clear in the CCR as it is now. During the Christmas break, I will try to redesign the main page to make this clearer.

Jim

James L. Weinheimer
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy

FW: Open Reply to Thomas Mann

Here is a message I posted to several lists. In it, I mention the Cooperative Cataloging Rules initiative.

To those interested, I have just made available another of my "open replies" to Thomas Mann's report (http://www.guild2910.org/Future%20of%20Cataloging/LCdistinctive.pdf) on the E-LIS database (once again) at: http://eprints.rclis.org/17331/
"An Open Reply to Thomas Mann's report 'What is Distinctive about the Library of Congress In Both its Collections and its Means of Access to Them ...'"

Regards,
James Weinheimer
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy

Re: [NGC4LIB] FRBR WEMI and identifiers

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

<snip>
Ah, you're right. Current practices make it difficult or impossible to tell (in an automated fashion) whether a uniform title authority record represents a Work, an Expression, or a Manifestation, and exactly what 'headings' correspond to which as well.

Jim, does this help you at all see why _some_ change of our cataloging practices is required? What we do is just too ambiguous for the machine world.
</snip>

This question concerns me because I don't believe I am against changes in our cataloging--I think it's quite to the contrary. It's just that I don't think that RDA is a productive way of going about it. This colors the project I have initiated with the Cooperative Cataloging Rules, so I feel I must explain.

What do I think needs to be changed? Let's look at the same examples I gave before:

100 1_ |a Shakespeare, William, |d 1564-1616. |t Sonnets. |l German & English. |k Selections

The suggestions I have seen, and the project of subject headings at http://id.loc.gov/ does the same, is that this heading must be turned into a URI to be useful. I disagree since I don't think that even if this headings were turned into a URI, it would be very useful at all. What would be extemely useful however, is to link what can be linked, and there is an awful lot here: separate links to Shakespeare's authority record (an extremely rich source); to the Name/title record of the Sonnets; to the different German/English versions, and to different Selections. As a result, this single heading is extremely rich in linked data. So, this text-based string should be dismantled and linked wherever possible, and it is very possible here.

Therefore, the above heading would be (in very poor XML):

<uniformTitle>
<name>[link to Shakespeare's heading]</name>
<title>[link to record for the Sonnets]</title>
<language>[link from list of languages]</language>
<version>[link to record for selections]</version>
</uniformTitle>

Therefore, the above should all be separate links when it becomes very useful.

Let's examine the other heading I gave before:
130 _0 |a Bible. |p O.T. |p Genesis. |l Catalan. |s Clascar. |d 1914

Again, when viewed *not as a text string* but as an entire number of separate linked data, this is extremely rich. I can imagine in both cases, that the OPAC would present the user with different possibilites depending on where you clicked, using various onmouseovers to display the options. Someone would see the incredible NAF heading for the Bible, and would run the mouse over Genesis, and would get all kinds of links about the book of Genesis, going into the authority file, but it could be enriched with links into Wikipedia, into versions, into online webpages, and so on. With subjects, you could run your mouse over the main heading and get all the cross-references and scope notes immediately.

Now, from the point of view of *cataloging* i.e. what the actual work that the cataloger does, exactly what needs to change here? Are the rules for constructing the name heading for Shakespeare going to change? No, because they don't need to. How about for determining the title "Sonnets"? No. Or Selections? No. Any changes for the Bible heading? No. For individual books of the Bible? No. And this is what AACR2 and RDA deal with, not with coding.

Now, let's consider the |l in the Shakespeare heading. Here I could see a change in that |l could be made repeatable, thereby simplifying both the cataloger's and the user's tasks (no need to learn the order). From these simple examples, I think it's clear that our formats must change substantially, but the standards for cataloging do not, or not all that much. Still, I submit that deciding to "link what can be linked" would constitute a huge advance in the catalog and that our users would love it.

Do we need WEMI and RDA for this? I don't see why. First, I don't think that WEMI fits the world of information very well and to me, such an abstruse theoretical/philosophical argument is far less important at a moment when we should be concentrating on *linking wherever we can*. There are lots of places for links in all of our records, and so I see it as primarily a systems problem that can be implemented *right now.* Certainly the models that FRBR and WEMI present are at the least far too dubious for the library world to focus its diminishing resources on at this very difficult moment, as the "Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace" makes very clear. (I'm still reading and considering it, by the way)

Ultimately, we may discover that changes in cataloging procedures are necessary or useful in some cases, e.g. the multiple languages in the uniform title I showed, but these types of changes will make themselves clear as experience is gained.

I hope this makes my own ideas clearer: I am not saying that the current situation should not change, I am saying that FRBR, WEMI and their RDA version do not provide the changes that either we or our users need. At the same time, there's a lot that can be done right now, if people are willing to open up their data for experimentation by the general information community.

Jim Weinheimer

Support for the Research Process: An Academic Library Manifesto

Here is a manifesto issued by the RLG Partnership Research Information Management Roadmap Working Group. It looks like there are some great ideas here. Each of their points are well considered, but I think these two merit special interest:

• Design flexible new services around those parts of the research process that cause researchers the most frustration and difficulty.
• Embed library content, services, and staff within researchers’ regular workflows; integrating with services others provide (whether on campus, at other universities, or by commercial entities) where such integration serves the needs of the researcher.

To accomplish these goals means a sea change in the library mind-set: creating tools that work in tandem with other tools our patrons need, instead of expecting everyone to learn the special ways of the library; and always keeping the needs of the user uppermost in mind. Libraries have always claimed to do just those things, but many of our patrons would disagree.

I would only add that there are additional needs that a library has for its internal purposes, but these should not overshadow the goals of this manifesto.

Give it a read!

Updates to the Wiki

We have added some additional links and a page to the Cooperative Cataloging Rules Wiki.

1. There are now links to cataloging rules for specific materials, i.e. Online Books Electronic Editions, Online Books Reproductions, and Cataloging Online Integrating Resources, all from Yale.
2. We have also added a new page Reports on the Practice of Cataloging, where we can place links to reports of special interest to the practice of cataloging in a modern environment. So far, we have just made primarily links to the major sites, but this can become much more specific.

Please think about joining and helping your colleagues!

New Post in NGC4LIB

I discussed some the Cooperative Cataloging Rules Wiki in the NGC4LIB email list. You can read it at https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=NGC4LIB;Ml0AuQ;20091030150755%2B0100, and the copy on my own blog at http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2009/10/fw-ngc4lib-tim-berners-lee-on-semantic.html

NGC4LIB

You may be interested to see the wide-ranging discussion on Cooperative Cataloging Rules, and related topics going on at NGC4LIB. Take a look at the topics: Cooperative Cataloging Rules Announcement, User tasks--outdated? Why?, and Tim Berners-Lee on the Semantic Web.

Re: [NGC4LIB] Cooperative Cataloging Rules Announcement

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:53:04 -0400, .. wrote:

>I have a question and a comment.
>
>You suggest that FRBR is obsolete, but that AACR2 is revisable. So, my
>question is: Why do you think a 31-year old standard, AACR2 (1978) can
>be updated, but not an 11-year old standard, FRBR (1998)?

Thanks for some good questions. I'll try to answer them:

FRBR is a theoretical framework, not a standard. It purports to define what
makes a bibliographic record functional, or not. FRBR states that for a
record to function, it must allow people to "find, identify, select, and
obtain" "works, expressions, manifestations and items." It was never tested
among the non-library community (that I know of) and what it says is
certainly highly dubious in today's world, which has new tools that were
completely unknown in the 1990s, e.g. pre-Google, pre-Web2.0. In my own
opinion, what FRBR actually does is to describe the library-centric view of
the information universe as it stood in the 1990s. (But I reiterate that I
am not finding fault with anyone. Nobody could have predicted the explosion
that has occurred) Also, and this is very important: the public likes the
new tools and prefers them to ours in many, many ways. Ever newer tools
appear every day and we are living through a time of tremendous creativity,
innovation and ferment in the information world. With the Google Books
project and the popularity of open access plus new projects, we undoubtedly
are in for even more change, e.g. see the latest in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802360.html.
We may be looking at a time, perhaps very soon, a time period measured in
months instead of decades, when someone can get a bachelor's degree without
ever setting foot into a library. How much longer will it be before they can
get a master's, or PhD? I don't think too many people will maintain that it
can never happen and perhaps it will come much sooner than we can imagine
right now.

AACR2 is a well-established standard that has been continually updated both
with published revisions and the LCRIs, so it does not really date from
1978. Actually, it's FRBR that has not been updated. Although there is a
theoretical framework operating in the background, AACR2 itself is not
theoretical but a highly practical document, and does not talk about record
structure or anything like that; it tells you what information is important
and how to input it.

>Back in May, Tom Delsey, the editor of RDA, gave a presentation on
>AACR2/RDA at a CLA pre-conference. He stated that a lot of the content
>(of AACR2) hasn't changed. Rather the main change of RDA was structural
>(based on FRBR). Maybe retraining will be less cumbersome than we think
>if we emphasize the continuity of the two codes.

This is my understanding as well. Therefore, if things are changing so
little, and retraining will be minimal (essentially learning how to navigate
the reorganized rules and learning new rule numbers, which means that all
local documentation will have to change as well), it is natural to ask: why
do it at all? While our day-to-day work will definitely be disrupted and
made more expensive with online subscriptions, what difference will it make
to our users? Exactly what will someone be able to do with a record created
in RDA that they cannot do today? Will RDA make it easier to get
bibliographic records from other entities? Does RDA create anything that
people want and is worth the cost?

Library catalogs (and consequently, I submit, libraries themselves) are
facing very, very hard times indeed. Especially when there are free
alternatives out there that people like and prefer at the same time as we
are facing e ver-dwindling resources.

My library, and many others out there, simply cannot pay for retraining and
the subscriptions to the online RDA. It's that simple. Therefore, there is
no choice for these libraries: they absolutely cannot implement RDA. In
addition,
I personally have very strong theoretical objections as to its
ultimate value to our library users or to librarians in general. That's why
I looked around for a genuine choice and found the Cooperative Cataloging
Rules, which provides the choice for libraries who cannot, or prefer not to
implement RDA.

While we must change, it must be in new directions that promise cooperation
and high-standards, and we make must be relevant to our patrons. I think
there are many things we can do in this new world, and most ways are very
inexpensive, but major decisions have to be made, e.g. do I put my data on
the web for free in useful formats for free download and further use by the
world? I confess that I find this potentially disturbing, as Tim Berners-Lee
describes his view of things, where people will take your data and rework it
in all kinds of ways they like. Still, while I may find it disturbing, that
is just the price of admission to the world-of-information-as-it-is-becoming
(apologies to Kant!).

Does this answer your questions?

Jim Weinheimer

Official Announcement

Well, I've announced it. Here it is:

Everyone knows the information world has been changing in response to the revolution in information technology and it is changing at an ever increasing pace. Many of our patrons have discovered they prefer to use non-library tools to find, access, and use information in ways that could not have been imagined only 15 years ago. It seems natural to ask: What can be the role of library catalogs, and even of librarians themselves, in a future that is so difficult to predict and that threatens to leave them behind? Today it is amazing how quickly, easily, and inexpensively computers can generate cataloging information (or metadata); new, advanced algorithms attached to full-text searching have proven very popular with the general populace. While the power of these tools is undeniable, information experts can see quite clearly how these same tools can quietly hide information as well, but such arguments can be extremely subtle.

In the field of metadata creation, it would be futile to compete only in the areas of speed and quantity. Our advantages lie in the high quality and the standards of the metadata we create, but since our patrons are finding other tools highly useful and in many cases, prefer them to our own, we must reconsider very precisely what the terms "quality" and "standards" mean in today's environment; an environment that is truly shared and where our patrons can easily access materials that are completely outside a library's control. While we can agree that productivity must increase--and increase a lot--how can we ensure that quality and standards do not suffer? How can we take advantage of some of that metadata that is generated automatically, or the metadata created by other bibliographic communities, so that we can improve the final products of all of our work and give our patrons tools they really want and need?

Our new website attempts to find answers to some of these questions. The "Cooperative Cataloging Rules" is now available at http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/. We want to announce its existence and to put out a general request for professional metadata creators to participate. The site has two primary purposes: 1) to offer a serious alternative to RDA and 2) to offer a place for sharing bibliographic concepts within the general metadata community.

1) Alternative to RDA

Many in the library cataloging community have expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of implementing RDA. They feel that while it will cause upheavals in the day to day work of catalogers, RDA will not solve the truly serious problems facing the cataloging community. These issues have been discussed in many places, including the published literature and many library email lists. We will not attempt to summarize the arguments here, but will merely state that the adoption of RDA is highly controversial.

Add to this the serious budgetary problems almost all libraries are now facing, and it turns out the costs of retooling, retraining, rewriting local documentation, plus online subscriptions, make implementation of RDA beyond the abilities of many libraries, especially for an untested product.

Still, libraries have legitimate concerns. They fear the old rules will no longer be maintained and updated, therefore, they in essence have no choice except to adopt RDA because if they don't, they will remain forever stuck in the year 2009 (or 2010 or so, whenever RDA comes out).

This is where the "Cooperative Cataloging Rules" step in. It will build on the richness of the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations, which have been placed into a wiki for searching and further development. There are links into each rule of the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). We also have an international group of cataloging experts willing to become involved in this effort. It still needs the participation of many more cataloging experts.

Speaking for myself, I embark upon this course with great hesitation since I have tremendous respect and appreciation for my colleagues who have labored so diligently over the creation of RDA. Nevertheless, having said this I must also take a stand and say that my library is not in a position to implement RDA, and I know there are many other libraries out there in the same predicament. We cannot afford the costs of retraining, retooling, online subscriptions and other unforeseen costs that inevitably arise in a huge project such as this. While I believe that it is vitally important that traditional library cataloging adapt in answer to the changes in society and knowledge exchange, I have grave doubts whether RDA actually achieves this: does RDA provide either to libraries or to library patrons what they want and need? I think not, and many others share that opinion.

For these reasons, alternatives must be found and with the Cooperative Cataloging Rules, there is one. All that librarians need do is retain their current copies of AACR2, supplemented by the LCRIs, but now these excellent, tried-and-true rules can continue to develop in a genuinely cooperative, global manner.

In short, we are interested in giving libraries a real choice, plus we want to give concerned catalogers a voice in the future of our profession.

Since nothing like this has ever been attempted before, it is difficult to predict how it will develop. That it can work, I personally have no doubt, since we have examples of several successful open source projects before us. At this point, I foresee something similar to the development of the Linux operating system applied to library standards.

Whether it will work is another matter entirely but we can try our best.

In this part of the project, emphasis should be placed on practical matters. We should not get bogged down by major theoretical debates.

There is another place for that.

2) The Conceptual Outline

The second purpose of the The Cooperative Cataloging Rules is to try to establish a common conceptual ground with other metadata communities so that we can begin to understand one another. This is in anticipation of the time when different communities will genuinely share their metadata in a coherent fashion and perhaps in ways that we cannot imagine at this point in time. If we are serious about wanting to share information and cooperate, it cannot be a one-way street. While others need to understand libraries and library needs, we need to understand other communities and their needs. To take only one example, while superficially the same, the edition information in an ONIX record and edition information in a record following AACR2 can be quite different conceptually, leading to great confusion among all concerned. Add to this all of the newly appearing varieties of digital resources that are updated continually, with shared annotations, and the very idea of an edition becomes hard to pin down. If we wish to cooperate, it is vitally important that people try to understand one another. In the Cooperative Cataloging Rules, there is a place for such a discussion.

Before everyone can begin to work together, there needs to be an understanding of what others are doing, and this is especially important for those working at the practical, everyday level, not only for those at the top. This section of the Cooperative Cataloging Rules attempts to provide an area for the sharing and exchange of bibliographic concepts, with the emphasis on "cooperative." Currently, I have used the ISBD areas as the foundation for this conceptual framework, but this will probably change quickly.

Just as in the other section, it is impossible at this point in time to know how it will develop, or even if there will be any interest at all, although I suspect there will be. Yet, if the effort is never made, we will also never know if it could succeed. Although we want everyone to be able to see the site and link to it freely, at least at this point we want only professional catalogers and metadata creators to make changes to the pages, although we think anyone should be able to make comments.

This can also be a place to share other useful information. At the moment, I confess these are primarily links into my own creations. For example, I added a link to a page I made that I find indispensable, called “Latest Library News” which keeps me up to date on library concerns, and others may find it useful as well. There are links to specific cataloging guides. For example, I included the “Slavic Cataloging Manual,” that I created originally, gave to ACRL, and is now maintained at Indiana University. I have also made links to other manuals that I worked on at Princeton University, but I have added additional pages that have been useful to me, from the University of Buffalo on DVDs and Streaming Video. There is a link to J. McRee Elrod’s excellent Cataloguing Cheat Sheets, but of course there are many, many other wonderful guides as well and I hope that this site may even be an incentive to create new and innovative cataloging guides for sharing.

Since metadata has become such an important concern, a project of metadata standards being developed in an open manner seems inevitable sooner or later, and we feel it is important for librarians and catalogers to be involved as deeply as possible. Otherwise, all of these important developments will take place without us.

This project can only work with your help. Remember, this is not my project--I am only playing the role of initiator. Please consider participating! Go to http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/, click on "Join and Get Involved!" and follow the instructions.

And please be patient, especially at first, since this is a new initiative and bugs will have to be worked out.

James Weinheimer
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy

About the Cooperative Cataloging Wiki

The purpose of this blog is to provide information about the development of the Cooperative Cataloging Wiki.

First, why make the wiki?
With the difficult economic times we are experiencing, many libraries are facing serious financial problems and they will simply be unable to implement RDA due to the costs of subscribing to the online version of RDA, plus whatever retraining costs will be required. This will be on top of costs for changing computer systems and the necessary drop in productivity as people learn and become familiar with the new procedures. Other libraries will decide not to implement RDA for their own reasons. For those who decide, for whatever reason, not to implement RDA, they face the potential problem of following rules that will become obsolete. Without further development of AACR2, there is the fear that sooner or later adoption of RDA will be necessary anyway because those will be the only rules being updated. Therefore, it appears that libraries will have no choice.

The Cooperative Cataloging Wiki is designed to avoid this difficulty and provide libraries a genuine choice by allowing development of the cataloging rules in an open manner, similar to open projects such as Linux. (For an entertaining discussion of Open Source, you can see The cathedral and the bazaar by Eric Steven Raymond. There are different versions also)

Therefore, the wiki has information for all of the current cataloging manuals that are publicly available: all of the current Library of Congress Rule Interpretations are included in the wiki, there are links into the latest, consolidated International Standard for Bibliographic Description, plus links to the Canadian RIs, and other relevant documents. We have a number of concerned experts who are willing to lend some of their time and expertise to keep the rules current, plus you can participate as well, so that libraries will at least have a realistic option other than having to pay to implement RDA.

Another purpose of the wiki is to serve as common ground for developments in the greater metadata community. Therefore, there are links to the ONIX Best Practices, the Scholarly Works Application Profile, the AGRIS Application profile, among others. The common ground for these differing procedures will be found under the Conceptual Outline, which is based completely on ISBD (for the moment but based on wiki technology, this can change) and provides a separate page in the wiki for each bibliographical concept. The idea is to eventually bring together all the different rules for similar bibliographical concepts. For example, if you click on Title and Statement of Responsibility, you will see links into the relevant guidelines for ISBD and ONIX. If you continue into Title proper, you will see the relevant guidelines for more rules. Comments and attachments can be included here.

On this basis, metadata creators and developers can gain some understanding into the concepts and techniques used by others in similar fields. Perhaps some agreement can be reached and perhaps not, but without understanding, no agreement can ever be possible. A lot of work remains to be done in this area and it should be interesting to observe how it develops.

Still, this will remain a separate part and if someone wants to go straight into the LCRIs and get a specific answer, they will be able to do so without going through unrelated information, e.g. Library of Congress Rule Interpretations and the ISBD Outline.

This project actually has been created with great reluctance. We appreciate the tremendous efforts and knowledge on the part of our colleagues who have dedicated themselves to create RDA, but certain realities have intervened. Many libraries simply cannot implement RDA, and the practical advantages of RDA implemention have yet to be demonstrated.

A project such as this is obviously beyond a single person's abilities and the key is to rely on the participation of you: the cataloging community. Please help us and get involved.