<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bryan, Anna <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:abry@loc.gov" target="_blank">abry@loc.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Surely an age question plus a few examples, both easy and complex, should give us some idea if what we are worried about is really a problem for the rest of the world. Right now, we're all just talking to each other.<br>
</blockquote></span></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div>This is not just an age question, but a much more fundamental question which frames itself for me as a choice between maintaining a relatively consistent system in long use, which will remain in use for the creation of records in other environments than our own that are nevertheless of the highest relevance in our work and that of our patrons, which can, if need be, be quickly learned by those who need the information and ignored by those who don't; versus a profession-centric, highly eccentric, and I dare say minimally researched policy that, for example, restricts square brackets to a function that is entirely peculiar to the makers of library catalog records and of no interest whatever to the apparently otherwise uneducable audience for those records, so ignorant that they cannot grasp what "p." means. (This restriction on brackets has, I suspect, less to do with users and more to do with the perceived or assumed or desired limitations of copy catalogers.)</font></font><div>
<font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">What disturbs me most about this aspect of RDA is <i>not</i> that it compromises our ability to convey information economically, but that it seems to have been composed in an echo chamber where rather vague notions about our users' abilities prevail; and that it alienates us, in a small but critical way, from the habits of mind of the "users" of dcrm records--who are perhaps, statistically, too small a constituency to matter.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif"><br></font></font></div><div><font size="4"><font face="garamond,serif">Einstein is reported to have said (I haven't confirmed the reference, but I'd say it myself): "I wouldn't give a nickel for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." Which is to say, "False simplicity is worthless." You can simplify, but you can't oversimplify</font></font><span style="font-family:garamond, serif;font-size:large">--if you're intersted in being intellectually honest and, we might say, scholarly</span><span style="font-family:garamond, serif;font-size:large">. Our work is done in research libraries, and every effort we have made over the life of the Bib. Standards Committee has been dedicated to making our work as scholarly as we can make it. I repeat my not very paranoid suspicion that there is an attempt here to oversimplify our work, to limit what we can do by making it impossible for us to communicate complexity properly--to keep us on "this side of complexity", in service to a false simplicity of thin description partly necessitated by lengthy spelling out. We can anticipate resistance in defense of this simplicity. Those of us privileged to hear Karen Calhoun at RBMS know what we are facing, and that we will simply be told to "get over ourselves".</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:garamond, serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond, serif;font-size:large">Time and time again I have been able to resolve apparent complexity by making use of tools that enable me to see it through to actual simplicity, or, just as importantly, to achieve greater clarity in the face of real complexity. </span><span style="font-family:garamond, serif;font-size:large">This process is common to every sort of intellectual endeavor; but we know that <i>our</i> endeavor is perceived in some quarters as minor and of no wide interest. In the face of that, I can only point out that</span><span style="font-family:garamond, serif;font-size:large"> my work depends on figuring out what we really have of things that are supposed to matter enough that we want to tell other people, and ourselves, that we have them. We can't manage and build our collections--which is what people come to us for--without knowing what's in them; and that work will often, whether we like it or not, require attention to details.</span></div>
<div><font face="garamond, serif"><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="garamond, serif"><span style="font-size:large">As I suspected, RDA is taking us to a sort of crossroads. Do we wish to continue anything that resembles DCRM(B), or should we simply give it up? If it's true that, at this moment, we are just talking to each other, I also suspect it's true that the Joint Committee were in the same pickle. Anyway, I'm going to take this to a slightly wider forum that includes many members of our base constituency and at least get some anecdotal responses. I fear that a questionnaire centered on "age" will lead to a satisfaction of search fallacy--youth is also inexperience. Shall we stand in the way of their getting it, by limiting ourselves to their current understanding? Anyway, I've dealt with a number of youths lately who are very much interested in getting experience, and are not unduly flummoxed by square brackets and useful abbreviations.</span></font></div>
<div><font face="garamond, serif"><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">John Attig has suggested one way of proceeding. I am also aware of a nascent idea that drcmb records might be accorded parallel status in OCLC, which would recognize that we are working in a language, or let us say a descriptive dialect, that may not be readable by all, but is needed by us to speak to some, if they are to understand information that we can convey and they can use.</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="garamond, serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br></span></font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : <a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</a> </font><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bryan, Anna <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:abry@loc.gov" target="_blank">abry@loc.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Surely an age question plus a few examples, both easy and complex, should give us some idea if what we are worried about is really a problem for the rest of the world. Right now, we're all just talking to each other.<br>
<br>
Would someone be willing to do this? See <a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/" target="_blank">http://www.surveymonkey.com/</a>. I cannot, we are forbidden to download software on our work computers. Have it open for a couple of weeks. Academe is coming back to their offices. Again, I'm sure we can present a far more convincing case for an exception for rare books if we can actually present some evidence.<br>
<div><br>
Anna Bryan<br>
Sr. Cataloger<br>
Rare Materials Section<br>
Library of Congress<br>
I speak only for myself.<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
</div><div>From: <a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Allison Rich<br>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:00 AM<br>
To: DCRM Revision Group List<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div>Anna:<br>
<br>
Setting up a survey might not be a bad idea.<br>
I think the researchers at my library would be happy to participate in such a survey.<br>
<br>
We have researchers in all age ranges.<br>
<br>
~Allison Rich<br>
<br>
> Well, then rather than just speak vaguely to the Joint Committee, why not have some data to back it up?<br>
><br>
> Rather than posting the alternatives to Exlibris, Sharp, and related listserves, why not set up a survey? I have not done this, so I don't know how difficult it would be. Specifically ask that catalogers not take the survey. Ask for public service librarians and patrons/scholars to fill it out. And be sure to have a question asking the age of the respondent: 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.<br>
><br>
> It would be very interesting to see if there is a difference in perceived comprehensiveness of a collation depending on age. We need to consider the younger scholars, and I in my aerie up here on the roof of the Jefferson building don't know many of them.<br>
><br>
> They are the important ones here. For the rest of us, change is the only constant in life.<br>
><br>
********************************<br>
"Outside of a dog,<br>
a book is probably man's best friend,<br>
and inside of a dog,<br>
it's too dark to read.<br>
- Groucho Marx"<br>
<br>
Allison Rich<br>
Catalogue Librarian<br>
John Carter Brown Library<br>
Providence, Rhode Island<br>
<a href="mailto:Allison_Rich@brown.edu" target="_blank">Allison_Rich@brown.edu</a><br>
<br>
********************************<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>