[DCRM-L] FW: BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

Fri Aug 27 09:50:54 MDT 2010

This community discussion is very helpful and enlightening. Y'all are
kicking up important "pickles," er, issues. 

I, too, was 'privileged' to hear Karen Calhoun's talk. It occurs to me
that - facing RDA - it will be helpful for our community to have solid
evidence and studies of use, especially users' use (and not just our own
use), of dcrm records. Does anyone have analytics of catalog use,
especially analytics of successful searches (from catalogs or from the
web) that land on dcrm records? Does anyone have weblogs or search logs
that are sufficiently granular to demonstrate which fields are sought,
used, and found successfully? (As many of you know, I've been chasing
these for two years or so.)

Rumors of OCLC Research's interest in facilitating discussion with our
community of preference for dcrm records are quite true. It was Glenn
Patton's idea. Jackie and I had offered to bring Glenn to RBMS at ALA
Midwinter. The offer stands.

Please contact me offline!

Jennifer

*******************************************

Jennifer Schaffner

Program Officer

OCLC Research and the RLG Partnership

650.287.2140

http://www.oclc.org/research/

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 7:54 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bryan, Anna <abry at loc.gov> wrote:

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.

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.)

What disturbs me most about this aspect of RDA is not 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.

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--if you're
intersted in being intellectually honest and, we might say, scholarly.
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".

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. This process is common to every sort of
intellectual  endeavor; but we know that our endeavor is perceived in
some quarters as minor and of no wide interest. In the face of that, I
can only point out that 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.

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.

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.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bryan, Anna <abry at loc.gov> wrote:

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.

Would someone be willing to do this?  See http://www.surveymonkey.com/.
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.

Anna Bryan
Sr. Cataloger
Rare Materials Section
Library of Congress
I speak only for myself.
-----Original Message-----

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Allison Rich
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:00 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

Anna:

Setting up a survey might not be a bad idea.
I think the researchers at my library would be happy to participate in
such a survey.

We have researchers in all age ranges.

~Allison Rich

> Well, then rather than just speak vaguely to the Joint Committee, why
not have some data to back it up?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> They are the important ones here.  For the rest of us, change is the
only constant in life.
>
********************************
"Outside of a dog,
a book is probably man's best friend,
and inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read.
- Groucho Marx"

Allison Rich
Catalogue Librarian
John Carter Brown Library
Providence, Rhode Island
Allison_Rich at brown.edu

********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100827/d408a860/attachment.htm 