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

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

Analysis of this sort would be very valuable, but it would be difficult to do in Open WorldCat, which is where most of our users (as opposed to catalogers) search. The results would be skewed because many DCRM(B) records are loaded as Institution Records (IRs), which are invisible to users of Open WorldCat. There is a similar problem with trying to analyse use of copy-specific information, such as provenance, bindings, watermarks, annotations, etc., which is also restricted to the IRs. OCLC would do the dcrm community a great service if they could come up with ways to make all rare book information more accessible, whether it takes the form of copy-specific data, or the enhanced descriptions prescribed by DCRM(B).

Liz O'Keefe


Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org


>>> "Schaffner,Jennifer" <schaffnj at oclc.org> 8/27/2010 11:50 AM >>>

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/20100827/7abd9986/attachment.htm