[DCRM-L] OCLC's IR webinar (May 13)

[Will Evans]

I will definitely seek out Jackie Dooley’s article in RBM. Nevertheless,
I’m not convinced the archives example is applicable, nor I am sure that
the “more product, less process” model has been widely embraced in the
archives community.

Moreover, if we do “get over ourselves,” what are the implications of what
we now do generally between the hours of 9 to 5? Are we to “get over”
signature statements? Conflate editions? Skimp on access points?

I’m not trying to be snarky here (well maybe just a tad). But I like to
think what we do really matters and is appreciated … by someone, somewhere.



Best,

Will





*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

Will Evans

Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian

Library of the Boston Athenaeum

10 1/2 Beacon Street

Boston, MA   02108



Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224

Fax: 617-227-5266

www.bostonathenaeum.org









*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
*Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:36 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC's IR webinar (May 13)



This does go some way back. As noted by Jackie Dooley, in "Ten commandments
for special collections librarians in the digital age" in *RBM* in 2009:



"Karen Calhoun noted the need to 'get over item-level description' and get
more serious about streamlining cataloging. Our generalist colleagues in
libraries have

​ ​

made massive strides in this regard over the past decade or more. Isn’t it
time we do

​ ​

the same? Archivists generally let go of item-level description at least 25
years ago

​ ​

and have now widely embraced the Greene/Meissner mandate for 'more product,

​ ​

less process.'"



As I recall that startlingly antagonistic address (at the 2008
Preconference), we were also told to "get over ourselves", and I think what
we're hearing is that OCLC would rather get over us.*  They are, in
accordance with their business model, satisficing. However that therm is
technically defined, we know that in our endeavor, this means that
Excellent + Good = Good, Good + Good Enough = Good Enough, Good Enough + OK
= OK, OK + Whatever = Whatever, and that the job is to persuade the
customers that Whatever is the New Excellence.



*Granted, the report indicates that Calhoun was addressing the matter of
archival cataloging, but my recollection of the address that it was rather
more generally and sometimes offensively "disruptive".


RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY

BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187

<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>



On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Rouse, Lenore <rouse at cua.edu> wrote:

Will et al.,

We ARE users but many of the people making decisions about our work are
not. I see two similar trends which nobody has mentioned yet, which do or
will obscure or obliterate bibliographical difference as badly as ditching
those IRs. One is a tendency in large libraries or consortia to merge bib
records for "the same" title. In the case of certain consortia, this will
mean dispatching all local notes to the holdings record while merging all
the stuff that belongs in the bib record. The devil will be in
distinguishing the local from the general note. You all know it's not
always possible to determine whether the cancel or other feature in your
copy is present in every copy.  Even if you can separate out the local info
from the general (including 655s, 7xxs who is going to want to look at
local notes for multiple holding institutions when they are parked in the
holding record and not near related info in the bib record? Not my idea of
user-friendly. How will the important information in the local notes even
be searched if it is no longer part of the bib record? That should
theoretically be possible, though it's not clear to me that the makers of
the feudal business model are concerned with such minutiae.  Some of them
seem to believe fewer records are cheaper than more records; it's rumored
to be a great cost-savings to copy catalogers.

Another aspect of this merge mentality just came to my notice last week. I
discovered that WorldCat may stealthily merge all editions of a title
without letting the user know. Example: my search was for *Loss and gain*
by J. H. Newman, ed. by Sheridan Gilley. The search retrieved quite a slew
of hits, including a local one I was not aware of. But next to the results
is a disclaimer "Show libraries holding *just* this edition or narrow
results by format" A click on this reduced my results to one library: the
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (!).  So, if I SEARCHED for *just* this
edition, why is WorldCat's default presenting me with 4 screens of
irrelevant nonsense?

Instead of "are we not users" maybe the question should be to the managers
making these bizarre decisions "are you not librarians?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150514/15556391/attachment.html>