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

Thu May 14 12:45:32 MDT 2015

As an archivist who has (in my own humble opinion) a good grasp of MPLP and
how it is used for archival collections (and it is used, sometimes quite
heavily and sometimes not) I would agree that it is not applicable to rare
book cataloging, or at least not applicable in the same way.

Or, maybe I can rephrase that. I don't believe that minimal archival
processing can be equated with a lack of creation of copy-specific
information for a book. With minimal processing, there is still the
expectation that the processor/cataloger will pick out any major aspects of
the collection that are particularly unique/relevant/of interest - however
you want to define that. In other words, while the work of processing is
scaled down, *useful information* about what makes that collection of
interest (to whomever might find it interesting) is still expected to be
made available in whatever metadata is created. In the case of rare books,
I believe that copy-specific information falls under that same type of
*useful information*. To stop creating and/or making available information
about what makes our special collections materials
unique/important/relevant seems, to me, rather insane. What I am trying to
say is that I don't believe that with MPLP archivists are doing that insane
thing, and I don't think rare book librarians should be forced to, either.
There may be a rare book equivalent of MPLP that could be created, but if
it is I certainly hope it doesn't jettison copy specific information.

I personally find OCLC's refusal to make copy-specific information easily
and usefully available, and then to claim that there is no interest in
using that information, extremely frustrating.

-Katy

-- 
Katy Rawdon
Coordinator of Technical Services

Special Collections Research Center

Temple University Libraries

Philadelphia, PA 19122

(215) 204-5250

krawdon at temple.edu

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Will Evans <evans at bostonathenaeum.org>
wrote:

> 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?"
>

-- 
Katy Rawdon
Coordinator of Technical Services

Special Collections Research Center

Temple University Libraries

Philadelphia, PA 19122

(215) 204-5250

krawdon at temple.edu

***

The Special Collections Research Center (SCRC)
<http://library.temple.edu/scrc> is the principal repository for and
steward of the Libraries’ rare books, manuscripts, archives and University
records. Our reading room is located on the ground floor of Paley Library
and is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Due to the unique, rare, valuable and often fragile nature of the items in
our collection, and because they are stored in several locations in the
library as well as the offsite library depository, the use of many of these
materials requires scheduling an appointment ahead of time.  Special
handling is also required, so we ask that you familiarize yourself with our
policies <http://library.temple.edu/scrc/research> designed to provide you
the greatest possible access to the materials while protecting and
preserving them for future use.

Send inquiries to our general e-mail <http://library.temple.edu/scrc/ask>,
or call us at (215) 204-8257.  You may also write us at:  SCRC, Paley
Library (017-00), 1210 Polett Walk, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
19122.  Please include your name and complete contact information, as well
as your specific question.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150514/2867cf82/attachment.html>