[DCRM-L] OCLC

Fri May 15 06:29:32 MDT 2015

Ms. Dooley,

Thank you for the link to your article and its relevant passage. And thank
you for kind words as to the importance of our work. They are much
appreciated.

For the record I was being literal, not ironic, when I stated that I was
unsure as to what extent the archival community had embraced MPLP. I have
no idea, or I hadn’t until you pointed to your research. Bully for the
archival community.

I am, however, not convinced that the rare book cataloging community should
follow suit. By and large we are not working with unique items, and unlike
archives we have a rich, long tradition of bibliographic scholarship, with
which to inform our cataloging, resources that are increasingly a few
clicks away.  It seems to me that a collective database, rich in content,
judiciously outlining what makes our collections so special with cataloging
that could be shared would be a very feasible way to make our work
economically sustainable. Apparently, OCLC is not interested in being that
venue. Fine, I get. It is a business concern, and we are a niche market.
But given all the we contribute, it stings.

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 *Lapka, Francis
*Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 6:45 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* [DCRM-L] OCLC

I bear no rotten tomatoes. OCLC’s evolution brings forward two distinct
issues, and we should be wary of conflating them.

1. OCLC will cease to be a resource for discovering copy-specific
descriptions. Some of us may regret this, but it seems a fait accompli. So
let’s start exploring other options. It may be that a better and more
sustainable mechanism emerges as we provide our catalog descriptions on the
web as LOD.

2. OCLC wants WorldCat Discovery Services to replace our local catalogs as
catalogs-of-record for descriptions of Manifestations. That is, it wants us
to collaboratively create and maintain a single database (OCLC’s database)
for the description of Manifestations, and cease to edit Manifestation data
in our local catalogs. I think this is a decent principle / model. For
special collections cataloging, I’m not sure if OCLC is the best option as
hub. It certainly has the most mass. I’d like to see us compare what OCLC
has to offer with other possibilities.

Francis

*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Dooley,Jackie
*Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 5:10 PM
*To:* DCRM-L
*Subject:* [DCRM-L] Link for my article "Ten Commandments …"

First, this post doesn't address institution records (IRs) at all. As a
staff member in OCLC Research, it's not appropriate for me to comment at
this juncture on what is a products/services issue. I hope to be able to be
part of discussions at ALA in June, however.

Should anyone else be interested in having a look, here's the URL on the
RBM website to my article that Richard Noble quoted:
http://rbm.acrl.org/content/10/1/51.full.pdf+html?sid=24a3b8f0-891f-4aae-a9f4-c80a7a4bbe58
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rbm.acrl.org_content_10_1_51.full.pdf-26-2343-3Bhtml-3Fsid-3D24a3b8f0-2D891f-2D4aae-2Da9f4-2Dc80a7a4bbe58&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=vF_VPmgJVEL5ceYRq36fmukVcY5irI4x7r_DWXyDvyQ&s=yssqbHEtqNQhL02zZrC7jXAvPGq3ELXDSrKUdN10lKw&e=>

And here's the full section from which Richard was quoting:

*V. Make your work economically sustainable.*

When Donald Waters of the Mellon Foundation was working with CLIR to
formulate the “hidden collections” initiative (launched in 2008), he noted
that he had been feeling “nickel-and-dimed to death” by boutique
digitization projects. I noted earlier that boutique is dead; long live
economical large-scale projects. Grants agencies, including Mellon, CLIR,
the National Endowment for the Humanities, and others, place a high value
on innovative, cost-effective processing and cataloging methodologies.

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.”

Rare book catalogers have inched toward less-full descriptions by including
minimal-level record guidelines in Descriptive Cataloging of Rare
Materials, but does the rather conservative approach that they have
articulated to date go far enough?

Digital library systems are beginning to enable collective metadata for
digital objects. The Smithsonian’s Museum of American Art, for example, has
developed software that enables folder-level descriptions linked to digital
images of the items in that folder, smoothly implemented in the course of
digitization. We will see more and more such systems, and they will come
quickly. This is very good news.

-----------

There's soooo much to be said about these issues. IMHO it's important that
rare book catalogers engage constructively as a community with the tough
issues involved in continuing to create very time-consuming catalog records
in today's library climate of needing to conserve resources. Don't assume
I'm asserting that such records should not be made: far from it. But
nuanced discussion that goes beyond assumptions that OCLC and your library
managers are unfeeling and don't value the work you do (I'm paraphrasing
what I've sensed is the overall thrust of the IR thread on this list)
would, I feel, be of great value to this community—of which I've been a
card-carrying member for 30+ years now. The work you all do is incredibly
important to the scholars and other users who need accurate, detailed rare
book records; I just wonder whether you're taking the most productive
approach to discussing the issues.

One small point: one person opined that MPLP may not have had significant
uptake in the archival community. It has in fact had both huge uptake and
catalytic impact. Not universal, but deep and wide. My 2010 survey of
special collections in research libraries in the US/Canada indicates that
at that time 75% used it either sometimes or always.

I'll try to duck when the rotten tomatoes start flying. :)

Best wishes to all, Jackie

--

Jackie Dooley

Program Officer, OCLC Research
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150515/78b9fb9f/attachment-0001.html>