Comments on: March Metadata Madness! http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482 Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:38:56 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jason Dean http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12611 Jason Dean Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:17:21 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12611 Thinking about bibliographic control, it seems to me that there needs to be an effort to move towards something like InterParty http://www.interparty.org/ So that the metadata generated by disparate groups (including tags) can be integrated into one (for lack of a better term) authority file. This, as you pointed out Mark, enhances the search-ability of records, but removes the duties for the primary creation of metadata from its traditional domain (catalogers). You will, of course, have to have some entity moderating these files, but that is problematic to me. It's hard to pass judgement on the metadata (tags) people place on certain items, as tags are a far more relative description of an item. And who will "step up" to do the moderation? I agree with Amber in that catalogers are needed, as we understand metadata and its associated structures. It also seems to me that at some point, a person must sit down with a given object and produce the original record for that item. Other individuals must then adapt those records to the needs of their particular user group. I think, then, that catalogers will always be around, but perhaps without the numbers we have seen in the past. Thinking about bibliographic control, it seems to me that there needs to be an effort to move towards something like InterParty
http://www.interparty.org/
So that the metadata generated by disparate groups (including tags) can be integrated into one (for lack of a better term) authority file. This, as you pointed out Mark, enhances the search-ability of records, but removes the duties for the primary creation of metadata from its traditional domain (catalogers).

You will, of course, have to have some entity moderating these files, but that is problematic to me. It’s hard to pass judgement on the metadata (tags) people place on certain items, as tags are a far more relative description of an item. And who will “step up” to do the moderation?

I agree with Amber in that catalogers are needed, as we understand metadata and its associated structures. It also seems to me that at some point, a person must sit down with a given object and produce the original record for that item. Other individuals must then adapt those records to the needs of their particular user group. I think, then, that catalogers will always be around, but perhaps without the numbers we have seen in the past.

]]> By: Mark http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12610 Mark Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:13:47 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12610 I am NOT pessimistic about the need for bibliographic control... What I need to be more careful with are my negatives apparently. An option to edit responses would be nice. I am NOT pessimistic about the need for bibliographic control…

What I need to be more careful with are my negatives apparently. An option to edit responses would be nice.

]]> By: Mark http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12608 Mark Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:45:41 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12608 I am pessimistic about the need for bibliographic control, but of the user's expectations and of the quality of the metadata collected. The Amazon, Delicious, and Google Books models have really changed how users want to search for bibliographic materials. Librarians are increasingly forced to question the need for controlled vocabulary schemas to structure subject headings as users no longer want to search in this fashion or learn the approved terminology. I agree that metadata must be captured if access to thematically linked material is to be achieved. What I question is who will be doing this tagging (e.g. content producers, users, librarians) and what the nature of the tags will be. I think that expectations concerning "quality records" have been lowered as people want federated searches from general portals and are putting less effort in evaluating the quality of the hits and their sources. I am pessimistic about the need for bibliographic control, but of the user’s expectations and of the quality of the metadata collected.
The Amazon, Delicious, and Google Books models have really changed how users want to search for bibliographic materials. Librarians are increasingly forced to question the need for controlled vocabulary schemas to structure subject headings as users no longer want to search in this fashion or learn the approved terminology.
I agree that metadata must be captured if access to thematically linked material is to be achieved. What I question is who will be doing this tagging (e.g. content producers, users, librarians) and what the nature of the tags will be. I think that expectations concerning “quality records” have been lowered as people want federated searches from general portals and are putting less effort in evaluating the quality of the hits and their sources.

]]> By: A. Billey http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12563 A. Billey Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:32:27 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12563 Mark - I'm not saying that we throw out the baby with the bath water here - or even build a whole new bathtub! Over the past decades, libraries have developed very important standards and amazing technologies to share their information. (There is a reason why AACR2, MARC and Z39.50 are so powerful and are still used today.) But as information changes (from codex to code), so do the methods for accessing that information. For our profession to stay viable we must be part of the developments to provide access to those resources. Tags are just one method, there may be others - and it's our role as catalogers to figure it out. The nuances of data structures and description require a cataloger, and this is why I don't share your pessimism about our profession. Mark – I’m not saying that we throw out the baby with the bath water here – or even build a whole new bathtub! Over the past decades, libraries have developed very important standards and amazing technologies to share their information. (There is a reason why AACR2, MARC and Z39.50 are so powerful and are still used today.)

But as information changes (from codex to code), so do the methods for accessing that information. For our profession to stay viable we must be part of the developments to provide access to those resources. Tags are just one method, there may be others – and it’s our role as catalogers to figure it out. The nuances of data structures and description require a cataloger, and this is why I don’t share your pessimism about our profession.

]]> By: Mark http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12547 Mark Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:44:43 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12547 I meant to say that the possibilities for federated ARE increased if the catalogues ARE normalized. I meant to say that the possibilities for federated ARE increased if the catalogues ARE normalized.

]]> By: Mark http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12529 Mark Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:36:12 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12529 If the cataloguing is not standardized, how will libraries be able to communicate with each other? The possibilities for federated searching are increased if the catalogue structures are not normalized. Similarly, content standards allow one library user to search another system without learning an entirely new terminology. While we should always adapt the cataloguing to the user needs, if this is taken to the extreme, it creates a Catalogue that is siloed from the world. In the age of Web 2.0, this is undesirable. Another problem is that with so many things being produced, more than ever before as the Internet is the cheapest means of publishing content ever, there is no way to tag/catalogue it all. What is the role of cataloguers to be? If we are automated, will we still be required? With user-generated tagging becoming increasingly popular, will cataloguers continue to act as the organizers of access points to materials? I do not share your optimism for the profession in the upcoming years. If the cataloguing is not standardized, how will libraries be able to communicate with each other? The possibilities for federated searching are increased if the catalogue structures are not normalized. Similarly, content standards allow one library user to search another system without learning an entirely new terminology. While we should always adapt the cataloguing to the user needs, if this is taken to the extreme, it creates a Catalogue that is siloed from the world. In the age of Web 2.0, this is undesirable.

Another problem is that with so many things being produced, more than ever before as the Internet is the cheapest means of publishing content ever, there is no way to tag/catalogue it all. What is the role of cataloguers to be? If we are automated, will we still be required? With user-generated tagging becoming increasingly popular, will cataloguers continue to act as the organizers of access points to materials? I do not share your optimism for the profession in the upcoming years.

]]> By: Cataloging Futures http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12451 Cataloging Futures Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:39:50 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12451 <strong>Check out: March metadata madness!...</strong> Over at The Desk Set blog, Amber Billey, who was recently named one of Library Student Journal's Emerging Leaders for 2009, is working on a series of posts on cataloging and metadata. Check out the first one: March Metadata Madness!...... Check out: March metadata madness!…

Over at The Desk Set blog, Amber Billey, who was recently named one of Library Student Journal’s Emerging Leaders for 2009, is working on a series of posts on cataloging and metadata. Check out the first one: March Metadata Madness!……

]]> By: Jason Dean http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482&cpage=1#comment-12401 Jason Dean Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:23:40 +0000 http://thedeskset.org/?p=1482#comment-12401 Amber, I just wanted to first say Amen! I think you have hit upon something many catalogers tend to forget - we catalog for our users. Yes, metadata rules and schemes and standards are important, but our records, the metadata we create is for our users, something which I feel is lost in this great RDA/DC/AACR2 mess we are in the middle of right now. I look forward to your next posts! Jason Amber,

I just wanted to first say Amen!

I think you have hit upon something many catalogers tend to forget – we catalog for our users. Yes, metadata rules and schemes and standards are important, but our records, the metadata we create is for our users, something which I feel is lost in this great RDA/DC/AACR2 mess we are in the middle of right now.

I look forward to your next posts!

Jason

]]>