Thanks to Katherine for the reference to that article by David Levy--it
was excellent. I also think dynamic records will be a big part of the
future--we're already seeing it with frequent name changes for Internet
But, just a comment on an earlier poster's remark that this process used
at Stanford and Cornell might become a model for other libraries: would
this process really work if all libraries did it? I think the answer
would have to be "no." Otherwise, who would be producing the upgraded
records that this process relies so heavily upon? And what does all
this mean for PCC? Will Stanford and Cornell no longer be contributing
[log in to unmask]
Katherine Kott wrote:
> Hi all,
> As a recent heir(ess) to the process at Stanford that can perhaps be
> given partial credit for spawning COR at Cornell, I have a few
> observations to add to the mix:
> * Technology (automated copy matching) has made it possible to
> shift the process of searching for copy from the front end to the
> back end so those things we would have cycled for copy because we
> didn't have time for original cataloging are accessible while
> copy is being sought. Why not put them out instead of keeping
> them in?
> * The batch processes we now rely upon do require changes to the
> processes of adding records to utilities and enhancing records.
> As Mary Charles observed, that original records are not being
> batch loaded into OCLC is a problem but is bound to be a
> temporary wrinkle.
> * Classing and shelf listing material does make it more accessible
> than it is in an un-classed backlog, not just because it is on
> open shelves. Perhaps a reminder that class is not just a
> shelving location is too obvious.
> * Perhaps "full treatment" should be the goal, but processes like
> the ones that have been thoughtfully developed at Cornell and
> Stanford have value in the real world. Take a look at some of the
> treatment the older material in your collections got before the
> days of cooperative cataloging. Are we really doing so much worse
> today than we did then given the tools we now have for access?
> I like Daniel's observation that one person's full may be another
> person's minimal and the idea of a dynamic record. One of my favorite
> (fairly) recent think pieces, although focused on the application of
> cataloging to digital material, does a wonderful job of stepping back
> to look at what it is we are doing when we engage in this activity we
> call cataloging. It is Cataloging in the Digital Order by David Levy
> and can be found at: http://csdl.tamu.edu/DL95/papers/levy/levy.html
> Perhaps the overarching process is the exchange between collection
> development and cataloging, keeping in mind resource realities and
> making the best possible decisions about levels of treatment for the
> material, actual and virtual that we decide to add to our collections,
> represent to the world and share with each other through some level of
> "order making".
> At 02:34 PM 7/22/2003 -0400, Ana Lupe Cristan wrote:
>> Forwarding for Daniel CannCasciato
>> Hi David,
>> >> but I don't agree with him about the elimination of our
>> >>backlog being a matter of mere semantics.
>> I was unclear in my statement. It's not so much the semantics,
>> I guess, that I disagree with (not at all vehemently) as it is
>> the implication that can be made when we (as a cataloging community)
>> say that a level X (3, 4, K, etc.) record is good enough.
>> I like the idea of the dynamic record (of all types, bib, name,
>> subject, etc.) and think that concept should be
>> mentioned often in these types of discussions. Keep in mind that
>> from my perspective, full level records are really only minimal
>> full-level records. That is, enhancements to them need to occur
>> when appropriate, whether it's TOC data or additional subjects or
>> a fuller description at some point.
>> I apologize if my negative comment came through stronger than my
>> positive ones. I really do think the workflow is a good one for
>> Cornell and likely is something of model (or will be) for many
>> other libraries.
>> Daniel CannCasciato
>> Head of Cataloging
>> CWU Library
>> Ellensburg, WA 98926
>> [log in to unmask]
>> For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
>> and wrong.
>> -- H. L. Mencken
> Katherine Kott
> Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
> Meyer Library
> Stanford University
> Stanford CA 94305
> phone: (650) 723-2454
> fax: (650) 725-1120
> email: [log in to unmask]