Did you read this?
Would you tell me what she was talking about when you get a
On 24 Jul 2003, at 16:40, 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
> 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
> 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
> 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:
> 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
> >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]