Suzanne and Karen, good points about keeping the terminology clear. It's actually quite a challenge to clarify the distinctions among, and the history of, all the different standards and protocols that intersect in modern cataloging. It makes my head hurt if I start thinking it through before the second cup of coffee.
I have long thought that the cores of our curricula need to incorporate a longer and deeper look into the history, principles, and current practice of bibliographic control. A corollary is that to give a proper orientation to the real knowledge base of our profession as it is today, the master's degree should be a two-year program. Not that that will happen; the monetary return is so small that I think many prospective students look long and skeptically at the investment for even a one-year program.
Richard A. Stewart
Indian Trails Public Library District
355 South Schoenbeck Road
Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499
[log in to unmask]
>>> Karen Weaver <[log in to unmask]> 01/11/09 10:38 AM >>>
Suzanne and all:
ps personally , I have never used the word "code" for cataloging-metadata
work . I'll have students with a programming background or hobby who like
to compare it to other "coding" work and that is all fine if it works for
them. Since library catalogs esp contain a large amount of what is now
called "legacy" data , I'm a strong supporter of historical understanding
and perspective--even of the catalog. ;-) more on what a challenge
for some today to understand the need for "structure" without seeming too
"legacy-like" (?) ...
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Suzanne Stauffer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think it is important to distinguish among "codes," "coding" and
> "standards." ...