LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  January 2013

BIBFRAME January 2013

Subject:

Re: Next generation bibliographic data entry screens

From:

Cindy Wolff <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:03:34 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

That was wonderfully well put, Charley.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Pennell
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Next generation bibliographic data entry screens

Tom-

  I began cataloging in the mid-1970s, at the point where libraries were
transitioning from manual and photographic card production to MARC.
Catalogers are a curious lot and wanted to understand how the coding worked
to produce certain outputs on our printed cards.  As a result, many of us
demanded the ability to code our cataloging according to what was then the
USMARC/CANMARC/UKMARC etc. standard of our country rather than a more
natural language input screen.  In hindsight, I still think that this was
enormously valuable in changing the thinking of catalogers from the prose
paragraph of the catalog card to a fielded data way of thinking.  Whether
the container is MARC, EAD, ONIX, an internal relational database or other
structure doesn't really matter.  What is important is that we saw the
granularity that was possible and how it could be used in products from
printed cards to search facets.  When new types of resources became
available (think Web sites, e-journals, even physical media), we could use
what we knew of our existing schemas to see why these resources wouldn't fit
into the structures we already had and could then expand the format to
identify this new data and deliver it where it needed to go.  This ability
to control our data structures has, to my mind at least, been invaluable in
moving the profession forward and in keeping us in touch with the IT folks
who are coming to our data from a different direction.

  So, while it may be tempting to develop simplified data entry forms, I
would be cautioned about their use with technical services folks.
You need to keep us engaged in the creation, maintenance, and yes the
structure, of metadata.  You only have to use a simple template like
LibraryThing to see how easy it is for users to put descriptive information
in the wrong place and thereby diminish the overall utility of your data.
Don't interpret our "pushback" as a negative.
Instead, think of it as our desire to remain engaged in the process.

    Charley


> There have been a number of posts concerned about data entry for 
> bibliographic data which are clearly motivated by the historic tight 
> coupling between exchange formats and data entry editors, including 
> Jeffrey's below.  My comments are interspersed:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Jeffrey Allen Trimble wrote:
>>
>> I think that one of the issues I'M attempting to grappling with is 
>> not the underlaying structure of the data (I.E. MARC21, marcxml, rdf,
>> etc.) it is the going to be the interface that the professionals use 
>> to create the data and maintain the data.
>>
>> The historical hangup is going to be the fact that Catalogers have 
>> been using input screens that represent the MARC record (more or less 
>> raw, without the Directory data) and over the decades the editors 
>> have become sophisticated enough for the user to gain help to the coding.
>>
>> What will be needed to get catalogers to "buy in" to the shift to a 
>> new structure, is an editor which the data can be created, 
>> manipulated and maintained without know how to use xml coding (or 
>> other
>> "<coding>") knowledge.
>>
>> A reminder that MARC was supposed to be "under the hood" and not for 
>> the end user-cataloger.  No one developed the interface any further 
>> and it has become the "defacto" editor.
>>
> This is a really bad, but it's not the way user interfaces work in 
> other domains and it's no reason to stifle progress in bibliographic 
> data systems.  Software systems which assume this coupling may require 
> a little more work to bring into the modern era, but it CAN be done 
> and it's not black magic or particularly difficult.
>
>> This is where you will have major pushback from the Librarians that 
>> are in technical services more than anything else.  Of course, our 
>> ILS vendors need to step up to the plate and show us some 
>> next-generation models for the creation/maintenance/manipulation with 
>> input from the users who create the data.


--
Charley Pennell
Principal Cataloger
NCSU Libraries
North Carolina State University

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager