Print

Print


Thanks, Richard.  While it can be effective to teach code in detail, I'll
hazard a guess that it really only works with an approach where students can
see the effects of their code directly-- sort of the way I see things done
in programming classes.  The trouble is, that rarely happens in library
catalog land; a working OPAC simply can't be built in a timely fashion by a
single person.  The result of this is that you need catalogers and technical
services staff with a good abstract knowledge of how code fits into the
frame work of automated library software.
I really like Shawne and UNT's method of having students build the structure
in which the code is placed, in addition to detailed code.  Not only will
this give students a better idea of how a catalog works, it will help them
in working with vendors, since they're already aware of how database
applications interact with software and can be used to collate many tables
of records.

-Jennifer Parsons



On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Richard Stewart <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Doesn't sound so crazy to me. It's been a few years since I taught as an
> adjunct at Dominican--I introduced a survey of the then-new FRBR in my last
> few terms--but even then I was coming to the conclusion that teaching the
> code in detail, or trying to, was impractical in Organization of Knowledge
> (the introductory core course). Comparing the two codes (with reference to
> FRBR) could be a good way of illuminating the underlying principles.
>
> Richard A. Stewart
> Senior Cataloger
> Indian Trails Public Library District
> 355 South Schoenbeck Road
> Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499
> USA
>
> Tel: 847-279-2214
> Fax: 847-4760
> [log in to unmask]
> htpp://www.itpld.lib.il.us
> >>> Jennifer Parsons <[log in to unmask]> 01/10/09 9:31 AM >>>
> Well...I have a crazy idea, everyone.  Disclaimer: I'm a
> wet-behind-the-ears
> LIS school graduate; I have very little cataloging experience compared to
> everyone else on this board.
> Why not reverse the order when teaching coding to a Cataloging class-- that
> is, why not teach RDA, and then AACR2?  Or, better yet, why not start from
> a
> very general, basic concept of what coding is for, and then lead on into a
> comparison of the two?  If students can grasp why these two standards exist
> to begin with (i.e., to minimize differences between records and make them
> easier to find across platforms), it will be easier for them to grasp
> why changes
> had to be made from one standard to the other.  By pointing out the
> concepts
> behind the change and the function of both sets, the large, contrasting
> differences between RDA and AACR2 will help students learn how to display
> their cataloging information, rather than providing confusion.
>
> -Jennifer Parsons
>