Print

Print


Amy,

I’m glad you’re in favor of funding education for disadvantaged youth, but I don’t think that has to be in competition with cataloging.

 

I don’t believe you can automate authority control very much because authorized access points, like all forms of human language, are arbitrary in nature. Words mean what they mean because we agree that they do. We’re not like computers: we don’t just use text strings, we also see the things they refer to with our senses and have emotions about them. Look at what happens when you click on the “translate this page” button on a Google search results list. All the program knows how to do is translate the words, and sometimes it can’t do even that. You have to use your “common sense” to do another translation of what Google does to make sense of it.

 

When computers can write poetry and novels, I might believe they can translate language and assign authorized access points.

 

Bureaucracy is what has cut cataloging because states don’t want to support educational institutions, so there’s a battle between them to hold onto whatever scraps they can keep. There shouldn’t be a conflict between libraries and schools: they should be natural allies.  

 

I doubt that catalogers or even cataloging managers are generally among the better paid people at libraries.

 

Ted

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

Though I am a great believer in the importance of bibliographic control, I wouldn’t argue for public funding for more complete cataloging over, for example, better education for disadvantaged youth.  If you throw a lot of money at a bureaucratic activity, you are as likely to get more bureaucracy as you are to get a better product.  I think that the argument for economy in cataloging can result in a better service for users, including automation of authority control (which some resist because they want more individualized control even if it is less cost-effective) and reduction of backlogs. 

 

Amy

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 1:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

John,

I agree that users are going to lose if we reduce the amount of detail we provide in authorized access points, at least for research libraries. I hope we can enlist users to advocate for good catalogs. But so many librarians have bought into the idea that the magic of computers makes them unnecessary that it would be hard to make a strong campaign for that. Thomas Mann of LC fought hard for cataloging principles for quite a few years. I get the impression he gave up about 5 years ago, I think perhaps because LC didn’t slash cataloging too drastically, and he realized he faced a brick wall if he tried to go further.

 

I think the only option is just to try to do the best job you can and hope the climate of opinion swings back to pro-cataloging at some point. Hopefully some users with influence will say at some point: “Hey, I can find more information about old books than I can about new ones.”

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 11:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

 

  Let’s try to reduce these problems to a few common denominators that can be addressed.

 

  Would it be an “ideal world” where more resources were available, or would it be a rational world in which a sense of community (and responsibility to be taxed) prevailed over self-obsession? Whose responsibility is it to change the balance?

 

  What makes “authority control” costly? Is it the complexity of records constructed and maintained by costly catalogers or the implementation of the records? Can the former reduce the cost and increase the utility of the latter? Should the cost of the former be used to justify closer examination of the necessary extend of the latter? What are the arguments against funding either and their justifications?

 

  Uniform title authority records are very useful to everyone, as are series title records. Arguing that “spending time creating and maintaining [either] may not be the best use of … efforts” [wasn’t that LCs excuse for eliminating the latter?] ignores the fact that we work for an international community of libraries, not just ourselves, so the real problem (besides predatory limitation of public-provided resources) “may be” a lack of appreciation of the community (cooperative) value of local resources (a form of self-obsession, in a sense).

 

  The argument here for the “advantages of cooperative cataloging” is extremely well-stated. Unfortunately, we humans are very poor at looking for ulterior motives and unintended consequences in existing and proposed social structures, which examinations should be our primary task. For example, if we don’t concentrate on providing better capabilities and incentives for libraries to not avoid tasks for lack of resources, “cooperation” can become an excuse for such self-obsessive slacking-off as can take place.

 

Rather than “just trying to do the best with what we’ve got” and weakly (do to our lack of “power”) begging for more in a hostile fiscal climate, we need to enlist our “customers’ (patrons’) support of public funding of maximal library activities that support their needs for data and uncorrupted information before their interest in libraries is reduced to a minimum by increasing political overemphasis on self-obsession.

 

Cheers!

 

John G. Marr

DACS

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]

 

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson

 

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dickerson, Eugene H
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

I think that Amy makes a valid point.  We do have limited cataloging human resources and choices need to be made.  In an ideal world, we could spend the same amount of time and provide the same high level of description and subject analysis to every bibliographic resource, but that’s not the world I live in.

 

While authority control has become more automated than in the past, it’s still one of the costliest cataloging tasks because of the labor involved.  I think that most libraries need to make choices on how to spend their cataloging efforts, and, as Amy suggests, for many libraries, spending time creating and maintaining authority records for certain types of “uniform titles” may not be the best use of their efforts.

 

One of the advantages of cooperative cataloging is that catalogers can contribute to the extent that they are able, and others can add additional data as they see fit and have the human resources available to do it.  If a library chooses not to perform a certain task, it doesn’t necessarily imply that they think the task is “worthless”.  It may just reflect that they think that this task is not as critical to do than other tasks they think are more crucial.  It depends on the context, too.  My library doesn’t generally collect music or literary works, so in the unusual case where we did, the uniform title wouldn’t be very important.  For legal works and translations, the uniform title would be much more useful in our context, so we may choose to add uniform titles for these resources but not for others.  (I have to admit, though, that the new guidelines for treaties that focus establishing the access point for treaties by the title by which it’s known and cited are much more useful than the AACR2 practice of United States. Treaties, etc. France. 1922 which really didn’t provide the collocation that we would want.  Kudos to AALL for getting this changed in RDA!)

 

At this point, too, I think that there is still too much emphasis on collocation by text strings.  I think that in the future, there will be more efficient ways to collocate by identifiers or by some other means.

 

I also think Amy’s comments about productivity are highly relevant.  This is especially true if you’re in a situation where you don’t have a lot of catalogers (and/or the cataloger has to do other library tasks in addition to cataloging) and the catalogers have to catalog everything that comes along rather than specializing by bibliographic format or subject area.  It’s also true for time sensitive materials and when you have a “rush” cataloging item for a customer.

 

We’re all just trying to do the best we can with what we’ve got!

 

Gene

 

Eugene Dickerson

Team Leader for Cataloging

Ralph J. Bunche Library

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

[log in to unmask]

(202) 647-2191 (voice)

 

[log in to unmask]">No part of any article sent to you by the Bunche Library can be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted without prior written permission of the publisher. The exception are brief quotations.  For a synopsis click here: http://diplopedia.state.gov/index.php?title=Copyright:_Synopsis_of_Important_Facts (Link not valid outside the Department of State.)

 

 

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

I didn’t mean that uniform titles have no value, I simply believe that they should be optional.  I think that AACR2 stated this well:

 

The need to use uniform titles varies from one catalogue to another and varies within one catalogue. Base the decision whether to use a uniform title in a particular instance on one or more of the following, as appropriate:

1) how well the work is known

2) how many manifestations of the work are involved

3) whether another work with the same title proper has been identified (see 25.5B[log in to unmask]"> )

4) whether the main entry is under title (see 21.1C[log in to unmask]"> )

5) whether the work was originally in another language

6) the extent to which the catalogue is used for research purposes.

Although the rules in this chapter are stated as instructions, apply them according to the policy of the cataloguing agency.

 

RDA, by contrast, seems to imply that ALL works in ALL catalogs require authorized access points for works/expressions.   This might make sense in some catalog of the future. But in our current environment, applying 240s and 130s to the last letter of RDA would be, IMHO, a poor use of limited cataloging resources.   Take for example the rule of qualifying titles that are main entries.  How well would the users be served by a long list of titles such as “France” with qualifiers? Since many of our catalogs are de-emphasizing or even eliminating the title browse function, would users even be presented with this list?

 

Whether uniform titles “get in the way” of users is largely a function of displays.  For a long time, our catalog displayed the 240 in preference to the 245, with no cross references.  I think most people would agree that this was not optimal.

 

Whether they “get in the way” of efficient cataloging is a more complicated matter.  I didn’t mean to imply that difficulty of training should be a deciding factor in whether something is useful.  (However, I believe it should weigh more heavily than whether it makes cataloging more interesting).  But when catalogers find themselves beating themselves over the head over the interpretation of certain concepts, it can be a sign to stop, look at the bigger picture, and question some assumptions.

 

Over my 35 years at Duke, catalogers have been asked over and over to look at ways to increase productivity, to focus our attention on things that really matter.  I think collocation in general matters a whole lot, uniform titles considerably less. 

 

Amy

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

Indeed – and I didn’t forget or mean to overlook such situations.  In fact, I see them as just a very small step removed from translations.

Same point – we’ve got to call it ‘something’.  So what the heck is the title, and where/how can the users – those who know its history and more importantly those who don’t -- expect to find it and all its permutations?

 

I just this morning started a  new training curriculum (9 modules) aimed at novice catalogers, and although it’s way too early to get into UTs with them, I have already beaten them over the head (figuratively, of course J ), with the importance of Authority Control, and how standardization and predictability helps users ‘find stuff.’

 

TC

LC (but speaking for myself)

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

When we concentrate on the issue of uniform titles/AAPs for translations, we forgot about those which bring together manifestations that use different titles in the same language for the same work.  An easy example is Huckleberry Finn—authority record n79132705 gives four 400’s that use different permutations of the title.  The authority for “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” gives four variants.  The one for Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” gives eight.  Why would it be desirable not to collocate the various manifestations of these works using work AAPs?

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

The views expressed here are my own and I do not speak officially for the Library of Congress.

 

I wholeheartedly agree about finding UTs interesting.  But more importantly, I DO think they can in many instances be very helpful -- which is of course our raison d'etre.

 

Not to dispute the use survey done at Duke (a long time ago, I might point out), nor to make light of the question posed about what catalog users might or might not be looking for, but ...

 

I think, per se, the question is phrased too narrowly.

Voina i mir is, to some of us, well known as War and Peace; and so, yes, what English-speaking user would look for the Russian titleBut what about those who don’t know that?  Are they to guess at what the title might be – in English, German, Swahili, Estonian, or whatever?  (and further, how often -- or not -- is the translated title a literal translation that could easily be guessed at blindly?).  And what about the researcher who specifically is researching works in translation, and doesn’t know in advance what the title is – i.e., in his or her world.  One thing I do agree with: that for translations, Uniform Titles are among the most useful and understood – I would even say ‘indispensable’ (I also find conventional collective UTs extremely useful, but I won’t go there because I know that is a ‘third rail’ for many – and I won’t even get into the ‘preferred title at the first instance’ question).  Isn’t a UT, fundamentally, a specific kind of “Authority Control”?  I would hope none would suggest dispensing with Authority Control.  We need to know what we call Samuel Clemens or Muammar Qaddafi (just one of about 60 forms on his NAR, and no thank you, I don’t want to look under all of them).  We also need to know what to call a specific work.

 

The collocation function always has been an important goal of cataloging.  And despite the miracles of Google, the power of ubiquitous keyword searching, and whatever other latest tricks the IT systems may provide, I don’t see that changing.  I’m relieved that the respondents to the user survey saw it as beneficial – I’d be shocked to learn otherwise.   But I’m baffled by their bafflement about the use of UTs to arrange editions – isn’t that just a way to move a level deeper in the collocation function?  Collocation is what UTs do so well – they gather resources together that deserve to be gathered together.  No, most institutions don’t worry about “cards in a drawer” any more, thank goodness.  But does that make the principle of collocation any less valuable?

 

I often sense in these threads on 240s and UTs and conventional collective titles, a sense that those conventions are ‘getting in the way’ of people finding stuff.  Nobody is not talking about not recording the title as the title.  UTs, etc., should be seen as an additional tool – another point of access – in people finding stuff.

 

As a cataloging instructor, believe me, I get the idea that UTs can be hard to teach and for people to grasp and to apply effectively.  So maybe learning them is ‘getting in the way’ of our utilizing them effectively.  But that is a reflection on our training effectiveness – not on whether it is something worth learning and using.  And it doesn’t mean their usefulness should be discarded. [insert here baby/bathwater analogy]

 

 

Timothy J. Carlton

Senior Instructor

Cooperative and Instructional Programs (COIN)

Library of Congress

202-707-5323

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

Amy Turner wrote:

"What English-speaking catalog user is looking for Tolstoy's Voĭna i mir?"

 

It seems like it depends on how you conceive the "library world." Certainly in public libraries the uniform title seems superfluous. But in research libraries it makes more sense because there are people who are actually reading the book in the original Russian. However, even in those research libraries it might not make sense for Voĭna i mir to be very prominent in the cataloging record. Maybe burying it down in the 700's is adequate.

 

The reason I mentioned the "library world" is that maybe it makes a difference whether you consider the knowledge that libraries provide as a cooperative thing, where all libraries that follow a certain standard like RDA are pointing to that highest level of knowledge that a user can "ascend" to if she wants to put in the effort. In that highest level, the user knows that War and Peace is a translation of Voĭna i mir. Authority records are created so that a person who doesn’t know Russian can find the work by the title she knows. By creating the authority records you are creating a kind of link between the knowledge available in a rural public library and the Library of Congress.

 

I remember that AACR2 had different "levels of description," where catalogers could choose to provide less detail if that met their library's needs. Is that true in RDA, too?

 

One more point: I personally find uniform titles interesting. They make cataloging a more interesting job. They are one of the things that make cataloging more than typing.

 

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 6:09 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

I'd like to address the issue of how omitting a 240 could help the reader, but I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating a revision of MARC.  I agree with Gary Strawn that our efforts are better focused elsewhere.  Instead, I would like for uniform titles (to use the old terminology) to be optional, as they were under AACR2.

 

In the 80s, cataloging staff at Duke did a catalog use survey.  We asked users what they expected from the catalog in terms of detail of description and collocation.  Users were very positive about the usefulness of collocating all the works of an author.  I forget exactly what term we used for collocation, but they really appreciated that this was an important function of the catalog.  However, when we moved on to the question of arranging different editions by means of uniform titles, they were completely baffled. I have also seen a lot of confusion when training catalogers to use uniform titles.  Discussions on this list further illustrate lack of clarity about what uniform titles accomplish and how. 

 

Perhaps the most useful and easily understood uniform titles are those for translations, but what English-speaking catalog user is looking for Tolstoy's Voĭna i mir?

 

At Duke, over the years between the implementation of AACR2 and the implementation of RDA, we gradually used fewer and fewer uniform titles in original cataloging, while accepting them on copy.  Our catalog indexes 240s and 130s, but does not display them prominently.  I can't prove that this has resulted in a better catalog than if we had used more uniform titles and displayed them more prominently, but I don't know of a single request from the public to add a 240.  We do get requests to correct typos and forms of authors names, and to reclassify.

 

Then along comes RDA and the concept of authorized access points for works and expressions, throwing 240s into the limelight.  And though we are told to look forward to a future where authorized access points are not so bound up in character strings, we are also told to construct character strings that code the complexities of a works and expressions in ways that the average reader would never anticipate.  Maybe it will all work better in the post-MARC environment.   In the interim, I think that we can serve the reader by making 240's optional, and by focusing our attention on other authority control, and on subject analysis and classification.

 

-----Original Message-, ----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kroychik, Alla

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:05 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

Hi,

Agreed with Michael.

 

Alla

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Borries

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:00 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

Ian,

 

Why should the cataloger have used the 240 at all in the case below?  I don't see a uniform title, only a variant title, which should have been recorded in a 246, not a 700 author title added entry.

 

And I really don't recall seeing an explanation of how omitting a 240 will help the reader.

 

Michael

 

Michael S. Borries

Cataloger, City University of New York

151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY  10010

Phone: (646) 312-1687

Email: [log in to unmask]

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:46 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

 

Dear PCCLIST readers,

 

Thanks to Amy for her full explanation.

 

OCLC 875240162, also at my desk, has:

 

1001 Feeley, Dianne, ǂe author.

24510Leon Trotsky and the organizational principles of the revolutionary party / ǂc Dianne Feeley, Paul Le Blanc and Thomas Twiss.

 

What you don't see in the OCLC master is that, in the version as used for our acquisitions purposes, this field was present:

 

700 1  Feeley, Dianne. ‡t Leon Trotsky & the organizational principles of the Revolutionary Party.

 

I wonder why (1) the cataloger didn't use field 240 in this instance, and (2) why someone saw fit to remove the field.  (Granted that the title with the ampersand rather than the spelled-out word doesn't achieve a whole lot.)    This was not Library of Congress cataloging.

 

But I don't need any more answers.  Again, thanks to all who've contributed.  Feel free to continue discussing, anyone who's so inclined.

 

Sincerely - Ian

 

Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University

703-993-2938

[log in to unmask]