I've been toying around with regular expressions to help out with another big batch load (oh, and I did ensure that we increased the size of our transaction file so that I could avoid the problems of
my last adventure in batch-loading and global editing)
I need to work with the other California Librarians In Technology to reinstate
techbootcamp. I could use a Regex for Dummies hands-on kind of workshop. I certainly have a few use cases now.
Otherwise I'm head-achy and exhausted from this darn cold. Don't think I'll be making
Robert McDonald's talk tonight.
Labels: *nix, cataloging, III, techbootcamp, what i did today
I have resigned from CC:DA. The meetings at this year's ALA Annual will be my last as a voting committee member. As a new manager I've had less time to deal with the deluge of detail. My attitude since formally resigning last winter is wake-me-when-its-over. Once it's released I'll work with colleagues in my institution to determine whether or not we need to implement.
Let the triumvirate figure out the business case.
Don't get me wrong. I think RDA is a good thing. There's a good conversation happening at the
Inquiring Librarian about RDA implementation and the LC statement. I agree with Jenn Riley that
that RDA is overall a positive thing, and that it represents a necessary (although of course not perfect) step forward in the ongoing evolution of libraries
I'm also with Irvin Flack, who commented on Jenn's post
I want RDA to work but I've decided I'm going to wait for the full final draft before I try to read any more of it. I become too frustrated and confused. I can't afford to lose any more hair! I find myself wondering: why on Earth did they write that rule that way?
A-effing-men!
They wrote RDA by cutting and pasting wholesale portions of AACR2 then re-writing bits -- not a good way to create a whole new means of looking at content standards for cataloging, IMHO. It also introduced a lot of the consistency errors within the text. Then they re-arranged the ordering of the parts and only released certain parts at at time. I found it impossible to keep a cohesive mental model of the drafts. I look forward to the full release. I don't think I'll read it though. Life's too short. I resigned from CC:DA because I don't have time to faithfully review it and contribute to its development anymore. I'd love to follow it, but I need to be practical with my time and my health since
beginning to have problems in that realm. Not to mention
the hernia risk.
I intend to test catalog some things using the electronic version of RDA when available. Let the print version die please! I realize that some small, less funded, libraries will still need to work from a print version hence the JSC's decision to stick with publishing both print+online. But couldn't we write it online and let the people with less money print out customized versions rather than writing it as if we still live in a print-centric world when it comes to "standards" for working with metadata? That could help with the cohesiveness issues in the text.
As a manager of a small cataloging and acquisitions operation I sometimes wonder just how relevant RDA is going to be in our future. I suspect not much. Sorry. I had to talk about the elephant in my room.
Shelf-ready monographs, umpteen thousand title electronic resource packages, open access eBooks, etc. mean that I'll be ingesting more records directly from publishers. And do publisher's give a rat's ass about RDA? (see
EDitEUR) As for legacy bib records in my OPAC, I predict that somebody will write a MARC/RDA translator and that we'll be automating the migration of records (if it proves necessary, which I believe it may not).
I suspect it will be better for MPOW to play the middle road. Wait until other libraries adopt RDA and see how they do. I've got other priorities right now. MPOW is a specialized research institution. Our metadata services are moving in the direction of assisting with the information management of resources created on campus. Sure we'll always order books and journals but that stuff is going to become more automated as time goes by. RDA is not on my radar as a skill set I need to be training people to have. Understanding metadata formats and interoperability is a bigger concern. Ditto metadata for digital preservation and data curation. I suspect repositories and reference will be our library's life blood. I believe
John Wilbanks was right when he said providing things like namespaces will be the bread and butter of the new-school library. We need to have the skills to do that type of thing or we risk diminished relevancy when our primary clientèle's needs are not being met. And yeah, we need to do the appropriate needs assessment to determine that we prioritize in terms of evolving the library.
I'm filing RDA under nice-to-be-aware-of but not worth following in detail anymore. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Labels: cataloging, CC:DA, life1.0, metadata, RDA
The
unedited web cast of the 11/13 meeting of the LC working group is available.
Karen Coyle does a nice summary.
Recommendation 4.2 re: RDA is particularly interesting esp. coming on the heels of the JSC's recent re-re-organization of the RDA structure.
4.2 Realize FRBR. The framework known as FRBR has great potential but so far is untested. It is being used as the basis for RDA, even though FRBR itself is not clearly understood. The working group recommends that no further work be done on RDA until there has been more investigation of FRBR and the basis it provides for bibliographic metadata. [Note: this recommendation is likely to change such that there will be specific recommendations relating to RDA; FRBR will be treated separately.]
The LC report has it dead.bang.on with that recommendation. The connections between FRBR and RDA weren't made explicit until the last revision of the
RDA Prospectus and the release of
the mapping this past June . They key phase is "
FRBR itself is not clearly understood. "
Building a de-facto standard based upon a conceptual model which isn't clearly understood seems kind of bass-ackward. Is it realistic, however, to wait for FRBR to be better understood? We've had it for almost a decade. Let me play devil's advocate for a second. If a conceptual model is difficult to understand than maybe it's not a very good model? It's one argument for a do-over on writing RDA.
I think stopping the RDA process and re-starting from scratch from the conceptual model up would be ideal. Especially if when re-starting the process the JSC continued to consult with non-library related communities to discuss their conceptual models and come to a common, or at least complimentary, model(s)
prior to coming up with specifications for the actual metadata. The problem is stopping the RDA process is never going to happen. The publication schedule is driving this train and JSC has no intention of deviating from the proposed 2009 release. Remember that JSC reports to the RDA Committee of Principles, which consists of reps from the national library organizations which have a vested interest in their publishing income. There is no economic incentive for the JSC to call a halt to things and re-think. It's unrealistic to expect that to change and crazy-making to those of us commenting on RDA to keep requesting it. The stop-the-presses option has been discussed more than once at CC:DA and we keep coming back to the same conclusion.
What to do then? As best we can. I am optimistic that RDA may, eventually, get things right. The JSC is getting better about working with other stakeholder groups. See, for example, the
DCMI/RDA task group working on a DC application profile for RDA and a controlled element vocabulary. I think it's conceivable that more partnerships will be developed and that RDA will evolve to be based upon a mutually understood conceptual framework -- most likely a more fully-understood FRBR. It will be interesting to see the full LC working group recommendations when they are released on 12/1. Maybe, given recommendation 4.2 they will suggest another RDA/?? working group on fully exploring the implications of FRBR as a conceptual model and integrating the conceptual models of other communities.
All I really know is that RDA will be an imperfect work-in-progress for quite a long time. We all have to accept that we will have a release-refine-release cycle and that we won't get perfection the first time out. Otherwise we'll wait forever.
Labels: cataloging, CC:DA, FRBR, JSC, LC, metadata, RDA
If you (a) understand cataloging and
metadata and (b) have mad web skills then the ALA Cataloging Committee on Description and Access (a.k.a. CC:DA) needs you.
At ALA Annual CC:DA voted to establish an official web master position. John
Attig, our current web master, has become our representative to the
JSC. If you are interested contact me (laura.j.smart on
gmail) or Cheri
Folkner (
cherifolkner at
boisestate dot
edu) , chair of CC:DA.
The web master may not have to attend every ALA conference in order to do the job. This is an important gig because we are porting the current CC:DA web site to ALA managed servers and because we have a Task Force examining all aspects of CC:DA communication. We want the committee to make full use of emerging technologies to better reach our constituents.
Labels: cataloging, CC:DA, metadata
