Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons

Posting to RDA-L

On 19/03/2012 17:30, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

<snip>
Legacy data is always a problem. 

But if we never start doing different, we'll never have any different.  If you start adding additinal info (like relator codes), there may be a reason to not have the UI expose it until a certain percentage of your data is so 'enhanced'. There can be automated as well as manual cooperative means to enhance.

But if you never start enhancing, you're just making your legacy problem even bigger.

Your argument still amounts to "we've never done it, therefore the catalog is the wrong tool to do it." If it's something important to our users, and we can afford to do it, shouldn't we start doing it?

Arguments against might be that it's not something important to our users, or that we in fact can't afford to do it. But "we've never done it so we can't" is a poor argument, and that's what "but what about the legacy data" amounts to.
</snip>

"We've never done it" is actually a very good and realistic argument because it certainly affects what our patrons expect and whether we can afford to "fix" it. If we enhance without any hope of making anything useful to people until maybe 20 years down the road or so, that would result in a complete waste of our resources and would be *very* difficult to convince upper echelons is worthwhile.

Staying with the example of relator codes, especially for films, many would say (and I would agree) that our adding them is a complete waste of resources because it duplicates information found elsewhere. Why devote resources to create a product that can only be inferior to what is already there? This would not be making our legacy problems even bigger: we should instead be concerning ourselves with what we can really and truly do that isn't found elsewhere. What is it that is unique that library catalogs provide?

I think there is a lot library catalogs can provide this way, but certainly not relator codes.

Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons

Posting to RDA-L

On 19/03/2012 15:24, Mike Tribby wrote:

<snip>
On 3/17/2012 6:42 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:

Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because of a few facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC will not put in relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO.

Jonathan Rochkind responded:

This is awfully circular. You started out saying that it was a mistake for the local catalog to try to do this, it was the 'wrong tool' for this job. When someone asks why, you say, basically, because the way we do things makes the catalog fail at this. Right. So, um, why not do things differently? Your answer looks like simply "because we never have, so we never should"

Unless, Jim's point has something to do with the unlikelihood that enough records will have the relator codes included to be a really good source given LC's heavy output of records. Unless LC and BIBCO change their policies (and amp up enforcement) or there is a concerted effort by other cataloging agencies to add the relator codes to LC's and other BIBCO records, there are other, better places to find the desired information. Doesn't mean the catalog couldn't support this kind of thing, just that as currently constituted it might not be the optimum source.
</snip>

Mike is absolutely right. We can always add search options for information that isn't in the catalog, but it will always retrieve zero.

This is an example of why I keep saying that we have to look at the catalog through the eyes of the *patrons* and not our own eyes. Patrons are not going to know, or understand, that you have begun to start encoding authors as "producer" but have this coding only on .001% of your records, that a search for "producer" will not only be useless, it will be *worse* than useless because people will come away thinking, after getting a zero result for Mary Pickford as a producer, that you don't have those materials, although you very well might. It was just that the relator code was left off of all of the older records.

So, what choices do the catalogers have? Well, a project can be started that will upgrade the records, but as long as you are looking at a record, you may as well recode all the names and not only the producer. Now, you are talking about a lot of work that will take significant resources away from doing new materials. So, these are the sorts of things that people work on "in their spare time" which means, it takes many many years, or more likely, just never gets done.

The only other choice would be to hope the public doesn't notice, but first, they will notice because they are not stupid, and besides, I think this is an unethical attitude toward the catalog, since I think that we should be in the business of telling the truth whenever possible. If somebody searches for Mary Pickford as a producer and retrieves zero, but every one of these films is in your collection http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0681933/#Producer, and her name appears in the records but without the relator code, then the catalog is lying when someone does this search.

So, you decide to tell the truth, and try to make the public aware that when they search by relator codes, they are only searching a tiny, tiny fraction of everything that is there. Of course, they won't understand this, they won't understand why, and they will come away with a very poor opinion of the catalog. When they complain, they will complain to public services, who will agree with them, and they will all complain together.

This would be another example of cataloging setting itself up for failure, at the same time alienating the public and the rest of the library. A reference librarian could see such a response in a second, and that is why I say they are so sorely needed in these matters today. What is the *truth* for searching producers of films? Do not use the library catalog because it is the wrong tool. But you are lucky that there are other, free and easy tools available.

In this environment, we have to ask ourselves seriously: what constitutes a "better" or a "worse" record? Throw out wishing and imagining grand things, but what these records are, and can be, in reality. Because reality will rear its head sooner or later.

Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons

On 17/03/2012 15:17, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:

<snip>

Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here?

Catalogers go to great lengths to record the very same data as in relationship designators in the form of notes and statements in the record. That's the whole "justify the added entry" concept.

Decisions about what headings can become added entries are decisions based upon identifying the role played by the creating or contributing entity. As a catalog user I find it extremely frustrating to have to scan notes to understand why a search result came up attached to a particular person's name. It's great when I eventually find the note, but this is not a user-friendly design, and looks more like inefficiencies built upon inefficiencies.

A good data entry system has vast impact on the efficiency of cataloging. The issue of time spent on entering relationship designators quickly becomes moot when one factors in:

a) the time spent already on making those very same decisions and entering comparable data,
b) the ease with which some newer systems allow catalogers to enter data, validate data, or harvest data and integrate it, and
c) the overall goal of FRBR and RDA which is to create a universal baseline of understanding of what is going in catalogs.

This last point means that catalogers, systems developers, and other data providers all understand the same model, the same techniques, and the same application possibilities. That's the core business case for FRBR and RDA, and it's the same reason why the rest of the data management world relies heavily on entity-relationship models to design data systems that solve real world problems. Why ignore a tool (entity-relationship modeling) that the entire world of data systems now depends on?

And understanding this includes understanding the possibilities for retrospective conversion. It's far better to start thinking of retrospective conversion when there's a good new home for that data than just to recycle that data from one inferior system into another similar kind of inferior system (having gone through three ILS's in the last 12 years, data migration issues are expected, but it's frustrating when the benefits of a new system only come down to some low-hanging fruit, and the larger scale benefits are still out of reach of many library systems, and so the same weaknesses of AACR/MARC data abound).

AustLit ( http://www.austlit.edu.au/ ) did it correctly when old databases were FRBRized-- much wasn't difficult, and the rest was handled by good tools and trained data specialists. And when it was done, it was done, and everyone was better off because of it.
</snip>

Now we finally get some mention of the business case. And we see that "entity-relationship" models are the justification. "This last point means that catalogers, systems developers, and other data providers all understand the same model, the same techniques, and the same application possibilities. That's the core business case for FRBR and RDA, and it's the same reason why the rest of the data management world relies heavily on entity-relationship models to design data systems that solve real world problems. Why ignore a tool (entity-relationship modeling) that the entire world of data systems now depends on?"

Creating a data model from scratch is quite different from creating one based on models in long use. We have decades worth of data, many times representing records created over 100 years ago. As I have mentioned before, FRBR has turned the relationships of the traditional catalog into entities. In the card catalog, there were not explicit "works" or "expressions". In some cases, you might find a card that would explain in more detail how the cards were arranged, http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/cards.pl/disk6/0488/B5379?d=f&p=Bible+...+Texts--Anglo-Norman+%3E&g=51627.500000&n=2&r=1.000000&thisname=0000.0002.tiff but you would not have separate cards giving you information about the "Work" of the Bible and then another card telling you about the Bible in English.

The works and expressions were theoretical constructs that determined how the separate cards were arranged in the catalog. These arrangements in turn, were derived from the arrangements found in some printed book catalogs (but not all) and based on the rules defined by Panizzi and Cutter. With FRBR, these relationships between and among all the separate records were turned into "entities", and these formerly theoretical constructs that guided arrangement suddenly turned into "things" that had to "exist" and therefore every record needed associated work and expression "entities" even when there were relatively few cases of such arrangements in the catalogs (less than 20%) because the vast majority of everything written exists in a single manifestation.

I agree that *if* we were setting up a brand new database today, we may want to consider creating an FRBR-type structure, but this is not the case. We have massive amounts of data that will need converting to this new model, so then the questions must be asked: how much effort will it be to create and maintain these new structures, and will the costs be worth it? The example of adding the "producer" attribute is only an insignificant part of this when considering all of the relator codes for past and present, and relator codes is itself only an insignificant part of FRBR structures. Yet it serves to accentuate the enormity of the problem. Are there any alternatives that accomplish the same goals? And I think a vital question is: will it make any difference to those who will use the system?

I think I have shown that there are alternatives that accomplish the same goals, and only research can determine whether creating the FRBR structures will make any difference to today's public. Yet it seems as if the utility to the public may *not* be the main purpose now of FRBR, but just to get into the linked data universe. There are many ways to get into the linked data universe, if that is the goal, and if we want database interoperability there are alternatives that have been going on for some time.

It would be useful to discover if the database interoperability that currently exists has made a difference, for instance, in the Google Books interface is the "Find in a Library" http://books.google.it/books?id=df6Ug_9CQccC. I wonder if this has made any substantial difference to library circulation? After all, although this is not linked data, this is one demonstration of how it could work in the linked data universe. Does anyone know if it has increased circulation in their libraries?

Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons

Posting to RDA-L

On 16/03/2012 23:26, Kevin M Randall wrote:

<snip>

Finally, why is it wrong to expect to search a library catalog for Steven Spielberg as a producer only? Because it's not the right tool, whether anybody likes it or not. You don't use JSTOR for the latest news on Putin's election. Lexis-Nexis is not the best tool for in-depth research on biblical archaeology. You don't use a hammer for a ripsaw or a motorcycle for a pickup truck. People can learn this although they may not like it.

Excuse me, but I find it absolutely preposterous that the library catalog is NOT the correct tool to search for locally-held DVDs for which Steven Spielberg was producer only, not director. Please explain this outrageous assertion.
</snip>

I shall focus on this statement which you claim is so outrageous.

Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because of a few facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC will not put in relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO. Consequently many, many libraries follow these directives. Whenever a library accepts LC or BIBCO copy, they can, but do not have to, decide to add the relator codes themselves, but doing so demands local work that necessarily takes away from other tasks catalogers could be doing and detracts from productivity. Therefore, this is the kind of decision that should only be taken by an institution, not by individual catalogers.

There is also the little problem that relators are not in the records that have been created in the past. If a catalog is not designed to provide reliable results, e.g. the producer code is added into only the newest records resulting in perhaps only 5% or 10% of all producers of movies being coded, to allow such a search on the records produces a false result, so that the searcher must be made aware of the fact that this search only encompasses a relatively small part of all of the movie producers. Perhaps the result does not have to be 100%, but it certainly has to be 80% to 90% to provide some sort of result that the searcher can rely upon. So, if any particular local catalog has decided to devote the resources to add the publisher code where it is supposed to go, that is fine, but that goes beyond the normal bibliographic standards and other local catalogs can decide otherwise.

There are many points that someone can consider to be "outrageous". For instance, ending series authority control, that RDA requires only a single author to be traced, that 245$b is optional, even that RDA is supposed to be accepted without any concern for the serious practical consequences, that is, without supplying a business case. Also in my own opinion, to expect catalogers to do even more with dwindling resources is rather outrageous and can lead to nothing good.

Non-librarians may find the fact that they have to search multiple separate databases and indexes for journal articles to be outrageous. Another point is that for non-roman languages, searchers must refer to some transliteration tables that they often find incorrect or semi-comprehensible. Non-catalog librarians are often shocked that a variant ISBN does not automatically require a new record, or when people discover that authors with pseudonyms have to be searched separately under each pseudonym (separate bibliographic identities) except for pre-20th century authors (sometimes!) they find that outrageous. My own pet peeve has been that translators have been very rarely traced. (At the same time, I did like that it was less work!)

I could go on, but I won't. I will only say that in the future, as people will be able to do more and more with full-text, people will doubtlessly find more and more "outrageous" problems with library catalogs.

These are some of the ways the tool we are creating works. As with every tool, it has its limitations. At least with producers of movies, there is the IMDB.

Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons

Posting to RDA-L

On 16/03/2012 16:40, Kevin M Randall wrote:

<snip>
And that kind of cooperation [e.g. with IMDB -- JW] is *exactly* the kind of thing that linked data, and data definitions such as the RDA elements, are intended to make possible! Without having precise data definitions, it will never come about. And our current data *can* be transformed. It won't happen overnight, but nothing does. For an example of data transformation: most libraries have been able to completely get rid of their card catalogs, haven't they?
</snip>

I am aware of that. The question is: do we need RDA and the FRBR structures to implement it or could it be done with what we currently have? These are the questions we should be asking.

<snip>
Strange, in a lot of your past messages I thought you were arguing that we needed more integration of information so people wouldn't have to have so many different places to search. I must have misunderstood you. And I must have misunderstood you when you said above "It would be much better to try to cooperate with projects such as IMDB in some way". I guess by cooperate you don't really mean to be able to have the data connected? And if not, what *do* you mean? (And for the life of me, I cannot figure out *why* it would be wrong to expect to be able to search a library catalog for Steven Spielberg as a producer only, not a director. If I want to find Spielberg-produced DVDs in my library, shouldn't the catalog make it easy to do that?)
</snip>

Well, to be honest, I am trying to figure out what the local, library catalog should and shouldn't be. Some apparently want it to be all things to all people. Others want much less for it.

I am trying to figure out why someone, as more and more digital content emerges and our acquisitions budgets go down, why they would actually open up the local catalog instead of staying with Google, or Facebook, or whatever the big site will be then. There must be a reason, and I hope it won't be just to find out if the library has a copy of the book they found on Google or Amazon so they won't have to pay for it.

If the library catalog is not to be all things to all people (which is what the Facebooks and Googles seem to want to be and entering a race like that would ensure that libraries would lose) then why would somebody use the library catalog? Why *should* they use it? The public must find definite, tangible advantages there that they will not find in the Googles. Therefore, while the definition of the "library's collection" must change to include the materials available on the web, it doesn't mean *everything* on the web. What does that mean precisely? I don't know, but it means limits of some kind. Does it mean "connected data"? Not necessarily, but may include various types of federated searching.

Finally, why is it wrong to expect to search a library catalog for Steven Spielberg as a producer only? Because it's not the right tool, whether anybody likes it or not. You don't use JSTOR for the latest news on Putin's election. Lexis-Nexis is not the best tool for in-depth research on biblical archaeology. You don't use a hammer for a ripsaw or a motorcycle for a pickup truck. People can learn this although they may not like it.

Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons

Posting to RDA-L

On 16/03/2012 15:42, Kevin M Randall wrote:

<snip>
James Weinheimer wrote:

Of course, I don't agree with this reasoning. I don't think it is essential. Adding the relator information is additional labor for no tangible gains. While I agree that the public has terrible problems with our catalog records, this would be ranked near the very bottom. Working on this distracts our efforts from the real problems with our catalogs.

Sorry, but contrary to being "near the very bottom", I believe that the lack of relators is one of the major problems with out catalog data. Maybe some users are happy to have to slog through statements of responsibility and notes in order to find out how a particular person relates to the resource being described, but why should they have to? Why should we expect the user, wanting to find things where Person X is acting as writer, or as editor, or as illustrator, or as publisher, or as performer, or as producer, or as director, or as composer, or as librettist, have to get a result list that includes many things where Person X is *not* involved in the role being searched? How happy would we be with Internet Movie Database if we weren't able to have searches limited to a person's particular role? I know that *I* wouldn't be.
</snip>

That's fine. You can have your beliefs and I can have mine. But if relators are to be added, it will result in diverting resources from other things catalogers could be doing, such as raising productivity, adding more headings with the cap off of the rule of three, doing better subject analysis...

I only hope that nobody ever searches our catalogs for someone as an editor because they *will never* and *can never* get results they can rely upon. How much would it cost to add all of those relators for all of those millions of records? What an incredibly ironic waste that would be!

It would be much better to try to cooperate with projects such as IMDB in some way, or better yet: let people know that you don't search a library catalog for this kind of information, just as you don't search catalogs for lots of things, like journal articles, datasets, or most websites. Nothing wrong with that. It's just the wrong tool. I think people could understand, just like they seem to know that you don't search IMDB for the latest information on gall stones. Still, I have had people who want the latest news on a some current political issue say that they should search JSTOR!

But if somebody can show that lack of relators is really important, and so important that it rises above all of these other possibilities, AND that our current records can be updated in some kind of way that will allow for at least semi-reliable results for the users, OK. It seems to me that sooner or later somebody should ask the patrons what they would prefer.

But we shouldn't just accept all these things without question as RDA would have us do, especially in the climate we have today. They still cannot show that it makes good business sense. It seems as if they don't care about the consequences to the people involved.

Re: [RDA-L] RDA/FRBR and the Business Case; Was:RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]

Posting to RDA-L

On 16/03/2012 14:47, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:

<snip>

The world is moving on and leaving FISO behind. For instance, "find" is turning into "search" which means >creating an "intelligent agent" for our information needs. That is what Tim Berners-Lee wants and is one of the >primary goals of the Semantic Web, and supposedly, one of the main reasons for RDA and FRBR in the first place.

No, that's flat out wrong-- the Semantic Web is about bringing back "find" because "search" is not enough. Quote from Tim Berners-Lee himself: "Does this mean that they [search engines] will start to absorb the whole RDF data model? If they do, then they will be able to start pulling all of the linked data cloud in. Will they know what to do with it? Because when it's data in a very organized form, I think some people have been misunderstanding the Semantic Web as being something that tries to make a better search engine - i.e. when you type something into a little box. But of course the great thing about the Semantic Web is that you can query it, you can ask a complicated query of the Semantic Web, like a SQL query (we call it a SPARQL query), and that's such a different thing to be able to do. It really doesn't compare to a search engine." http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/readwriteweb_interview_with_tim_berners-lee_part_2.php Querying that kind of structure requires an entity-relationship model. That's why RDA was written to support the entity-relationship framework.
</snip>

Sorry, I disagree that I am flat-out wrong, but it's not a search engine that TBL envisions. It's an intelligent agent that does all the searching and sifting for you based on the totality of what is on the Semantic Web, including whatever is there about you. You might have to reset it once in awhile but otherwise, it runs for you constantly. Search engines don't have much if anything to do with it. The intelligent agents do it all for you. Lots of people absolutely love this idea, but as I mentioned in the podcast, in a lot of ways, it gives me the creeps.

We don't know if this is what people will want. Nobody does. Perhaps after Google rolls out their Semantic Web tools, we may all get a better idea if it actually works or not. In the meantime, put our records in RDF so that they can be shared--that's fine. We don't need FRBR structures to do it. We should have done it long ago. Give it a try and see what happens. It may be useful and we'll learn a lot. Or it may not make any difference at all. As I said, nobody knows, so let's not bet too much on it.

Re: [NGC4LIB] Discovery and science's "new era"

Posting to NGC4LIB

On 12/03/2012 22:12, Laval Hunsucker wrote:

<snip>
In _Nature_ 478.7369 (on p.321), Chris Lintott concludes his review of Michael Nielsen's _Reinventing discovery : the new era of networked science_ (Princeton University Press, 2011) with the comments that the author "convinces us that radical change is a real possibility", and that this book "will frame serious discussion and inspire wild, disruptive ideas for the next decade."

Nielsen foresees a new scenario for creative scientific work, and for determining scientific success and recognition -- one in which, for example, the traditional system of scientific ( journal ) publishing does not, to put it mildly, play a decisive role. Scientific communication, and the course of scientific progress, are going to become a whole 'nuther ballgame, so to speak.

I was just wondering whether anyone on this list who has read Nielsen's book might have any comments on what he or she believes such a scenario may entail for how library and information services will ( have to ) adapt, and for the way in which they will ( have to ) function differently from the current situation. [ If, indeed, there will even still be a place for such services, if the scientific enterprise becomes so fluid, and only active scientists will be aware of what is actually going on. ] Can we look forward to "wild, disruptive ideas" for adapting research librarianship and information services for a radically new environment ?  Is that a kind of imminent "next generation" down the road ?

Or is Nielsen ( himself a physicist / computer scientist ) just a daydreamer, and Lintott ( an astrophysicist ) too naïvely credulous ?
</snip>

Thanks for pointing this out. I haven't read the book, but I found a talk of his and watched it: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2685625. Quite enlightening.

You ask a very good and provocative question about, will there even be a place for librarianship in that kind of scenario? I would like to think so, but librarianship must be radically reconsidered into something like, how to facilitate the incredible collaborations that Nielsen mentions and that we are only beginning to see?

A few thoughts:

• I can see that many for-profit companies would want to get involved since this could be monetized for them in all kinds of ways. Librarianship, with its ethics and values, could play a trusted role in that the scientists could be assured that the librarians would not be in it just to see how much money they can get out of it.
• I do not believe that information can organize itself. Therefore, from these collaborations there will be information, documents, datasets, and so on that will need to be searched, navigated and referred to. All of this information will probably have associated information with it: e.g. the members of the project found a specific document to be: valid, interesting but not immediately useful, wrong, stupid, etc. This evaluative information would be good to capture as well.
• Of course, there is the assumption that everyone involved will be able to find any information they need themselves. That may not be true--even if they know how, perhaps they will just be too busy to do it themselves--and they may have need to turn to an "information specialist".

I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.

Re: [ACAT] RDA Implementation Date Set

Posting to Autocat

On 15/03/2012 22:44, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:

<snip>
Yes, the RDA MARC fields now exist, and are being populated in authority records. The German National Library has been using RDA-like elements for some time now. And a major point about the FRBR elements is that they derive from the desire for international co-operation -- the new elements weren't invented whole cloth, but reflect realities on the ground in different countries and are there to facilitate co-operation and integration of bibliographic data (and that's DATA-- independent of the different record formats that house that data, which may not interoperate in different systems).

And March 2013 is not that far away for us to get started as soon as possible on the rest.

Apart from finding a workaround for the GMD, most of the immediate RDA changes resemble just a bundled upgrade of routine MARC code changes (which most ILS's have had time to incorporate at a basic level, at a minimum) and some long overdue AACR2 changes (which have been waiting ready to go for some time, and so catalogers have had ample time to learn them). Everything beyond that will be incremental and iterative, but the goal for co-operation and finding greater use for the data is still there.

As the Dr. Peter Chen video showed, there is a hunger in system developers to go to the next level. One part of the discussion was about the importance of good, robust, abstract data models to push the envelope in designing new tools to solve business problems. Many of the tools are there -- what's needed is the data built on a good model, and it sounds like there will be takers. http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Dr-Peter-Chen-Entity-Relationship-Model-Past-Present-and-Future
</snip>

Well, I don't want to go overboard on this small point of agreement we have reached. For instance, "populating" authority records should not mean that our catalogers will do anything more than they are now. Expecting more is a sure way to eventual oblivion. And, I still see zero reasons for adopting RDA. The changes should be achieved by cooperating through our *systems*, and not through changing cataloging rules that will have no impact on our public.

Certainly our rules will need changing, but as I have tried to point out many times, we don't yet know how our rules need to change. Change our workflows. Change our formats. Change the definition of the "library's collection." Admit that our subject headings as they are now are a disaster and do something to get them to work again. Find a decent way to let people see the powers of the syndetic structures in our authority files. Fine. I am for all of those attempts. But absolutely no one--and I repeat *absolutely no one*--knows what the public needs or wants today, and what they will need and want in the future. So get into the Semantic Web. Great. Do it quick and dirty and cheaply. But don't expect too much from it, no matter who claims it is any kind of a solution is completely wrong because they *do not know*. They cannot, unless we believe in crystal balls. If somebody turns out to be right, it will just be luck. And because everything is changing so quickly, "the future" includes only five years from now.

The rules we have now definitely work for the purposes of librarians, just as they always have. To make our records useful for the public will take a lot of research and do not justify the expense of changing our records to those forms now. The FRBR structures are based on a 19th-century view of the information universe, and it will take quite a bit of work to show that those same structures are needed in the 21st century. We may find out that all of that is true, or not. The proof remains to be seen.

Still, that doesn't mean we need to stand still. See what can be done, and find out what are the opportunities through cooperation using the tools at our disposal today. Those possibilities are almost endless. Then, we can see what will be worthwhile to change. Certainly the changes proposed by RDA remain completely dubious as so many of the official reports maintain.

Re: [RDA-L] RDA/FRBR and the Business Case; Was:RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]

Posting to RDA-L

On 15/03/2012 21:33, Casey A Mullin wrote:

<snip>
What I'm reading in Mr. Weinheimer's criticisms is not a rejection of FISO itself. (I personally find FISO so intuitive as to be axiomatic.) What he often addresses are not these tasks themselves, but the **methods** used to fulfill said tasks. To be sure, the left-anchored browse environment of the card catalog, where title, author and subject were the only methods of entry, is a far cry from the methods users have at their disposal today. Today's discovery environments offer a dizzying array of methods for users to encounter and interact with content. That much is certain. But these are simply innovative methods by which to fulfill more basic tasks, which FISO encapsulates pretty well. Such methods, however innovative, do not supplant those tasks or render them irrelevant; they in fact facilitate them.
</snip>

I am not rejecting FISO. What I am saying is that FISO is becoming like stone tools when there are all kinds of power tools available. The world is moving on and leaving FISO behind. For instance, "find" is turning into "search" which means creating an "intelligent agent" for our information needs. That is what Tim Berners-Lee wants and is one of the primary goals of the Semantic Web, and supposedly, one of the main reasons for RDA and FRBR in the first place.

I have tried to elaborate on this in some of my podcasts. "Search" using all kinds of incredibly detailed information about you, and your friends, and their friends, and your browsing habits, and it analyses unbelievably deeply into everything you look at--the documents you read and write, your email, the webpages you look at, things that you, yourself don't even know--will all be used to provide you automatically with the information these algorithms determine that you "need". These are some of the facts of information today. They are happening right now and have been happening for quite awhile, and a huge amount of wealth is at stake. At the same time, I believe that the vast majority of people will like these new tools, just as much as they like Google today, and these companies will make absolutely sure they are attractive and extremely simple to use. They will continually improve.

While I am personally very suspicious of all of this, many more prefer it and say we must embrace it. But as I mention in my podcasts and papers: it doesn't matter at all what I think. This is the world we are entering and I can't stop it. No one can, especially not librarians! Therefore, the choice is simple: we must find ways to adapt or not survive.

Once "find" has metamorphosed into something that is almost incomprehensible, the ISO part obviously becomes confused. Even today, when searching in Google, the only point where you can identify and select is after you have obtained it, which turns everything topsy-turvy. Again, this is a simple statement of fact and a few seconds of working with Google will show how true it is. This has been the case for well over a decade and is not going away. We begin to understand how the traditional FISO may actually be predicated on physical materials that are not immediately available, and have very little to do with full-text materials that are available at the click of a button.

In my little cartoon of the conversation between the patron and the library catalog, I also tried to show that even in the past, ISO was overblown and people did that part at the shelves because the information in the catalog record distinguishing "manifestations" was essentially meaningless to them.

Therefore, FISO has been an ideal that has existed primarily in the minds of catalogers and has never corresponded all that closely with reality. Certainly, with full-text online materials, it must be rethought. Too bad perhaps, but absolutely necessary.

<snip> 
Now is not the time to question the basic premise through which our profession persists. Now is the time to double down on the distinct value we provide to the information universe: structure, validity, and intellectual rigor. This is what we do well. This is what lamentably few others in the information universe are providing. This is what is needed, more now than ever, for the continued advance of our civilization.
</snip>

I think that now is precisely the time to question the basic premises. If not now, when? While I have no doubt that our records do provide added-value that is found nowhere else, we must reconsider what that added-value really and truly is. Do we really think we can compete with "search"? If so, how? What do our records provide that "search" does not and will not? Where does our value-added really lie? I have tried to address some of this in my papers and podcasts, but they are only suggestions and may be totally wrong.

It seems to me that if we want to find out where our value-added is, then we must first face facts: admit that we don't know what the user tasks or the user needs are, and then try to discover what our patrons genuinely want.