Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloguing again--ARSC responsibility?

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, steven c wrote:
>
> > 1) PRICE is an important item in my own personal catalog
>
> Why do you find this to be important?
Actually, it isn't earth-shakingly important...but I found it interesting
to look at "after the fact" and see what I had paid for the records. I
know others who track that as well. In any case, it is a good example
of a data field that applies only to a single specific copy of a
phonorecord!
>
> > 2) Actually, take numbers on 78's are vital to serious users of either
the
> > phonorecord users (who may be seeking a specific take) or data
researchers
> > (since it can verify the usage of a given take). They are also advisable
> > for LP/CD tracks (mainly for the first reason above). Do "stamper
numbers"
> > on LP's often indicate different content? I'm not familiar with those...
>
> Many believe that the lower the stamper number, the better the quality of
> the impression.
Okeh...I've often heard of people who want/need to know the stamper datat
just as the take data...now I know why!
>
> > 3) Well, to make the differentiation between "catalog database" and
> > "discographic database" clearer, I'll venture into the world of books!
> > We can have a CATALOG of books held by a specific library. This may
> > indicate that the library has two copies of a given book. The first
> > one is a First Edition, with some uncut pages, autographed and
> > inscribed by the author and annotated by the recipient who was also
> > of some note. The second is a much later paperback edition and part
> > of a circulating collection of paperbacks (thus of minimal value and
> > will be eventually discarded or sold for a quarter).
>
> The bibliographic record should indicate the date of the particular
> edition, and there is room within the MARC format to indicate things like
> an autograph, etc. That indication can be done to enhance a local record
> or can be included in the OCLC record.
>
> However, there
> > can also exist a corresponding entry in a BIBLIOGRAPHIC database...
> > a collection of data covering "Who wrote what, and when." Since the
> > latter database does NOT refer to specific physical books, both the
> > above REAL books will be referred to by one data record in it, which
> > relates only to the IDEA of that book, in any form.
>
> I guess I understand the distinction, but I don't find it significant.
It is only significant when it comes down to which fields are to be
included in a database...
>
> > My phonorecord catalog (when/if completed) will tell me about specific,
> > physical, REAL phonorecords I own. If Ecru (the cat) knocks one of my
> > 78's to the floor, shattering it, I then delete the corresponding
> > DATA record in my catalog (and direct some intemperate language at
> > Ecru...). However, the destruction of that phonorecord does NOT
> > require the deletion of the corresponding data record in my discographic
> > database (even if it was the only known copy!), since the concept of
> > that phonorecord, including the performer, catalog number, label,
> > date recorded, usw., exists whether or not an actual copy does!
>
> Yet, there are bibliographic records in OCLC where no copies are held.
> Sometime a library may have an item and it will be lost, stolen,
> withdrawn, etc. An OCLC record may have been created when the item was
> held. Once that particular library "withdraws" its holding, the original
> bibliographic record may be retained by the system, providing cataloging
> information for some other institution should they acquire the item, or
> informing a researcher with the information that such a recording did
> exist.
>
Exactly! In theory, since a copy of any work printed in the US is
supposed to be given to the LOC (in Canada, the NLC)...there should
exist a bibliographic database listing every such work (note that I
said "in theory!)...
> > Well...MARC did, and does, a great job of collecting the data needed
> > for CARD catalogs of PRINTED WORKS (I assume, anyway...) which, forty
> > years ago,
>
> Indeed, MARC was a remarkable development for its time, especially keeping
> in mind that most saw the computer as a means to simplify a linear process
> of information.
>
> > However, in the same way that I have dBASE III+
> > running on my Wintel Pentium III, "reverse compatability" is often
> > seen as an asset!
>
> This is indeed true, however, I believe the abandonment of MARC need not
> keep us all from accessing those records. Because the format was so well
> done, that information could be uploaded to other systems. That is already
> the case with those library systems that place the MARC formatted records
> into different online access systems.
>
> However, that does not mean that one needs to maintain that old format.
>
> Further, there is the notion that the available information doubles every
> ten years. Consider how little of that information is being cataloged in
> the MARC format. The cost is too great and the resources too small. There
> needs to be a systemic approach which might have those who create
> information provide the markers to access that information...just as we
> have WEB site owners providing the keywords for search engines.
>
> Within the context of the old thinking (MARC), not only can we not keep up
> with what information is being created, we haven't even come close to
> addressing what was created.
>
Which, in a way, is my point! I suspect I could create an application.
using Visual Basic, which could collect all the data needed to catalog
a given type of item (book, phonorecord, maybe cat?!) and put that into
a user-friendly screen format as well as a printable/readable format.
All I need to know is "Which characteristics of this entity do you
want to record/track/access?" and create a data field for each one.
This could be done in any of several database-program formats...in
text files...or in web-usable HTML formats...as well as by using the
screen displays I can create...

> > Today, our "witch doctors" (at least per our discussion) are "highly
> > qualified librarians" with graduate degrees in Library Science...and
> > they must remain in our awe to justify their importance! Thus, my
> > "uncertified" data (in spite of the fact that I have authored one
> > of the standard works in 78rpm discograhy?!) can't be mingled with
> > their "official" data (even if I solved the "secret MARC code!").
>
> I think it is important to keep in mind that those "witch doctors" have
> but about 36 hours of graduate study. Even if many of them are excellent
> with things like HTML and many applications which are used to create WEB
> pages, they rarely, if ever, have any training in the basics of data base
management,
> programming, or the concepts of data management.
>
Which, sadly, is often reflected in the databases they create...!
> >From my perspective, it requires a rare combination of skills to
recognize
> and implement the possibilities that the technology presents. One needs to
> have those who are trained in things like educational psychology,
> graphics, communications as well as the fundamentals of computing etc.
> PLUS, subject knowledge. I certainly know I don't have all of those
> skills, but at least I believe I am willing to admit there are fundamental
> problems within the thinking of libraries.
>
> Some library schools are making attempts to
> address many of these considerations, but the real problem comes, at least
> from my perspective, from the top of information organizations. There
> needs to be people of vision and great imagination who can take libraries
> past the linearity of their past. This does not seem to be happening,
> hence the rise of parallel organizations like yahoo and google who seem to
> have vision and a willingness to change. From my experience, those who
> claim to be taking libraries into the online age seem to be a bunch of
> lost souls who have no sense of the economic limitations, potentials
> of the technology, user needs (which they address with things like coffee
> bars), costs of producing quality products and understanding their place
in the
> information chain. They seem to be grasping at straws using outmoded
thinking,
> equipment, and software, working with staff that came from a time when
information
> was not as viable of a product in the world of commerce...or maybe it was,
> perhaps the modes of access were so encumbered as to inhibit is economic
> viability...
>
> I still wonder, maybe so few people are interested in those old shellac
> discs because so few people know they exist, what is on them...and
> can access them.
>
There is an old cliche saying: "When you have a hammer at hand,
everything looks like a nail!" Library Science students are trained
to be "librarians"...which means assigning a book (or other object)
a "call number" in either the LOC or Dewey Decimal system...placing
the book/usw. in its proper position according to its assigned number...
and then creating a virtual, actual, or both "card" and placing
that in its appropriate place in a file (again, actual or digital)
of such "cards" which than be used by library clients, library staff
or both to find the book/usw. if/when they want to access it.

So...everything looks like...or functions like...a card, and the
entities being tracked all look like "books!" MARC creates digital/
virtual "library cards" (in fact, it was probably designed so
those could be easily printed?), because, forty years ago, that
is how library archives (mostly of books) were catalogued and
tracked. In another decade or two, a digital catalog could include
a field containing the entire text of a book...a sound file containing
the sonic content of a phonorecord...or an image file containg one
or more views of a work of art such as a painting or phonograph!
One hopes future librarians will be thoroughly conversant with
digital technology...!

Steven C. Barr