I read it. I made plenty of notes. I fully intended to write up my comments and submit them and to also post them here. I began writing them up.
I stopped.
And that is where I’m staying. Stopped.
It truly isn’t that I don’t care. I do. All the way down to the marrow care.
There is just too much going on right now in this arena. Far too many people talking so far past each other they must be in other solar systems. Almost all at some kind of cross purpose.
I’ve read a few blog posts, literally several hundred listserv postings and other assorted “comments” on the report or related to it. Now I’m just despairing of any sort of reasoned community-level discussion on the issues involved.
Add to that the frustrations I face daily as I go about my job cataloging monographs and serials (based on our tools, not my workplace) and I have just become despondent about it all.
I think the Working Group got some things right. I was far more impressed than I expected to be. But. It is very vague and hand-wavish about major topics. E.g., intellectual property rights. And several others.
But one of the main points in the report is that the community must broaden. I agree. Maybe I differ on the details, but then I am pretty sure that the committee members disagree amongst themselves, too.
But here’s the deal (actually one piece only) with why I am so despondent about it all any more.
At my institution I do I-level cataloging. [OCLC Input Standards] That is, Full-level input by OCLC participants. For serials I even do original cataloging inputting on average 1.5-2 original records per week. I have probably input somewhere around 100-200 original serials records. I have also been able to derive a couple original monographic records thanks to my serials work, but I mostly do copy cataloging of monographs.
Cooperative cataloging it is supposed to be. That’s what I learned in classes. That’s what the Working Group says. And I’m all for that. I will gladly fix any record I want to use if it needs it. But most often I cannot do so. Not allowed to.
Today. Well, let’s just say that today took the fucking cake. Can’t find a record I need by title so try ISBN. Oh, 2 records exist. One touched at some point by LC and the other by the British Library. Both pure crap. In fact, both are Level 8 records. Goddamn prepublication level records and I am not allowed to fix them!
Both records have the title wrong. Both have errors in the publication area. Both have “p. cm.” in the physical characteristics area. Both have the wrong no. in the 490. Both only mention the index when it has extensive bibliographical references. …
Now I realize full well that these records are based on prepub data (probably CIP) and that the book was only published last month. But I was one of the first to need the record and could have fixed it. In fact, I tried. Maybe the 6 others who hold it and got to it before me tried, too. I don’t know. But now there’s 7 of us with it in our OPACs who have fixed our copy while the piss poor record still exists in WorldCat.
But if I cannot even upgrade a goddamn Level 8 prepub record then what good is cooperative cataloging? Can anyone answer that?
What am I supposed to be able to contribute to any discussion on the future of bibliographic control when I am not able to contribute to the daily work that is needed now?
Yes. There truly are many other issues also fueling my current bout of despondency. So please do not respond and tell me that I’m just overreacting to some pitiful Level 8 record.
This discussion may well be the most important of my young career. Only time and a couple decades will tell. But I am going to withdraw from it. For now, at least.
Judge me if you choose. Or if you must. Just don’t misunderstand. I am not abandoning it. I am only choosing to sit on the side, listening and observing. I may well jump in at any point.
Due to the many other things going on in my life at the moment I seem unable to focus on these long-term, big picture issues and discussions when I daily work with horrible tools and misguided policies (none of which are issues with my institution, but are above it) such that at least 50% of the time they get square in the way of my (and my co-workers) ability to do good work.
That’s the best I can do right now. Sorry. Truly.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Mark // Dec 11, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Oh yes. I did send in an error report. In fact, I sent in 3 of them today.
2 Dorothea Salo // Dec 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I wrote a paper on error correction for my cataloguing class, because coming out of a brief career in markup, I was shocked and appalled at how sucky cataloguing tools were.
When in a live demo somebody inadvertently leaves the / out of a 245, validates the record, and the SOFTWARE DOESN’T EVEN NOTICE, well… I’m sorry, that just sucks.
I think you’re right on about the tools, and the stupidity of not letting people correct records in a more wikilike (or open-source-development-like) model.
3 What He Said « The Grammatically Incorrect Librarian // Dec 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[...] He Said From a recent post from Off the Mark- But if I cannot even upgrade a goddamn Level 8 prepub record then what good is cooperative [...]
4 Benjamin Hockenberry // Dec 13, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I don’t think your anti-prepub assault is off the mark at all, Mark…[really, I typed that without thinking of the nom de plum de jour, chuckle]. I’m not using OCLC at my current place of employ, so I have some other mixed feelings about the way tools and workflows are driving theory — the in-crowd model of the current cooperative cataloguing system doesn’t take into account alternative models. My current primary workflow involves not the centralized override-oriented OCLC model, but the distributed Z39.50 model. A lot of the talk in discussing future models of bibliographic control assumes a universal presence in OCLC or comparable cooperatives…but there will continue to be divergent communities, and those that aren’t in the in-crowd will be less capable of hanging on to the caboose. I think I just mixed my metaphors horribly.
5 Chris Schwartz // Dec 13, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Hey, Mark. I feel your pain. This is an everyday occurrence for me also. The tough part is that our workflow is set up in such a way that it would be very easy for the cataloging staff I supervise to enrich records and make them better. Unlike some libraries, we do most of our editing in WorldCat before we import records into Voyager.
6 Mark // Dec 13, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Hi Dorothea. Yes, the state of our tools are incredibly lacking. Or, perhaps that ought to be lacking credibility?
Ben, yes, there needs to be other models, or at least a complete revision of the current one. Have you signed that petition re license-free bib data?
Hi Chris. So you do your editing in WorldCat and then import the records, but you’re not really updating WorldCat with the edits?
I do understand because I much prefer record creation/editing in Connexion than in Voyager.
If you’re not actually updating records, then is this particular workflow due to preference for working in WorldCat? (Connexion or WorldCat? - I’ve only ever downloaded records from WorldCat (another job) but use the Connexion client where I am now) Or is it for some other reason?
7 Laura // Dec 14, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I am not a cataloger (should that be an abbreviation–IANAC?), but I’ve found any number of records I wish I could fix. To know that people who actually know how also can’t do it is unutterably depressing.
8 Mark // Dec 15, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Yes’m, Laura. Kind of how I feel exactly.
9 Dorothea Salo // Dec 23, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Yes, Mark, I signed the petition.
10 Uncontrolled Vocabulary, the Carnival, and the LC Working Group; or, the recognition of frustration // Jan 25, 2008 at 7:00 pm
[...] Back in December, a few days before the deadline passed for comments on the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, I wrote a post called just that. [...]
11 Uncontrolled Vocabulary #25 - Sacrifice for us | Uncontrolled Vocabulary // Mar 1, 2008 at 10:41 pm
[...] More about LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (Off the Mark) Stephen Kellat’s comments from Episode 24 [Note: Don’t forget to check [...]
12 Uncontrolled Vocabulary #24 - Librarian-Patron Privilege | Uncontrolled Vocabulary // Mar 1, 2008 at 10:41 pm
[...] LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (Off the [...]