Category Archives: cataloging

OCLC tries to checkmate

Posted on by
1

This past week I heard rumors about pending changes to OCLC’s policy governing use of records contributed to WorldCat. There was every reason to be concerned about these changes even before the details of what they contain were “leaked.” I just finished reading a post by Terry Reese on this topic, and Terry makes very good points. Basically, based on what I’ve read, I agree that OCLC is trying to checkmate the likes of LibraryThing and others by monopolizing control over library-generated metadata. Oh right, I forgot, this is “for the benefit of its members.” Ugh. Please, folks, wake up and smell the coffee on this.  I find it interesting that Terry raises comparisons with Microsoft (and AT&T), something that I’ve done many times in the past.

The soundbite phenomenon

Posted on by
30

I have enjoyed reading about presentations at the recent ALA annual conference. Of particular note for me are Owen Stephens’ extensive notes, available here. The ability for those who aren’t present at conferences to quickly catch up on essentials of what was discussed is, to me, hugely important and beneficial. I’m thankful for the efforts of others to record their impressions for someone like me to read.

The discussions that are written about often raise important issues in my mind and at times I feel strongly enough about an issue to respond to what was written, usually via commenting on a particular blog post. Such is the case with a recent blog post by Roy Tennant, called “Shoot the Dogma.” In this post Roy talks about a presentation in which one of the panelists uttered the statement, “Shoot the dogma,” as part of a larger narrative about why we should question many of our longstanding beliefs and practices. In this case she was referring to cataloging in particular. Roy picked that as the title of his post and said that this was one statement in the discussion that really stood out to him.

After thinking about that statement for a little bit, I decided to respond. See the link above to the post and the following comments for a complete picture of what was said and by whom. I guess what bothered me (and still does) about that statement is that it represents, to me, the latest in what I would call “the soundbite phenomenon.” Someone else who is regularly quoted with provocative or interesting soundbites is Stephen Abram. No personal affront intended, but I get tired of soundbites like this. Why? Well, there are many reasons. One is that many things are easier said than done. Another reason is that in my observation over many years in the profession, there is a tendency for us to grab ahold of a soundbite like this and shake our heads in affirmation, without really exploring its meaning and implications to see if the point made is actually credible or defensible.

In this case, as Karen Schneider pointed out in responding to my comment in Roy’s post, I need to understand and be aware of the larger context of the discussion. I plan to listen to the audio archive linked from that post so that I can be better informed. This is a reminder, as many others have found in the past, that responding to what someone has chosen to filter or write about in a conference session on a blog somewhere, especially if that response is critical, can be tricky.

One final observation. I find it weird that my criticism of something someone said should be met with the response that, basically, questions my criticism because “This is a domain in which [that other person] has a lot of knowledge.” Oh, please. Let’s just set aside the implication that I lack experience in these areas for now. My criticism, or anyone else’s for that matter, should stand or fall on its own merits. Maybe my criticism, such as it is, will turn out to be invalid. If so I will be the first to admit it.

A free (yes, free) XML workshop

Posted on by
Reply

Few people are as good as Eric Lease Morgan at explaining technical things in a way that is easy for just about anyone to understand. Eric has been at this for a long time and has a rich history of innovative applications for libraries and I like the way that he is so passionate about libraries and technology. Therefore I was pleased to read his announcement on the code4lib discussion list the other day about the availability of all of the materials relating to his XML in Libraries all-day workshop. I’ve never attended one but I am going to review this material very carefully and I am sure I’ll learn a lot of new things. Highly recommended. (And it’s free.)

Spring 2008 issue of LIBRA from The University of Chicago Library

Posted on by
Reply

I was glad to see the Spring 2008 issue of The University of Chicago Library’s newsletter, LIBRA, published this afternoon. This publication’s official audience is University faculty, students, and staff but it always provides an interesting glimpse into the Library’s workings and initiatives for those not affiliated with the University. This latest issue describes, for example, the reincarnation of the Eero Saarinen-designed D’Angelo Law Library into a 21st century space with emphasis on online resources and collaborative, inviting work space. This issue also contains an essay from Judy Nadler, director, that articulates her views on her participation in the Working Group for the Future of Bibliographic Control. This group’s work has been hotly debated and intensely scrutinized in the international library community so it is good to hear one representative’s perspectives about it. Another interesting article in this issue relates to a project called Project Bamboo, which I hadn’t heard about before.

Some cataloging history

Posted on by
18

The other day I finally had a look at a site that I knew about for a while but had never visited: The Virtual Museum of Cataloging and Acquisition Artifacts, maintained by a library school professor (I think, at the Univ. of South Carolina). I entered the library profession in 1992 so a lot of this, you would think, would be unknown to me. Not so. At The University of Chicago, I well remember many such artifacts being used well into the mid-1990s and, for all I know, still being used today. I remember electric pencils, manual typewriters, the old Cutter-Sanborn tables, and much, much more. One of the things I vividly remember is the old, clunky integrated library system still in use there in the early days of my career: LDMS (stands for Library Data Management System). One of the things that will always stay in my mind when I think of LDMS were the copious staff notes made in serial records by a previous librarian there, Helen Schmierer. (I think Helen may still be active in the profession but I’m not sure where.) Then too, how can I forget the entirely paper-based serial record for active and inactive print subscriptions? And the large, clunky Dieboldt machine that housed the inactive journal subscription records? And the card catalog and the paper shelflist? And the many interesting old cards written in library hand? Yes, there were courses in library school that taught one how to write in “library hand.” And don’t forget the knowledge one had to have of various filing rules. Those were the good old days, may they never come again…

One thing I plan to do is add the link to this site to the list of things my students are to review this summer when I will be teaching Technical Services Functions online again at UIUC GSLIS.

BI, oh my

Posted on by
Reply

I’m still getting used to corporate lingo and ways of doing things. Frankly I often try to suppress the instinct to roll my eyes with a lot of it because there is quite a bit of nonsense in it. Or else corporate types run around looking earnest and thinking they’re inventive by using buzzwords that mean exactly the same thing as something that’s been around for years. (Think ‘taxonomy’ vs. ‘cataloging.’ Yeah I know, technically they aren’t equivalent but they are kissing cousins and principles they use are much the same. It’s like cataloging for dummies.)

Today I was reading a post published in the Forrester Information and Knowledge Management Blog that talks about BI. Now as a longtime librarian, my immediate reaction was, huh?! BI? Oh my, are they talking about library BI (bibliographic instruction)? Nope. BI = business intelligence. Ok, I say to myself, just go with it. Actually the post is well worth reading, lingo aside. The author mentions the fact that the most commonly used BI tool is Microsoft Excel. I found that interesting. I use Excel quite a lot. So I’m doing BI too, just not the kind I thought he was talking about at first ;-) He also mentions that Google has added pivot table functionality to its Google Spreadsheets tool. To me that’s a big deal because I find pivot tables one of the most useful if little understood or used parts of Excel. I’ll have to go try it out. I know that those in “the enterprise” quite often turn up their noses at what Google is doing in terms of appealing to “enterprise users” with its web-based tools. But I think Google is really onto something here. Anything that breaks the stranglehold of Microsoft on such office tools is a good thing, in my opinion.

I’ve been using Excel quite a bit lately to track issues and problems reported to me or discovered by me or my team relating to the systems and services I manage in my library. This is something new for me even though the work itself isn’t. I’ve been told that “we need more metrics, metrics, metrics” so by gum, I’m going to provide metrics up the whazzoo. A friend and colleague in my library had already started using Excel in this way last year for a similar purpose. Even though it’s all a bit crude, you know what? It works. So I decided to copy what she did and modify it for my needs. It takes some getting used to and sometimes I wonder if the time spent on keeping it up to date is worth it. (E.g. should I track how much time I spend just on keeping it current?!) I started it with high hopes and kept it going for a few days, then came a huge influx of severe problems from all sides, I got overwhelmed just trying to address them, and neglected the issue log. In the last week or so I finally was able to get caught up.

One of the lessons I’m learning about doing this is that it’s only as good a tool as the amount of time you invest in it. I also am learning that although it might seem crude and surely there are more elegant solutions out there somewhere, it works for me and makes use of an existing tool. There’s more. As the evidence gets built up in the issue log, I am getting excited about the possibilities it provides for providing concrete facts and figures about what me and my team are doing, day in and day out. This becomes a record that helps demonstrate our value to our organization in new ways. I have very little staff or other resources at my disposal. I know we are doing a great job and that we can always improve. But our efforts aren’t recognized or valued a whole lot. Looking at trends and patterns in the issue log will help me combat the myopia.

Comparing the Library of Congress to Wal-Mart

Posted on by
3

Surely the news from last week about some Congressmen unfavorably comparing the Library of Congress to the likes of Wal-Mart and UPS was one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I was genuinely shocked by the level of ignorance and, well, stupidity…shown by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), when they made statements like the following:

“You might be well advised to consult with Wal-Mart or Target who track inventory every day.”

and

“If UPS can track millions of items a day and not have a 10 percent loss, why can’t you?”

I mean, are these people for real???? Here is a link to an excellent post by Matt Raymond at the Library of Congress that thoroughly and completely exposes the whole tempest-in-a-teapot for the farce that it was: http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=207.

In that same blog post there is discussion about the current ALA president, James Rettig, and his comments to Congress about what he sees as major deficiencies with recent changes in cataloging and so forth. Here is part of what he stated that the Library of Congress needed to do:

“…require the Library of Congress to consult broadly and meaningfully with the library community, including organizations central to bibliographic control, regarding all future decisions to substantively modify the character and quantity of bibliographic records”

Good grief. What on earth does he think LC has been doing? And has always done?! I can (barely) grasp that Congressmen might be ignorant but for someone at the highest levels of librarianship in this country to make such dumb statements is, in my opinion, inexcusable. Even worse to my mind was that many of my librarian colleagues cheered him on. It’s yet another reason I am so thankful that I no longer belong to the American Library Association (as if I needed any more reasons).

Use of Google widget to improve cataloging of images

Posted on by
Reply

Scientists Use Google Widget to Improve Image Labeling on Wired Science

The article (linked above) is quite an interesting read.  I found it interesting when I read the words “cataloging” and “metadata” — in Wired Magazine, of all places!

The system developed by scientists at UC San Diego sounds practical and promising but…The reality is that this system, billed as “adding ‘common sense’” to automated, computer-driven cataloging of image files, provides only a marginal improvement in the level of accuracy for choosing the right labels (a.k.a. subjects).

A reaction to notes from the third Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Posted on by
2

Jay Datema posted a good writeup of his notes from the third meeting of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control yesterday. I read it with interest because I wasn’t able to connect to the live webcast the day before. This morning, I read Mark Lindner’s (Off the Mark) reaction to the meeting (he was able to “attend” via webcast). Next time, Mark, tell us how you really feel ;-)

I don’t feel quite as passionate about some of this as Mark and others do. Maybe I should and because I don’t, that reflects poorly on me. I don’t know.

Yet I do have a reaction to the meeting to share, and it is based solely on Jay’s writeup (i.e. second hand at best). My reaction to the whole deal is, why oh why are we still debating and tossing around the same observations and identifying the same issues over and over again, and presenting them as if they are something new and revelatory?! For instance, Rick Lugg of R2 Consulting (whom I know from his days at YBP) gave a presentation that outlined challenges facing those who work in or management bibliographic control (i.e. cataloging) operations. Jay wrote that Rick’s presentation ended with him making the following summary:

 

  1. How do we reduce our efforts and redirect our focus?
  2. How can we redirect our expertise to new metadata schemes?
  3. How can we open our systems and cultures to external support from authors, publishers, abstract and indexing (A&I) services, etc?

No offense meant to Rick, but none of this is new at all! This is something we’ve been talking about for well over 10 years.

Part of Jay’s writeup also included a summary of a presentation by Mechael Charbonneau of Indiana University in which (in Jay’s words) she “sees the need to optimize the allocation of staff in large research libraries and to free up catalogers to do new things, starting with user needs.” Hello? Why on earth are we not yet way past this stage?

Mark says he is mad; I’m just irked and discouraged by the lack of progress I see.

[tags]working group on the future of bibliographic control, rick lugg, l2 consulting, mark lindner, jay datema[/tags]

The "dark side" discussion [Updated]

Posted on by
1

The main reason I was able to go to NASIG this year was that Anne McKee, program officer for the Greater Western Library Alliance (apparently known as GWLA, pronounced “Gwilla”), kindly invited me to participate in a panel discussion about alternative library careers for serialists. I jumped at the chance to present with friends and colleagues including Anne, Christine Stamison, Beverley Geer, Mike Markwith, and Bob Schatz. Anne represented consortia (the aformentioned GWLA), Christine brought the perspective of working for a subscription agent (Swets), Beverley with a journal publisher (Sage), Mike had a subscription agent (WT Cox) as well as PAMS1 background (TDNet), Bob represented book vendors (Coutts), and I came with a background working for a ILS vendor (Endeavor Information Systems, Inc., now Ex Libris Group) and in a corporate library.

Each of us limited our remarks to 7-8 minutes at Anne’s request in order to maximize the question and answer time with the audience, which numbered around 150 people. That isn’t much time to both describe our backgrounds, why we made the career decisions that we did, and offer pertinent advice as to what it takes to work in an alternative library career.

If you’ve been in the world of libraries for any length of time you will know quite well that there are persistent stereotypes and divisions between various forms of librarianship. For instance, cataloging people and acquisitions people are always supposedly against each other, public services conflicts with technical services, professional librarians and paraprofessionals, and on and on. One of the deepest rooted of these is the continual reference to the “dark side” — meaning, working in the for profit sector. There are many people in this profession who feel that theirs is a higher, better calling if they work in a public or academic library, i.e. a non profit environment. Often there is a lack of respect shown to those who “dare” to look for better wages and sometimes more challenging work in the business world. (Thus the reference to the “dark side.”)

This session, then, was an opportunity to highlight some of the many positives, and negatives, about working for a vendor and in other alternative situations.

One of the things that came up during everyone’s presentations as well as during the Q&A session afterward, was this issue of the “dark side.” I think the highlight of the entire session was when Eve Davis, who works for EBSCO, stated: “We joke about the divide, yet we seem to be perpetuating that very thing by mentioning it so often. Why don’t we stop using terms like ‘the dark side’ even in jest?”

[Updated June 11, 2007: I realized after I had posted this that my narrative just ended without going into any further detail about the session's content, so what follows is what I meant to write originally.]

Here are some of the impressions or things I especially recall from what other presenters had to say:

  • Several mentions by those on the panel of having a sense of impatience with the status quo. I thought this was interesting and noteworthy. Christine Stamison, for instance, talked about the process of implementing a new serials check-in form via a committee at The University of Chicago Library, and how that discussion took six months to come to a resolution. If I recall, she made some quip about how difficult it was to “turn the Queen Mary around.” I worked with Christine in the same environment and I can attest to the truthfulness of this observation. Sometimes things change too quickly in the for profit world, but it seems like all of the presenters preferred a faster pace of change and fewer meetings.
  • Anne, Christine, Beverley, Mike, and Bob all spoke about the supposed glamour of travel, how it really wasn’t that glamorous after all. Mike illustrated this by mentioning the number of times he warmed his McDonald’s hamburger on top of his hotel room’s TV set. Christine mentioned the fact that this kind of work life can be really lonely, and that you have to have a strong sense of self, that you have to really like who you are. Bob mentioned how much he regrets that travel takes away from time with his family.
  • MLS as union card. Beverley made this point, that in her view, the library degree is nothing more than a union card. That doesn’t mean it has no value (Anne also made this point); on the contrary, it establishes important common ground with clients. All of us agreed that we are librarians first and foremost. Anne mentioned, for example, filling out paperwork for her children’s school where she was asked to state her profession, and that she always answers the question with ‘librarian.’
  • It was funny to learn that Bob’s first job out of library school was at a taco shack of some sort in Oregon (his home state).
  • Support for professional involvement. Everyone on the panel agreed that they receive strong support for professional involvement from their employers. In some cases (and this has been my personal experience), such support is often stronger than what we would have received in an academic or public library. Christine mentioned that she requires everyone who reports to her to become NASIG members and to attend the conference each year.

Some of the points that I tried to make in my portion of the session:

  • Be sure to build a record of accomplishment. Then be willing and able to articulate what you’ve done and how it benefits you in various situations. What I was thinking of here, but failed to say explicitly, was the need for project management skills. That is huge. In every job I’ve ever held, the ability to plan and execute projects has been critical.
  • It’s not all about money. Yes, the grass is almost always greener on the for profit side of the fence. I pointed out that this was a motivating factor for seeking a job on “the dark side” (and I think this is true of the other panelists as well) but that it was far more important for me to have work that is challenging, fulfilling, and where I learn new things every day.
  • It is really important to be a quick study, meaning, be willing to learn and learn quickly. I pointed out that many of the jobs I’ve held were ones for which I had no prior background, but that I was able to succeed in them because of working hard to learn all necessary skills.
  • Have specific career goals in mind. Review them regularly, and understand that they may change over time. The example I gave was the difference in my career made by becoming a husband and father. When I was single, I devoted 95% of my time and energy to my career. Now that I have a family, they take precedence.

————————————————————————

1 PAMS refers to Publication Access Management System, a class of vendor-supplied services that helps libraries manage the e-content to which they provide access.