Category Archives: cataloging

Questions about tagging

Posted on by
2

I don’t think I’ve mentioned this before, but I have been experimenting for a while now with tagging my posts using Technorati tags. I’ve settled on using Flock as my preferred blogging platform, at least in part because of the ease with which I can associate tags and categories with each post. (By the way, I also love the way that I can use Flock to access my Flickr account and associate tags with my photos and/or quickly insert them into blog postings.) I’ve mentioned in the past that I am somewhat dubious about tagging, but I also can see some of its benefits from the user perspective. The jury is still out. In the meantime, I have some tagging questions that are nagging me. Maybe I am simply exhibiting the anal retentive stereotype of someone with a library cataloging background, who knows?!

  1. Does it matter that there is frequent divergence in how others are tagging the same concept or entity? I’m not even talking about using different (more specific or more general) words. Even when we use the same terms, we can input them in different ways. To illustrate, here is one recent example I’ve come across: “library 2.0″ (what I’ve used) vs. “library2.0″ (notice that lack of a space in between “library” and “2.0″). Then there is the use of capitalization or lack thereof. E.g. “Library 2.0″ vs. “library 2.0″. I don’t view this as mattering that much, but it may matter in certain situations.
  2. I love the concept of developing a tag cloud, and am intrigued by the work of some to tie this into the library online catalog. See, e.g., the work being done at the University Libraries at George Mason University using subject headings extracted from a Voyager system. This is just one example; there are many others. What I am not clear on, though, is whether this is really the answer or solution to the inherent disparity in tags used by different people. Does this disparity not really matter? Of course, there has always been disparity in library cataloging, even when using subject thesauri like LCSH.
  3. It seems that different services develop their own sets of tags. E.g. there are Technorati tags, del.icio.us tags, Flickr tags, and even LibraryThing tags. It seems logical to think about über tags, that allow the user to map between disparate systems. Is that (or would that be) beneficial? A sort of Dublin Core for the tagging world? Is anyone developing something like this or even thinking about it, or am I way off?

There are other niggly things that I can’t think of right now, but if I can remember them later, I’ll jot them down and ask about them in a separate post.

Baseball volumes returned to U. of I.

Posted on by
1

Priceless20baseball20volumes20returned20to20U.20of20I.20Library

This story received national attention but it was good to read the account from “the horse’s mouth.” I have many fond memories of using the Main Library at UIUC, including the Reference Room where the missing volumes were found. I can remember, e.g., using the old NUC volumes while doing cataloging coursework. I used the Reference Room quite a lot as a history undergraduate, as well.

Inner circles in library blogland

Posted on by
6

At the risk of sounding rather negative, even petty (or worse), I’ve noticed an awful lot of the inner circle syndrome in library blogland lately. It seems to be getting more and more obvious, but perhaps not to those who might be deemed part of that inner circle. Some time ago I commented about Walt Crawford’s (of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large and Walt at Random fame, among others) use of the phrase, “the great echo chamber.” My comments here are pretty much in the same vein.

My main beef or criticism is that there seems to be — or there is at least the appearance of — an elite clique of library bloggers out there, all of whom know each other, give presentations at a bazillion different conferences together (how on earth they have the time or money, either personally or from their organization of employment, to go to so many so often, I don’t know), constantly make reference to each other’s postings, often echo what each other is saying, and on and on. One current focus of their attention is something referred to as “Library 2.0.” What the heck that means is still up for debate, although I gather it is in some sense a response to the whole “Web 2.0″ mantra that is currently being discussed in the broader info. tech. environment. The way in which this term or phrase is discussed is what bothers me, more than what I can understand of the meaning of it. In other words, I am all for the so-called “two-way communication” evolution in the broader web environment that is being fostered by blogs, wikis, tagging, and other technologies. But I am cautious about the way Library 2.0 is pitched or hailed as a “movement” or “rallying cry” as many seem to do, seemingly without critical evaluation or assessment. There is also an inherent meaning to the term that anything pre-Library 2.0 is passe, old, even perhaps retrograde, and I object to that. Unlike some who have commented on this phenomenon, I am a relatively young librarian. Also, unlike many who espouse this new approach or philosophy, I have spent a considerable amount of time in both worlds, the traditional library, and the information science/technology realm.

There is an air about this discussion that bothers me that somewhat encapsulated by Roy Tennant in his most recent Digital Libraries column in Library Journal, where he writes about lessons learned in his career thus far. One of those lessons is “Don’t let the past be your guide.” He wasn’t writing about Library 2.0 at all but this lesson is one that I think too many proponents of Library 2.0 are practicing. Forget what we did before, because that landed us in the mess we are now in. Embrace the new stuff wholeheartedly. These words are my interpretation of what Roy wrote. (I really like most of his article and also I am in general agreement on his perspectives about the state of libraries.) I am concerned about the idea of forgetting what is past. Why? Here are some reasons:

  • With my academic background in the study of history, I happen to agree with the old adage that says something to the effect that forgetting the past leads to repeating it. I wonder, e.g., if all the flurry and hype about tagging and folksonomies and the like will lead us to reinventing or covering the same ground that we have covered for over 100 years in developing a code of cataloging standards and practice.
  • I vehemently disagree that there is nothing to learn from the past because as the book of Ecclesiastes famously says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The terms, the technologies, the attitudes may change, but there are, I believe, several overarching principles and theories of librarianship that we need to remember now more than ever. There may be new principles to develop or flesh out, I don’t deny that. But they must co-exist with longer term principles. Articulating what I think those longer-term or historical principles are is something I’ll try to get to in a future post.
  • The “past” is still present and will continue to be with us for a long time. If we don’t understand past practices, we are being shortsighted and ineffective. Just one example of this is in cataloging, where most catalogs still have older records in them that were created under earlier codes. Also, the “past” in terms of print or traditional library material will coexist with the supposedly all digital future for a very long time. I am excited about, actively engaged in, and fairly proficient with the new digital library stuff, but I think it is silly (and detrimental) to ditch the traditional library stuff from our minds and considerations as if it was a millstone around our neck. (Granted, it sometimes feels that way.)

I’ve rambled on quite a ways from my original complaint, which is that there is too much in breeding of ideas and thought among some library bloggers. I think this tendency, whether real or perceived, may tend to freeze out or exclude disparate voices. I hope not. What I advocate is balance, if that’s possible. Sure, blogging is great but beware of the tone used, beware of always using first names when referring to others (I have been guilty of this, too), beware of only paying attention to those who are popular or controversial. Beware of overhyping anything new (guilty).

I sat for a minute before posting this and suddenly realized that this post is somewhat ironic since I have often been accused of being an overly eager purveyor of new things, new technologies, new ways of doing things. Maybe it’s a sign of old age. Maybe I’m finally growing up. Maybe it’s just late on a Friday afternoon.

Library of Congress goes Unicode

Posted on by
Reply

Within the last month or so, the Library of Congress‘s online catalog received an upgrade that allows users to view and search for records using non-Roman (Unicode) characters in Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Persian, Hebrew, and Yiddish. See more information about it on their What’s New for the online catalog help pages. I think this is a big step forward for users and libraries who rely upon LC. For one thing, as far as I know, LC’s is the largest library catalog (for a single library) in the world; and it may also be correct to say that LC produces more cataloging records each year than just about any other library. People all over the world use this resource every day. (Full disclaimer: I happen to work for the vendor that provides LC’s online catalog software, Endeavor Information Systems, Inc.)

A friend lands an interesting job

Posted on by
1

ALA | ALA Editions names Bloss RDA Project Manager

I was pleased to see that a friend of mine, Marjorie Bloss, has landed an interesting job at the American Library Association. She will be spearheading development of a new standard for digital environments called Resource Description and Access (RDA). I was previously unaware of the development of this new standard, which shows how “out of it” I have been these past few years. Congratulations, Marjorie!

Updating course on technical services functions

Posted on by
Reply

This past summer I taught LIS578: Technical Services Functions as part of the LEEP (distance education) curriculum at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at UIUC. I was contacted today to ask if I’d be willing to teach the same course again next summer because students are already requesting it. The official description of this class is as follows:

“Seminar on the principles, problems, trends, and issues of acquiring, identifying, recording, and conserving/preserving materials in all types of libraries and information centers; includes the special problems of serials management; emphasizes service aspects.”

If I decide to accept this offer, a thorough review or shakeup of the syllabus might be in order. While I mull this over I thought I’d post the question here: What significant changes have happened or are happening in technical services functions that a course such as this should incorporate?

Currently the course is divided into the following parts:

  • Acquisitions/Collection Development (2 sessions)
  • Cataloging: An Overview (1 session)
  • Preservation (2 sessions)
  • Serials (2 sessions)

There is also an introductory session at the beginning and a wrapup session at the end. It’s important to note that this is the only course in the GSLIS curriculum that deals in significant way with serial publications. There are other cataloging courses already in the curriculum and that is why I only touch upon that part of technical services in this course.

The course objectives I’ve written are as follows:

  1. articulate the particular role that technical services plays in the work of the library as a whole
  2. understand the importance of the interrelationship between technical services and other library components including, but not limited to, public services and systems
  3. discuss the role that technology has played, and will continue to play, in the fulfillment of technical services functions
  4. understand past practices, current reality, and future directions in technical services
  5. appreciate the challenges and opportunities of serials management as an important component of technical services
  6. know where to look in the literature and in other information resources (e.g. websites, discussion lists) to understand issues and resolve problems in technical services work

I haven’t found any good textbook on this broad topic that isn’t already out of date and for that reason, I rely almost solely on a large number of book chapter, journal article, and website readings.

One of the main challenges of this course is that there is so much to cover in so little time. Another challenge is to somehow work in more “hands on” type work even though the course is taught almost entirely from a distance via the Internet. A partial answer to the former challenge would be to separate out the whole serials/e-resources piece and I have already proposed that a new course be defined for this (which I’d love to teach). I just need to flesh out a proposed syllabus and objectives and send them in to GSLIS to be considered. In my view, this is where a huge amount of the action is and it behooves every single student to have some understanding of this rapidly evolving arena before graduation as it is almost certainly going to be a large part of their future jobs.

Some thoughts on tagging [Updated]

Posted on by
1

The other day I was listening to a podcast (NPR: Technology) on the way home. The topic was tagging, which is a hot topic right now in the blogosphere (see ‘Tagging’ Lets Ordinary Users Organize the Internet.’) Some time ago I wrote about tagging with the basic reaction of “Duh, this is the same as library cataloging, or a very lite version thereof.” Now I’m not so sure of my judgment. I am also not so sure about the “goodness” or “badness” of this phenomenon. But there are some things that bother me about it. Maybe it bothers me mostly because of my library cataloging background. I am not aware of other library cataloging “experts” who have already weighed in on this phenomenon. If others out there who are active in the cataloging community have written anything about this, I’d like to hear about it.

Here are some (rather incoherent) thoughts for now:

One of the things that was discussed in the podcast mentioned above was the fact that the concept of “aboutness” was no longer narrowly defined or assigned by someone else, e.g. a librarian. With tagging, you can label something what it means to you, and another person can label the same object something else that means something to them. It allows each person to identify what is important to them. This was viewed as a very good thing. I’m not so sure. I’m not sure exactly how to articulate what bothers me about this except that it seems to assume, incorrectly, that librarians or, more specifically, catalogers, do not already have a system that does much the same thing, but in a different way, with an authority reference structure. I’m not arguing that the Library of Congress Subject Headings, e.g., works well at all. Or that library online catalog systems do a good job of demonstrating a reference structure to their users. All I’m saying is that libraries have developed, and used for years, a system that attempts to identify or tag objects in multiple ways to suit the perspectives of different users. Those who are so big on tagging as something new and different, I suspect, are largely unaware (or dismissive) of this fact.

Another part of this point about the freedom of users to identify something the way they see it that bothers me is that it seems predicated on general moral philosophy so prevalent today. That is, “what is good for me may not be good for you” or “each to his own” and tolerate all views. Noone is wrong, there is no absolute truth. Put another way, tolerance is the value that is most admired in today’s society. I may be spinning this way out of bounds, who knows. But I think that there is something to be said for an authoritative judgment of “aboutness” as a way to bring together all related works. (And I happen to believe in absolute truth.)

I’m wondering whether, as the tagging phenomenon continues on for a while longer, anyone will begin to think differently about its value. Does tagging an object with whatever terms you want really make it easier to find? Does tagging really help “cut through the clutter” or does it instead perpetuate and feed into a scattershot approach to categorization? I’m not sure what the answer will be.

I do know that tagging does help me to discover new ways of looking for or identifying an object, and that is helpful. And from a user perspective I much prefer tagging things in ways that I find relevant rather than having to refer to a standard list of tags, simply because it is easier for me and more meaningful.

I don’t know if anything I’ve noted down here makes sense, because I am not sure yet what to make of tagging in my own mind. I have played around with tagging in places like Flickr and LibraryThing and will continue to follow the development of tagging with interest.

[UPDATE: Just did a little searching around and found something that I had read before but had forgotten about, written by Gary Price @ SearchEngineWatch.com that directly relates to this very garbled attempt at writing down some of my thoughts about tagging. Gary does a better job at describing some of the negatives. I also recommend reading this posting from Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet.]

Wired News: Judging a Book by Its Contents

Posted on by
Reply

Wired News: Judging a Book by Its Contents

I kept thinking as I read this article that no wonder many people think Amazon spells the doom of libraries. Think of phrases from the article such as:

Torkington thinks Amazon is currently just experimenting, but it will soon find intriguing ways, such as using authoritative texts to answer user questions…

Or, how about this:

“We’ve been spending a lot of time thinking, ‘We have this rich digital content, how can we pull info out and expose it to customers that makes discovery even better?’”

Then there is this one which gets to the heart of traditional library cataloging, or what it was supposed to achieve:

“One of the cool things is getting people to discover books that are not only related, but that they would have a hard time finding anywhere else.”

I’m kinda disheartened right now.

‘Tagging’ helps unclutter data

Posted on by
1

CNN.com – ‘Tagging’ helps unclutter data – May 3, 2005

Interesting to read an article about ‘tagging’ in the maintstream media. I find myself reading articles like this and saying to myself: HELLO! It’s called CATALOGING! Whether you want to think of it that way or not, that’s basically what tagging is all about. A very very simplified version of cataloging, to be sure, but still, it’s cataloging. I find it frustrating that those in other areas, even other branches of library and information science, think they’ve invented something “new” and “cool” when the library realm has dealt with this issue for what, 100 (or more) years?!

Statements like “Tagging is fundamentally about tapping the collective human wisdom” just seem silly in the context of what libraries have done for so long.

This is not to criticize tagging itself, which I think is an interesting and useful development. For people who use tagging, good for them.

Lecture @ UIUC GSLIS

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I was able to go to UIUC GSLIS at the invitation of Kathie and Bill Henderson to speak to their Technical Services Functions class. (This is the same class that I teach in online form in UIUC GSLIS’s LEEP curriculum.) They’ve invited me every year for the past 14 years. Each time I go, I thoroughly enjoy the time with their students.

The topic of my talk was “The Times, They Are a Changin…or, How to Thrive in an Age of Chaos and Opportunity in Technical Services Librarianship.” What I try to do is give a quick overview of my career path thus far, and then focus on electronic resources as the “hot” area. We usually spend a lot of time talking about user expectations in this era of the Google Mindset, and how libraries are coping with the demand for online full-text while simultaneously struggling to manage the “traditional” collection. I demo’d the ERM system that we developed at Taylor, known as the Taylor Periodical Administration System (TPAS), and also talked quite a bit about OpenURL and metasearching technologies.

There are about 14 students in this class. Some years the students really get into a good discussion, while other times, they seem content just to listen to a lecture. I prefer interaction and was pleased that this year there were a lot of questions. Especially in recent years, students have expressed some apprehension about the future of technical services librarianship, or uncertainty about job prospects in this specialty. This topic came up tangentially in yesterday’s session. One student asked, given what we had been talking about in terms of the predominance of e-resources and vendor tools that libraries are stuck with, what is stopping vendors from selling or marketing directly to researchers? (We had also been talking quite a bit about Google Scholar.) I thought this was an excellent question. It really asks the question, are libraries relevant anymore? Why should libraries assume they are even part of the equation for information consumers? Have libraries given up way too much ground, ground that they can never expect to recover? Very interesting questions. We spoke about the decision made by libraries about 100 years ago to stop trying to do article-level analytics in their cataloging practice, and how that resulted in the whole development of vendor solutions in the form of abstracting and indexing tools. Those tools have then developed into online form in the last 20 years or so, and then have been developed further to provide aggregated full-text content. We have lost control (if we ever had it) of the means of access to our resources.

Overall it was a very stimulating time and I ran out of time trying to cover everything. I wish we had had all day!

The Henderson’s had made lunch and invited Linda Smith, Associate Dean and one of my former professors, to eat with us. It was nice to chat with them about various things. One of the things I noticed this time in my campus visit was that development of various areas of the campus continues at a rapid pace. Some areas are hardly recognizable anymore, they have changed so much since I was a student there.