150 likes | 282 Views
Living Up to One’s Digital Potential in a Traditional Cataloging Unit. ALA Heads of Cataloging IG January 27, 2014 John Riemer. Digital Library Project Work Needs a Home. The traditional cataloging unit takes on the new challenges The workload gets based elsewhere in the library
E N D
Living Up to One’s Digital Potential in a Traditional Cataloging Unit ALA Heads of Cataloging IG January 27, 2014 John Riemer
Digital Library Project Work Needs a Home • The traditional cataloging unit takes on the new challenges • The workload gets based elsewhere in the library • The activity takes place outside the library
Preference for the First Option • Possess long and deep history of organizing resources • Get extra mileage from language, format, subject expertise • Avoid “Cabinets of Curiosities”* • Pave the way for uniform resource discovery: Support integrated searching in a single-search environment • Revitalize your staff with new challenges • Bolster administrative support for existing FTEs • Improve odds of getting vacant positions back *MarijaDalbello. “Institutional Shaping of Cultural Memory: Digital Library as Environment for Textual Transmission” Library Quarterly 74(3) 2004: pp. 265-298.
Two variations within a cataloging unit Specialization within one segment of a cataloging unit Shared responsibility throughout
Preparing Staff to Take on New Work • Dublin Core will not supplant MARC • DC will likely only be used for materials unlikely ever to receive a MARC record • Nothing in a schema inherently dictates fullness of metadata • Crosswalks aside, Learn the language! • “But DC is not a content standard”
Levels of Involvement in Digital Activity • Advice giving & Developing guidelines • Creation of metadata for a project • Metadata consultations
Levels of Involvement in Digital Activity • Advice giving & Developing guidelines • Creation of metadata for a project • Metadata consultations
Levels of Involvement in Digital Activity • Advice giving & Developing guidelines • Creation of metadata for a project • Metadata consultations
Finding the Capacity • Work in shared files • Cut out local variation • Set targets for original cataloging time • Catalog on receipt in acquisitions • Obtain record sets • Utilize and authority vendor • Excel at batch processing
Measuring the work • New titles cataloged • Authority file headings established • Records or names reviewed/changed • Hours spent? • Ratio of metadata descriptions to MARC records cataloged?
The role of authority datain the new metadata work • Matching existing headings? Yes • Establishing new names & terms? No?? • Prioritize frequently recurring terms? • NACO and SACO contributions? • How to maintain currency in metadata?
Reconceptualizing Authority Work • Differentiating entities • Creating identifiers • De-emphasizing heading construction • FRBR Type 2 & Type 1 entities • Enlarging the scope of who contributes authority data
Looking to the PCC for guidance • Clearinghouse of metadata application profiles? • Sharing advice on best practices? • Problem solving? • How to put metadata to new uses? • Broadening the range of authority data contributors?
For more reflections … Riemer, John J. “The Expansion of Cataloging to Cover the Digital Object Landscape.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly v. 48:551-560 (2010) “If cataloging units do not embrace the new role, the bibliographic control work will very likely go elsewhere; subtract what catalogers could offer and the odds are that the work will not be done as thoughtfully or as well.”
Your Comments & Questions Thanks! jriemer@library.ucla.edu