The acronyms of doom, part 2.

I may have fallen asleep in a lecture or two at university but I don't recall ever snoozing during a professional conference. Unfortunately the recent ACOC conference seemed to have that effect on a few people in the audience.

It was hard going. There was an expectation that everyone understood FRBR (either pronounced "Ef Are Bee Are" or "Fur-burr") and not everyone did. In fact, I think a lot of us didn't. If you didn't understand these core principles then the rest of what they said made little sense.

I went along as a representative of the public library sector, there weren't many of us there. Cataloguing seems to be the domain of the academic library. It's like the Hindi caste system.

Brahmin = national and state library cataloguers (all hail us)
Kshatriya = academic cataloguers (if you want to be a REAL cataloguer, you should work in a university)
Vaishya = vendor & special library cataloguers (our cataloguing is of decent quality and we know what we're doing...in our own special way)
Shudra = public library cataloguers (me! the unwashed masses who use the beautifully created records of the upper-classes).

I suppose at least I'm not an untouchable (the highschool and primary school cataloguers, cataloguers whose opinion seems to mean little to those of our upper castes). Bah.

Anyways, rant aside, the conference was hard going. I thought I knew what was going on until just after afternoon tea, then it all fell apart in my head.

In my last blog post I talked about the 4 levels of RDA - work, expression, manifestation and item. I found out at the ACOC conference that all catalogue records being created were at the manifestation level with extra details from work and expression levels. I glossed over the fact that there were two types of MaRC records, one for catalogue records and one for authority records.

According to the powers that be of RDA, there will still only be two types of MaRC records, one for catalogue records and one for authority records. How on earth does that work when there should be at least 4 levels of records? There should be a MaRC format for authority records, that is seperate. There should THEN be a MaRC format for each RDA level; work, expression, manifestation and item. There won't be...just the one MaRC file which will include everything.

I know I'm not explaining myself well, but I am:
a) Venting
b) Confused myself
c) Aware that noone reads this

It was frustrating sitting there and aware that I understood the theory of FRBR and even the theory of RDA...the implementation just didn't seem like it would follow the theoretical model they were proposing. Maybe I missed something.

End rant.

RDA and the acronyms of doom

It's like a brand new Harry Potter novel: Harry Potter and the acronyms of doom.

Synopsis: Harry is forced by his evil muggle foster parents to attend a cataloguing conference provided by ACOC, one of the older acronyms of doom. Whilst there he learns about RDA, FRBR, JSC, FRAD, FRSAR and the other new acronyms of doom. He witnesses a fight between the new acronyms of doom and the old acronyms of doom (MaRC, AACR2, CAVAL, NLA) and realises that whoever wins, everyone loses. Can Harry overcome the evils of acronyms or will he be defeated by his archnemesis, He Who Must Not Be Catalogued (otherwise known as HWMNBC)?

*insert dramatic musak*

Tomorrow I will be in amongst the acronyms of doom at the latest Australian Committee on Cataloguing (ACOC) conference in Sydney. There I will find out all about Resource Description and Access (RDA) which is the brand spankin' new cataloguing structure all of us poor little cataloguers will have to follow. The goals are admirable. A record's linkages will be logical with each record having four levels.

Example (errors are my fault, sorry!)
Work: The Bible.
Expression: English Language version of the King James Bible.
Manifestation: 2003 printing of the King James Bible, Large print edition.
Manifestation: 1999 audio copy on 12 CDs of the King James Bible.
Item: The copy I have in my hand.

This is how I understand things. That means, if I want to reserve a bible (any bible) then I can reserve at the Work level. If I want to reserve an English language version of the King James Bible then I can reserve at the Expression level (I may receive a printed copy, I may receive an audio copy...there may be a way to set this by format, I guess it depends on the system's implementation). If I want to reserve a particular manifestation (ie the 2003 printing only) then I can reserve at Manifestation level. If I want to receive the copy where I highlighted the passages that I needed then I'd reserve at the Item level.

All very nice. Unfortunately we've had a good 20-30 years of having a catalogue record (an amalgamation of the Work + Expression + Manifestation) and a holding record (the Item). This means that every system we use is geared towards this two level structure and will need to change. I don't really seeing that being cheap. If all of the major institutions (State Libraries, National Libraries, Library of Congress, etc) all implement this and force their vendors to allow it to be implemented then MAYBE us libraries with poor vendor systems will get the trickle down effect...maybe not. There are still library systems out there that don't use MaRC, the main exchange format for library records.

Let that bun-fight begin!
Image courtesy of http://www.imagesofthepast.co.uk/ , (c) 1902

RFID : 3 down, 2 to go

I may be slightly premature here (I am writing this in advance) but, finger's crossed, by the time this post goes to air we will have 3 of our libraries RFID tagged up. This has involved lots of work (particularly for other people).

Isn't it exciting?

MODS

Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) is a schema for a bibliographic element set that may be used for a variety of purposes, and particularly for library applications. The standard is maintained by the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress with input from users

It is funny, I recently joined an Australian listserv for librarians interested in library systems and library technology - aliaLIBSYSTEMS. It was thought that all the other standard listservs were aimed more at US librarians and US libraries and that we needed something specific to us. I think they're right.

Of course, just after I signed up to this, one of my other listservs, NGC4LIB simply exploded with discussion. NGC4LIB (or Next Generation Catalogs [sic] for Libraries) talks/complains/discusses/bemoans the new generation of catalogues and opacs that are available for libraries to use. Mostly I just watch them all complain about how noone does anything and then they have discussion on ways we could fix stuff and then it peters out and starts again. The past little while has had an absolute heap of emails revolving around how MaRC is an antiquated format and should be bought into the new era (and why it hasn't been and etc etc).

Being a cataloguer I am aware of what MaRC's history and how it has (or hasn't) evolved. What I really wasn't aware was of some of the projects out there to 'modernise' MaRC and bring it into line with what the world is currently using, xml based schemas. The currently MARCXML scheme is a tad crap.

100__$aWest, Christian,$d1982-.
245__$aThis is my title /$cChristian West
650_0$aBiography.

Becomes:

<record>
<datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">West, Christian,</subfield>
<subfield code="d">1982.</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">This is my title /</subfield>
<subfield code="c">Christian West.</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0">
<subfield code="a">Biography.</subfield>
</datafield>
</record>

Which, logically, makes sense. It's just HUGE, sizewise, in comparison to the MaRC part and rather hard to read if you're not a computer (MaRC is also hard to read if you're not a computer, just not as hard as the MARCXML bit).

MODS is a way of simplifying this by using actual terminology in the tags rather than the MaRC numbers which, although nice for their day, are a bit passe in terms of the way we currently code.

From what I gather, the MODS record will look something like the below:

<titleInfo>
<title>This is my title /</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart>West, Christian</namePart>
<namePart type="Date">1982-.</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm type="text">creator</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<subject authority="lcsh">
<topic>Biography.</topic>
</subject>

This seems a bit easier to me to read, especially if you're a programmer. You don't have to worry about what all the numbers and indices refer to. This wouldn't matter if you were programming in a vacuum, but if you want your records to be used by nerdy young people programming at home, this is probably the best way to go about it. You instantly know that the 'topic' of my book is Biography. You many not know what the lcsh 'authority' for it means, but you get the general gist of the whole thing. It is still pretty big, granted, but it is a lot easier to understand.

Anyways, that is my rant for today. I was just very fascinated when I had a look at MODS and thought I'd share.

Web 2.0 program for one of our libraries

Although we completed the Learning 2.0 program at the start of the year, one of our branches is currently making a big push for their staff to complete/start the program. I am actually really happy that this has happening. Although half of the staff had already completed the lessons, the others had really only reached activity 4 (the one about posting a message to your blog and registering it).

Because extra staff are now doing the program (or finishing the program) it has again generated a buzz of excitement in the branch about these kinds of technologies. I get to monitor the program (now that the official one has finished) and it is interesting to see what other people are writing about in the Learning 2.0 blogs.

Korfball anyone?

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/DSCF0090.jpg