Being a library, people think that we are a dumping ground for books they have lying around. They don't have to be in good condition or current, the library will take them.
I wonder if that says something about the library, do our collections look so old/tatty/moldy that people think we want their unwanted crap?
Today's case, the Agencija za Iselenistvo of the Republika Makedonija (aka the Agency of Emmigration of the Republic of Macedonia). Within a three week period I have received 2 parcels from them containing books. Not just any books, boring books. They were all in Macedonian and mostly about Macedonia. From a critique of Macedonian philosophy at a level which most of our readers would have trouble understanding (even if they read Macedonian) to an entire book dedicated to analysing the poetry of an obscure (and quite dead) Macedonian poet to the history of Macedonian fantasy fiction (which, for what it's worth, is a lot longer than I would have expected).
Firstly: They're all old-looking books. I don't know if it is the paper the items are printed on, the bland covers or the fact that they're mostly 5 or 6 years old.
Secondly: They are not suitable for a public library. I know that the concept of a 'free public library' is different from culture to culture (and, honestly, I am unsure if Macedonia has a public library system), but why on earth would you pick a small library service in the middle of nowhere to send your crap to?
Thirdly: I don't want donations! These books are all freely available for me to purchase through our suppliers. If we thought they were worthy of adding to the collection, I'd have added them to the collection.
Donations are a wonderful thing when they are done right. We receive a heap of Mills and Boon style romance books from readers who read the book once and then think "I'll never read it again". These books are immaculate and we have our own special collection of them (all catalogued with a title of "Romance paperback" and a call number of PB ROM).
Honestly, I am just a bit confused as to why a government department in Europe would be sending libraries around the world books that they may not add? Postage is not cheap, especially for heavy items like books. We've received letters from them before in the past, they never mentioned they would send us anything.
All of this aside, I did actually add a number of the books to our collection. A book of short stories, some things on Macedonia which would be of interest to ex-pats living in Australia, those kind of things.
Ah well, that's my rant for today. (Can you tell I was struggling for something to say this week?)
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Standards, guidelines and recommendations
After my whinge last week about the building audit's recommendations, I am back with yet another document to complain about this week! (aren't I great?) It's not really a complain thing, more of a comparison thing I guess.
Living Learning Libraries: Standards and Guidelines for NSW Libraries was released recently and is now available from the State Library of NSW website. The report provides target figures for different areas of libraries, including membership per capita, opening hours per capita (or per number of branches), number of internet terminals, number of programs run, etc. It gives 3 levels of figures; a baseline figure (all libraries should meet this); an enhanced figure (you're a good library if you meet this) and; an exemplary figure (you're a brilliant library if you meet this).
What is interesting about this document is that it provides you with an 'out' clause for each of the target figures. For example, if you have 4-7 library branches then you should have a total opening hours per week of at least 238 hours (we have 5 libraries and 242 so yay to us). It says that this number may vary depending on staff numbers, the location of other community services, the structure (ie central library + mobile libraries) and the size of each library and the communities surrounding them.
I had a look at some of the different targets and compared my library service's performance against them. I even followed the definitions they provided (ie an active borrower in Victoria is someone who has used the library in the last 3 years, in NSW it says 2 years). It turns out we're a tad (actually a lot) under their benchmarks in a few area but that we rock in terms of internet access and program numbers. One of our main problems is that we have a very large populace with very low literacy and mobility. Also, our residents are quite transient and will often move to our area from overseas and then find work (and better living conditions) elsewhere so they'll move there. Many don't stay long, they are just there to bolster numbers.
Part B of the document refers to guidelines which libraries should follow in order to implement the standard targets. An interesting guideline was that it recommended the Library Manager be "an appropriately qualified librarian". I don't actually believe that we actually need a librarian to run the library service, especially in an environment where you have qualified librarians managing the librariany stuff. Running a library service is very similar to running any other kind of business, the only difference is that we don't make a profit and that we share information with anyone who asks for it (instead of trying to steal it from our competitors).
One of the guidelines that I understand (but find frustrating) is the guideline saying 'Based on knowledge of particular cultural needs and trends, a collection exists for a particular language when there are 500 residents speaking that language as their major language at home'. Lucky for us (with our 18 languages) we collect in a lot of languages. Unlucky for us, there are 26 languages with more than 500 speakers in our area. Some of these (ie Dinka and Samoan) have so few items published in them that there is no way we could support a collection even if we wanted to. Others (such as German and Spanish) are either leaving the area or dying off. That being said, our council area has 151 different languages spoken at home so I think we're doing well to collect in 18 of them.
The guidelines also refer to People Places, the document I complained about last week (it was the one that our building audit referred to when criticising our collection space in libraries). I actually found a copy of it online (click here to view) which, one day, I may read.
Living Learning Libraries: Standards and Guidelines for NSW Libraries was released recently and is now available from the State Library of NSW website. The report provides target figures for different areas of libraries, including membership per capita, opening hours per capita (or per number of branches), number of internet terminals, number of programs run, etc. It gives 3 levels of figures; a baseline figure (all libraries should meet this); an enhanced figure (you're a good library if you meet this) and; an exemplary figure (you're a brilliant library if you meet this).
What is interesting about this document is that it provides you with an 'out' clause for each of the target figures. For example, if you have 4-7 library branches then you should have a total opening hours per week of at least 238 hours (we have 5 libraries and 242 so yay to us). It says that this number may vary depending on staff numbers, the location of other community services, the structure (ie central library + mobile libraries) and the size of each library and the communities surrounding them.
I had a look at some of the different targets and compared my library service's performance against them. I even followed the definitions they provided (ie an active borrower in Victoria is someone who has used the library in the last 3 years, in NSW it says 2 years). It turns out we're a tad (actually a lot) under their benchmarks in a few area but that we rock in terms of internet access and program numbers. One of our main problems is that we have a very large populace with very low literacy and mobility. Also, our residents are quite transient and will often move to our area from overseas and then find work (and better living conditions) elsewhere so they'll move there. Many don't stay long, they are just there to bolster numbers.
Part B of the document refers to guidelines which libraries should follow in order to implement the standard targets. An interesting guideline was that it recommended the Library Manager be "an appropriately qualified librarian". I don't actually believe that we actually need a librarian to run the library service, especially in an environment where you have qualified librarians managing the librariany stuff. Running a library service is very similar to running any other kind of business, the only difference is that we don't make a profit and that we share information with anyone who asks for it (instead of trying to steal it from our competitors).
One of the guidelines that I understand (but find frustrating) is the guideline saying 'Based on knowledge of particular cultural needs and trends, a collection exists for a particular language when there are 500 residents speaking that language as their major language at home'. Lucky for us (with our 18 languages) we collect in a lot of languages. Unlucky for us, there are 26 languages with more than 500 speakers in our area. Some of these (ie Dinka and Samoan) have so few items published in them that there is no way we could support a collection even if we wanted to. Others (such as German and Spanish) are either leaving the area or dying off. That being said, our council area has 151 different languages spoken at home so I think we're doing well to collect in 18 of them.
The guidelines also refer to People Places, the document I complained about last week (it was the one that our building audit referred to when criticising our collection space in libraries). I actually found a copy of it online (click here to view) which, one day, I may read.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Building audit
The Building Audit of Victorian Public Libraries 2007 was a report created to get an overview of public library buildings in Victoria. At 258 pages it's a bit lengthy so I must admit that I just read through the presentation available at http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/cgi-bin/infonet/org.cgi?detail=1&id=40 and attempted to formulate some ideas.
The report uses a benchmark (People places) to identify where we're going wrong.
One of the things that got my goat about this report was that it bemoaned the fact that our collection areas in general are too small. I think this is very backwards thinking. Sure, a library has a physical collection. People come in daily to browse through our shelves and pull off what they want to borrow. But we are so much more than that. We have a virtual collection (which doesn't need floorspace). We encourage people to meet in our libraries by providing community spaces such as tables and chairs, lounge areas, cafe areas, study areas. Why on earth would we want to be increasing our collections at the expense of the things that draw people in?
At a time when traditional library usage is declining, I honestly don't believe that we should be limiting ourselves in this way. We don't have a huge amount of people coming in these days to ask us reference queries (of course, with the demographic of my library community, we probably never did). More people come to us because they can borrow (for free) movies and reading material for pleasure. To get people to borrow our items we are offering other services: a safe space; a friendly ear; someone to help you with finding information to solve your problems.
Pfft to reports trying to make us into scary places with tomes of wisdom.
The report uses a benchmark (People places) to identify where we're going wrong.
One of the things that got my goat about this report was that it bemoaned the fact that our collection areas in general are too small. I think this is very backwards thinking. Sure, a library has a physical collection. People come in daily to browse through our shelves and pull off what they want to borrow. But we are so much more than that. We have a virtual collection (which doesn't need floorspace). We encourage people to meet in our libraries by providing community spaces such as tables and chairs, lounge areas, cafe areas, study areas. Why on earth would we want to be increasing our collections at the expense of the things that draw people in?
At a time when traditional library usage is declining, I honestly don't believe that we should be limiting ourselves in this way. We don't have a huge amount of people coming in these days to ask us reference queries (of course, with the demographic of my library community, we probably never did). More people come to us because they can borrow (for free) movies and reading material for pleasure. To get people to borrow our items we are offering other services: a safe space; a friendly ear; someone to help you with finding information to solve your problems.
Pfft to reports trying to make us into scary places with tomes of wisdom.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Really Dodgy Archives (aka RDA)
RDA just clicked. The little man who turned the lights off in my head at the ACOC conference the other week decided to come visiting and turn them back on. Thankyou little man.
Okay, if we ignore authority data (which we shall), here is how things stand.
Currently most library systems have two types of records, a bibliographic record and a holdings record.
The bibliographic record contains all data about the 'thing'; title, uniform title, author/s, contributors, language, date published, etc etc. The holdings record contains data about the individual copy of the 'thing'; the barcode number, the unit price, the date added to the system, etc.
Good still? Good.
What RDA plans to achieve is four types of record; work, expression, manifestation and item. Using a direct comparison between what we currently have and what RDA wants us to have, the bibliographic record correlates to the manifestation record and the holdings record correlates to the item record.
Still good? Me too.
Because we have all these fancy, intricate ILS/LMS/library systems at the moment, we are stuck into the current way of thinking (bib record + holdings record). Therefore, what RDA are going to do as an interim step is combine the work/expression/manifestation records into one file (the MaRC file) and the item into the holdings record. This interim step allows for everyone to think what we would like for the future.
Because of this, it appears that we are walking forward in the cataloguing world at the pace of a relaxed snail. In reality, we are laying down the foundation for the next generation of cataloguing (which will be integrated into the next generation of ILS/LMS/library systems).
I'm still not terribly excited, but at least I understand what is going on.
Okay, if we ignore authority data (which we shall), here is how things stand.
Currently most library systems have two types of records, a bibliographic record and a holdings record.
The bibliographic record contains all data about the 'thing'; title, uniform title, author/s, contributors, language, date published, etc etc. The holdings record contains data about the individual copy of the 'thing'; the barcode number, the unit price, the date added to the system, etc.
Good still? Good.
What RDA plans to achieve is four types of record; work, expression, manifestation and item. Using a direct comparison between what we currently have and what RDA wants us to have, the bibliographic record correlates to the manifestation record and the holdings record correlates to the item record.
Still good? Me too.
Because we have all these fancy, intricate ILS/LMS/library systems at the moment, we are stuck into the current way of thinking (bib record + holdings record). Therefore, what RDA are going to do as an interim step is combine the work/expression/manifestation records into one file (the MaRC file) and the item into the holdings record. This interim step allows for everyone to think what we would like for the future.
Because of this, it appears that we are walking forward in the cataloguing world at the pace of a relaxed snail. In reality, we are laying down the foundation for the next generation of cataloguing (which will be integrated into the next generation of ILS/LMS/library systems).
I'm still not terribly excited, but at least I understand what is going on.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
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.
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.
