Sometimes when I finish making an original record, I step back and think, "huh... is that it?" There really isn't a whole lot that goes into any given catalog record. You've got your title and/or main entry and then, if need be, some subject headings. Additionally, there's a small spattering of other stuff that gets thrown into the mix like physical description, publication information, and perhaps some stuff that only catalogers really care about (like bibliographical references, geographic codes, and, of course, the all important festschrift bit). When you're done you're left with a few fields and some nagging feeling that you've left something out.
I've come to realize that cataloging records are, at their most ideal, tremendously concise. After all, MARC, and consequently the records that are created in it, are still based in a print world. And I don't just mean that they are designed mostly for reflecting print material, I mean that they are still designed to be printed out on cards. Some may argue against this, noting the ability to apply a great deal of 007s, 006s and an infinite amount of added entries and subject headings. At this point, MARC does allow for a lot of information to be tacked on to it: a lot of information that wasn't even thought of when MARC was first developed. But fundamentally MARC is still the same MARC that debuted in the 60s. All of the things that can be utilized to reflect newer forms of information are bells and whistles.
One of my favorite extended metaphors is presented in Neal Stephenson's essay/monograph, "In the Beginning... Was the Command Line," where he compares various operating systems to car dealerships. Its an insightful, funny, and, currently, totally outdated piece of writing. My favorite image from it is how he describes Microsoft's original Windows brand (3.0/3.1) in relation to DOS. DOS, he points out, is like a bicycle in the car/Operating System world. It's minimalist and gets you from point A to point B, but it doesn't work with the operator very much. Windows, improves on this system, but, since its based entirely on the DOS framework, it's more like an add-on to DOS rather than a whole new system. No. It IS an add-on to DOS; there's nothing "like" about it. Anyway, to express this actuality in his metaphor, he compares Windows to a kit that Microsoft sells for its bicycle that converts it into a sort of gasoline belching moped. You slap it on, and it can now offer some self-propelled power, but its still working entirely off the old system. This is the state of MARC21: it's an old, old system with a bunch of crap screwed and clamped on to it.
I realized all this yet again when I started cataloging DVDs recently. Whereas the goal of traditional monographic cataloging is realized in the ideal of conciseness, DVD and film cataloging is shambling monstrosity. Of course, that ideal of conciseness is still there, but the a concise DVD record is way far away from a concise monograph record. This is in part due to the nature of motion pictures' production. Any one person can produce a book by themselves. True, any quality book ropes in a much larger group of people, but AACR2 ignores the important contributions of copy editors, designers, marketers and a bunch of other people in favor of reflecting the information most people care about. Unfortunately most people care about a lot more when it comes to movies. Who does it star? Who directed it? Who produced it? Who distributed it? Is there a notable cinematography? A writer? At this point, just in terms of the added entries, you've got an enormous collection of headings. Add to that content notes, transcribed credit notes, notes about features and other crap and you've got a record that makes even the most obnoxious government document record look like "In a Station of the Metro."
I have to admit that my consternation with DVD, &c. cataloging may very well be based off of laziness, but I can't shake the feeling that, yet again, catalogers are forcing a geometrically complex peg into square hole. I think about how I find movies (Amazon, IMDB, Wikipedia) and how far removed they are from the resource discovery systems libraries are scrambling around with and wonder if there are seriously any people out there who bother with library catalogs. More to the point, if they do bother to use library catalogs to discover the resources (not to see if a library has them), then what the hell is wrong with them?
As per usual, I don't know the solution, but I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to just have a bunch of links linked to IMDB records.
I've come to realize that cataloging records are, at their most ideal, tremendously concise. After all, MARC, and consequently the records that are created in it, are still based in a print world. And I don't just mean that they are designed mostly for reflecting print material, I mean that they are still designed to be printed out on cards. Some may argue against this, noting the ability to apply a great deal of 007s, 006s and an infinite amount of added entries and subject headings. At this point, MARC does allow for a lot of information to be tacked on to it: a lot of information that wasn't even thought of when MARC was first developed. But fundamentally MARC is still the same MARC that debuted in the 60s. All of the things that can be utilized to reflect newer forms of information are bells and whistles.
One of my favorite extended metaphors is presented in Neal Stephenson's essay/monograph, "In the Beginning... Was the Command Line," where he compares various operating systems to car dealerships. Its an insightful, funny, and, currently, totally outdated piece of writing. My favorite image from it is how he describes Microsoft's original Windows brand (3.0/3.1) in relation to DOS. DOS, he points out, is like a bicycle in the car/Operating System world. It's minimalist and gets you from point A to point B, but it doesn't work with the operator very much. Windows, improves on this system, but, since its based entirely on the DOS framework, it's more like an add-on to DOS rather than a whole new system. No. It IS an add-on to DOS; there's nothing "like" about it. Anyway, to express this actuality in his metaphor, he compares Windows to a kit that Microsoft sells for its bicycle that converts it into a sort of gasoline belching moped. You slap it on, and it can now offer some self-propelled power, but its still working entirely off the old system. This is the state of MARC21: it's an old, old system with a bunch of crap screwed and clamped on to it.
I realized all this yet again when I started cataloging DVDs recently. Whereas the goal of traditional monographic cataloging is realized in the ideal of conciseness, DVD and film cataloging is shambling monstrosity. Of course, that ideal of conciseness is still there, but the a concise DVD record is way far away from a concise monograph record. This is in part due to the nature of motion pictures' production. Any one person can produce a book by themselves. True, any quality book ropes in a much larger group of people, but AACR2 ignores the important contributions of copy editors, designers, marketers and a bunch of other people in favor of reflecting the information most people care about. Unfortunately most people care about a lot more when it comes to movies. Who does it star? Who directed it? Who produced it? Who distributed it? Is there a notable cinematography? A writer? At this point, just in terms of the added entries, you've got an enormous collection of headings. Add to that content notes, transcribed credit notes, notes about features and other crap and you've got a record that makes even the most obnoxious government document record look like "In a Station of the Metro."
I have to admit that my consternation with DVD, &c. cataloging may very well be based off of laziness, but I can't shake the feeling that, yet again, catalogers are forcing a geometrically complex peg into square hole. I think about how I find movies (Amazon, IMDB, Wikipedia) and how far removed they are from the resource discovery systems libraries are scrambling around with and wonder if there are seriously any people out there who bother with library catalogs. More to the point, if they do bother to use library catalogs to discover the resources (not to see if a library has them), then what the hell is wrong with them?
As per usual, I don't know the solution, but I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to just have a bunch of links linked to IMDB records.
No comments:
Post a Comment