John Chapman: October 2009 Archives
The newly released Library of Congress report "Study of the North
American MARC Records Marketplace," by Ruth Anderson and Rick Lugg of
R2 Consulting, is a major addition to the ongoing professional
conversation about what libraries do, should do, and will be doing in
the future. Its narrow scope works to its advantage in some areas and
to its detriment in others.
The strongest part of the report is its description of "economic confusion" regarding the market for MARC records. The report describes a market that incorporates suppliers, customers, and other players who operate under two sets of values: community values and commercial values. While in most situations, these values do not lead to conflict, in some cases they have.
R2 points to one influence on this disconnect - the lack of knowledge about the costs of creating catalog records. The distorting effects on the market by certain forces - the Library of Congress' subsidy of MARC cataloging, the availability of free records from some sources and not from others - are poorly understood or inaccurately discussed due to this blind spot. The report suggests that increased visibility and honest discussion of the economics of the marketplace - starting with the acceptance of speaking about library work in those terms - is necessary to move the profession forward.
Below is an intriguing diagram, from page 32 of the report, showing different "tiers" of the marketplace. Of particular interest is the fact that many institutions span more than one tier, making interactions between and among them more complex. [click image for a larger version in a new window]
While
the report makes a reference to a guiding assumption that MARC records
will remain important for "5-10 years," it does treat the cataloging
world as somewhat of a fixed entity. The current developments in RDA
and catalog front ends mean that discovery is changing; analysis of web
traffic shows that users prefer means other than MARC records for
access to many types of materials; and seismic changes in delivery,
storage and availability of information resources mean that the
paradigm of the local catalog is under stress as well. Even granting
the assumption that MARC will remain relevant in the next decade, it is
clear that the relationships between record, cataloger, catalog, and
user will be in flux.
Navigating these changes will require a clear view of the forces at work. The Library of Congress should be applauded for taking steps to illuminate this area, and R2 commended for their excellent report.
Edited 31 October 2009 to correct link.
The strongest part of the report is its description of "economic confusion" regarding the market for MARC records. The report describes a market that incorporates suppliers, customers, and other players who operate under two sets of values: community values and commercial values. While in most situations, these values do not lead to conflict, in some cases they have.
R2 points to one influence on this disconnect - the lack of knowledge about the costs of creating catalog records. The distorting effects on the market by certain forces - the Library of Congress' subsidy of MARC cataloging, the availability of free records from some sources and not from others - are poorly understood or inaccurately discussed due to this blind spot. The report suggests that increased visibility and honest discussion of the economics of the marketplace - starting with the acceptance of speaking about library work in those terms - is necessary to move the profession forward.
Below is an intriguing diagram, from page 32 of the report, showing different "tiers" of the marketplace. Of particular interest is the fact that many institutions span more than one tier, making interactions between and among them more complex. [click image for a larger version in a new window]
While
the report makes a reference to a guiding assumption that MARC records
will remain important for "5-10 years," it does treat the cataloging
world as somewhat of a fixed entity. The current developments in RDA
and catalog front ends mean that discovery is changing; analysis of web
traffic shows that users prefer means other than MARC records for
access to many types of materials; and seismic changes in delivery,
storage and availability of information resources mean that the
paradigm of the local catalog is under stress as well. Even granting
the assumption that MARC will remain relevant in the next decade, it is
clear that the relationships between record, cataloger, catalog, and
user will be in flux.Navigating these changes will require a clear view of the forces at work. The Library of Congress should be applauded for taking steps to illuminate this area, and R2 commended for their excellent report.
Edited 31 October 2009 to correct link.
The Spring issue of NISO's Information Standards Quarterly (ISQ) journal [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/18606259] has two items dealing directly with the creation and use of book metadata. However, their perspective on the topic may be unfamiliar to many in the library world.
The first is an extract (p. 33) from the joint NISO/OCLC white paper, written by Judy Luther, on metadata workflows [http://bit.ly/NISO_OCLC] . The extract has an excellent overview of the metadata activities that happen outside of library cataloging departments, including the roles played by booksellers, wholesalers, and publishers.
Another item of interest in the issue is the report from OCLC's Renee Register on the March OCLC Symposium for Publishers and Librarians on Metadata (p. 40). This symposium brought together two groups that normally don't communicate, and the resulting areas of inquiry are a good reminder of the room for improved efficiency at multiple points in the metadata creation process.
The first is an extract (p. 33) from the joint NISO/OCLC white paper, written by Judy Luther, on metadata workflows [http://bit.ly/NISO_OCLC] . The extract has an excellent overview of the metadata activities that happen outside of library cataloging departments, including the roles played by booksellers, wholesalers, and publishers.
Another item of interest in the issue is the report from OCLC's Renee Register on the March OCLC Symposium for Publishers and Librarians on Metadata (p. 40). This symposium brought together two groups that normally don't communicate, and the resulting areas of inquiry are a good reminder of the room for improved efficiency at multiple points in the metadata creation process.
