Edward Hoyenski
Assistant Curator
Rare Book & Texana Collections
University of North Texas Libraries
ehoyensk@library.unt.edu
940-565-2769
940-565-2599
P.O. Box 305190
Denton, TX 76203I'm likely taking this from the "wrong" perspective, but I fully agree that catalog records need more information in them.
In cataloging for our Rare Book & Texana Collections, I am continually having to research signatures, bookplates, binders, printers, booksellers, publishers, illustrators, etc. Once I have this data, especially for the less-known people, it's seems really dumb to just put in birth and death dates in an authority record and go on to the next item. I've been inputting information in our records so that not only will our patrons get some of the benefit, but also so that my successors will also have the benefits of my research - whatever that may have turned up.
We've also been including "contextual" information in items that help explain their significance - i.e., "at the time of printing, this volume was the smallest book in the world printed with movable type".
The big problem is the implementation. One department. 18,000-20,000 items two full-time staff, only one of which does cataloging. Time is at a premium. But, if I'm going to have to do the research, then I'm darn well going to preserve my findings to help others.
On the "flip-side" - quite a few items either don't seem to need much "contextual" information, or are fairly well recorded in other sources - I'm not currently seeing a need to give a biography of Charles Dickens in every record we have for his works, nor am I able to come up with much contextual information for signed comic books by local artists - beyond "Signed by Artist" and "Former UNT Student".
Other thoughts?
Edward
>>> bkosovsky@nypl.org 06/23/05 7:43 AM >>>
Hi folks,
Though I could post this to a e-mail list on cataloging, I've chosen to
post it here, since this list has a unique viewpoint, and I'm interested in
hearing subscribers' feedback.
Recently, staff of The New York Public Library were treated to a talk by
Roy Tennant, the very forward-thinking who is the User Service Architect of
the California Digital Library. He's also the author of a well-known
article, the title of which is something like "MARC is dead." You can see
his websites (yes, he has several) at www.roytennant.com.
He articulates many fascinating and provocative thoughts, one of which is
the notion that for certain kinds of items, contextual description is
sometimes (often?) more important than physical description. (He bases
this belief in part on how Google has changed user expectations of the
search/find experience.)
In thinking in practical terms of how this could be implemented, that would
suggest that a bibliographic record should include more than just physical
description. Just like the record for an archival collection typically
includes a biography or history, and discussion of provenance, or just like
a dealer's catalog entry might have ample contextual description, Tennant's
viewpoint suggest that we should be doing this for most individual volumes
or items that come our way.
How do you all feel about this?
Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D., Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts
Music Division -- The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions.
*********************************************************************
Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
to a plain text message.
*********************************************************************