Jonathan says “Maybe some administrators are looking for ‘cheaper’…”

Maybe? Are you kidding? Most library administrators I know could not care less about proper data modeling, RDA, RDF, XML, etc., etc., etc. They want their cataloging operations to be cheaper. Period. They don’t see why “those rules” have to be so complicated — increasingly, they don’t see why they need people (as opposed to computer magic) to create metadata at all, or now in the Age of Full-Text, why they even need metadata. This has been developing over the course of the last 15 years. Remember “catloging simplification?” You are right that much of the angst around RDA arises from that history and context.

Terry is right that the underlying data format could be swapped out tomorrow without catalogers having to change a thing. If the issue were as simple as MARC=bad/XML=good, that would be a straight-up systems issue, but it’s not.

In addition, for most catalogers, if MARC is the problem, there is bugger all they can do about it. The system they’ve got is the system they’ve got, and they’ve been made to feel like they’re the bad guys. They are busy producing metadata as fast and as well as they can, in a wide variety of languages on a wide variety of topics. Most of them don’t have the luxury of thinking about “simple ideas like objects having properties, properties having values, objects belonging to classes, etc. and relat[ing] that easily to describing and analyzing information resources in any format.”

Ross, MODS is nowhere near as granular as MARC, nor was it intended to be. Not even close. That doesn’t alter your point that arguing granularity of XML is meaningless. A particular XML schema can be as granular or not as the schema-designer makes it.

Hmm, I think there is a fundamental failure to communicate going on here.

MARC’s problem is not that is imposes more constraints. The Karen Coyle/Diane Hillman type argument is NOT that MARC imposes too many constraints. If anything, it’s the opposite, that MARC _lacks_ the proper constraints.

I think Terry makes a really really good point–Terry, Diane Hillman, Karen Coyle, Roy, NONE of them, to my reading, are advocating an end to ‘thoughtful bibliographic description’ that some seem to see as the attack. Maybe some administrators are looking for ‘cheaper’, but I think they’re equally wrong. We’re looking for ‘better’. The problem with MARC is not that it’s “too detailed”, or that it has “too much information” or “too many constraints”.

It’s instead that the entire current system of cataloging (meaning cataloger practice + cooperative cataloging environment + AACR2 + MARC, and the universe of data they all produce)—-produces data that is way too hard, and in some cases impossible, for computer systems to use! That thoughtful description is going to waste, when it can’t be acted upon by systems.

Have you looked at MODS? Do you find this lacking in granularity? Perhaps, but since it’s based on MARC semantics, I’m skeptical.

Of course, all this assumes that we would use only one format for all aspects of current cataloging or that we would use an existing format or that we would even use XML at all. I think that’s a flawed assumption, honestly.

And don’t for a moment think A) that an XML schema couldn’t impose much stricter constraints on data than MARC or B) that there isn’t a ton of absolutely horrid MARC data because our tools don’t bother with validation.

Sorry, but I guess I see straw men all over the place, but no actually valid arguments.

The fact that MARC imposes more constraints on how data is entered has prevented alot of the data encoding anarchy that currently reigns in text based encoding.

I hadn’t thought about it, but you are right regarding local relationships. In the two libraries I’ve worked at, systems and technical services have always worked very closely together (I know — because at both organizations, I split time in each), and in most places I visit, I’d say that this is the same. To some degree, I think these conversations come about because:
1) Roy is a polarizing figure because of his body of work, dating back to his original MARC must Die article.
2) MARC, AACR2 and RDA represent a big investment on behalf of the cataloging community and in recent years, more and more literature is coming out on the systems community is criticising the current work, current models and to some degree, those that perform this work (or at least openly hint that its the technical services community that is holding back the profession).
3) I think there is apprehension relating to how this would change work in Technical Services and if it would mean an end to thoughtful bibliographic description. If you rememeber, OCLC and others have also positioned XML-based bibliographic description systems like Dublin Core as a “cheap” alternative to MARC that can be done by anyone. I think that this message was too successful and contributes to the current tension between the two groups when this conversation invariably comes up. Which is really too bad. At Oregon State University, we have taken an approach in some formats to do original metadata creation in the XML alternative because it allows for richer description. For example, cartographic materials. It’s very rare that we create an actual MARC record for them — since we’ve moved to describing all cartographic materials in FGDC and then creating derivative MARC records from these masters for inclusion into our ILS and OCLC.

–TR

I am at my third systems job at three different ARL libraries and at no stop have I seen any tension between systems and tech services (outside the normal tensions between any two departments at any sort of organization that have different sets of priorities). In fact, the only places I have ever seen this discord is on mailing lists and at conferences.

The real disconnect in my mind is why criticism of MARC, AACR2 or RDA is automatically taken to be a criticism of catalogers or the skills needed to catalog. Do I think MARC holds us back from the outside world? Yes (although not as much as AACR2/ISBD). Do I hold catalogers responsible for that? No. Do I think we could find the same functionality that we have in MARC with more accessible metadata formats? Certainly. In fact, I think rather than invent a new standard, we should be looking at the common metadata models out there (like you mention) and possibly pick and choose what is right from a variety of sources.

What I don’t understand is why there isn’t more delegation of expertise amongst the appropriate communities and open communication to build consensus. Let the catalogers build a model. Let the technologists figure out how to store, manipulate and transmit said model. Let those that work with the public figure out how to display it.

The problem now is that we don’t have a metadata model. We have a file format that does double duty as a model and lots of rules of how to work around the constraints it imposes.

Our impediments seem to be pride, arrogance, suspicion, ignorance and, in many cases, a financial incentive to maintain the status quo. These qualities are true of each of the communities, I am singling out no one. However, until we overcome them, we’re going to remain in this quagmire of bickering and polarity.