----------------------------Original message----------------------------
----------
From: Dan Fermon[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 1996 9:58 AM
To: 'ARLIS-L'
Subject: RE: ARLIS/NY Cataloging Discussion Group Oct. meeting summary
Summary of the meeting of ARLIS/NY Cataloging Discussion Group held at the
Museum of Modern Art Wednesday Oct. 30, 1996.
Dan Fermon (MoMA) read a letter he wrote to the Library of Congress
proposing the elimination of the list of free floating subdivisions for
personal authors (by merging it to the list of subdivisions for individual
persons). At a previous meeting the group voiced concerns that
distinctions made by the two lists were often arbitrary (e.g., --Biography
and --Contemporaries can only be added to names of literary authors even
though they are perfectly applicable to all persons).
The question of whether a personal letter to LC was an effective medium
was broached. Would a petition or formal statement from the group be
better? Would such a petition overlap or infringe on the work done by the
Cataloging Advisory Committee, etc.? The consensus was that both personal
and formal ARLIS/NA avenues would be pursued and that any concurring
letters should be sent to LC as well.
A discussion of other LC policies/subject headings grievances followed, in
which difficulties with federal bureaucratic inertia were detailed, as well
as difficulties submitting requests for new subject headings and for
requesting updates/corrections in patently outdated subject authority
records. It was proposed that e-mail might be a more effective medium for
communicating with LC's Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) in the
future: e.g., [log in to unmask], etc.
The discussion moved to "multiple authorities." Angela Giral (Avery
Library, Columbia) shared her insights based on the Avery model. Some
interesting points: in spite of the usefulness of AAT--especially in its
depth of terminology, a significant portion of which, after all, derives
from the Avery Index--it is still a list of descriptors; a list of
commonly used descriptor *strings* would be a useful addition to their
present tools. AAT's post-coordinated system precludes this. She also
pointed out that, in a multiple thesauri environment, inefficient search
strategies can result if users are unaware of available variant
formulations of similar concepts.
Daniel Fermon thought a solution to this was suggested by a project
performed at Northwestern University that mapped 3 thesauri on one local
system, providing x-references to the two other lists on each search.
But Pat Kuhr of Art Index reminded the group that Gary Strawn (NU) found
the project labor intensive and that it only resulted in 1500 successfully
mapped headings.
Would browseable lists of authority headings be a solution? This feature
appears on some systems and is available on Art Index's CD-ROM product.
But Pat and Alison Dickey of Art Index said that authority searching, in
general, is rarely used and that on the Art Index CD-ROM it is a part of
the advanced level of searching, which tends to scare away most
researchers.
Is there no solution?
DF suggested that an idea that is gaining in currency may have to
substitute: personal intervention. As catalogers we are the ones who use
the thesauri, we know the underlying structure of the catalog, and we know
how to run complex and relevant searches (we routinely do that in our
work). If this results in a fusion of cataloging and reference services,
that can only be for the good. We are all becoming scholarly consultants.
After the meeting adjourned, Daniel Starr provided a demonstration of
MoMA's Voyager system.
Daniel Fermon
Asst. Librarian/Cataloging
Museum of Modern Art Library (New York, N.Y.)
[log in to unmask]
|