Dear colleagues,
Anent the topic of retrospective catalogue conversion, there is no-one more
enthusiastic than I am, having spent decades in the cause.
However, having found the cure, I am a trifle bemused at this latest attempt
to heal the malady. If the history of cataloguing proves anything, it is
that the British library market is only just large enough to support one
effective initiative of this kind---Scolcap and its innumerable counterparts
all failed, because the market could not, or would not sustain them, and
North America has effectively only produced one real success--OCLC--which is
alive and flourishing in the UK, and is the pre-eminent vehicle for the
stated objective.
I reiterate my plea not to reinvent the wheel, at a time when public
sympathies are particularly adverse.
Duncan T.D. Irvine
On 4 March 2010 01:52, Duncan Irvine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am a little surprised at the recent posting on the above subject, at a
> time when the public finances have never been less certain, and every penny
> has to be spent wisely, and demonstrably so..
>
> Whatever the merit of the underlying objective, to ignore the repeated
> history of mini and replicated British databases such as Scolcap, Swalcap,
> ertc is perverse and blinkered to an astounding degree, in this modern era
> of databases of 100 million plus such as OCLC. There is nothing whatever to
> be gained by this incessant reinvention of the wheel, and I would strongly
> recommend an alternative methodology to gain the desired goal.
>
> Duncan T.D. Irvine
>
|