JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  March 2001

BRITARCH March 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Museums and Libraries - grasping the nettle.

From:

kpflude <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:38:25 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

I really could not disagree more.

Firstly, books are a single category of items and the main fields that they
are catalogued under are fairly straightforward and agreed.  Most people who
use Libraries catalogues tend to use author, title and some relatively
simple keyword descriptions of the content to access the information they
require.

I won't insult librarians by saying its straightforward and simple but rigid
cataloguing rules have been able to be imposed because of the fact that
books (although very diverse in content) are a single type of object.

I completely disagree that curators are a couple of hundred year behind but
it is important to understand that Libraries began systematic cataloguing
earlier and began computerisation earlier.  They began computerisation in
the bad old days of the mainframe where the main model for computerisation
was similar to a stock control system. Simple and rigid fields in
hierarchical arrangements - the relational database providing a little more
flexibility later on - but the data had to be shoe horned into the structure
the computers allowed for it.

The point I'm getting to is that computers are now much more flexible and
the rigid syntactical control that was necessary for early computer systems
is becomming increasingly unnecessary.

Early Museum Documentation Association system syntax control system showed
comprehensively to me that a rigid control syntax is a barrier to
understanding and that the vocabularly control excercised by natural
lingustic laws learnt in childhood are far more effective in conveying
complex and subtle meaning than anything a systems analyst can come up with.

Further my fairly extensive experience of museum documentation also shows
that the data museum curators need to record varies enormously depending
upon the focus of the institution.  There is no way that a system set up
with a local museum in mind will be work both for it, a national museum
controlled by leading subject experts and for example a museum associated
with the trade or profession that made or controlled the object.

Similiarities exist but major differences of outlook and use mean that the
level of information required can be vastly different.

A global museum information structure would be, in my mind, as relevant to
modern information science as stalinist collectivism.

Much better to embrance text retrieval systems with flexible field
structures and to utilise the internet, and the hyperlink, and the power of
search engines to unlock the meaning to be found in real language systems.

Kevin Flude

Secondly, Librarians, largely don't try to comprehensively catalogue
----- Original Message -----
From: "carol primrose" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:08 PM
Subject: Museums and Libraries - grasping the nettle.


> Looking in from outside, it seems to me, as a librarian, that museums are
> at the stage libraries were at a couple of hundred years ago.  Each one
> wants to list the material, including all manner of details and describe
> the content, while using terminology of its own which may or may not be in
> common use. No-one appears to want to consider the possibility that
> co-operative measures to establish uniform classification, terminology and
> description could be applied to museum collections, just as they have been
> applied to library collections. Yet I believe this is your only way
> forward, given the pressure on resources which is universal today.  I
> attended a demonstration in Edinburgh about 3 years ago of just such a
> computerised system (unfortunately I do not have the name of the company
to
> hand) applied to museum collections. It can be done. It would require
> individuals to accept a standard which might seem inadequate and/or alien;
> in libraries we've had to accept American dominance because they are so
> much bigger and richer than the UK, and in places we don't like it one
bit,
> but the consequence is that all academic and national library
> catalogues  in the UK and the US, plus a great many others in the rest of
> the world, are now accessible to anyone via the internet.
>
>   I get the impression from the various posts that some of you are trying
> to produce a catalogue raisonnee and failing, understandably enough,
> because it is a huge undertaking requiring deep resources and great
> expertise.  A much less detailed finding list would be more achievable and
> consequently more useful. Readers of books don't expect the catalogue to
> tell them the contents in detail, they get a rough idea from the class
> number and then look in the book itself for the details.
>
> To answer a couple of specific points from recent posts:
> <The reason that books are easier to catalogue, sort etc. (on top of the
> reasons already expressed by other britarchers) is for the simple reason
> they have a title and an author, and a subject. Books (and manuscripts)
are
> 'predigested' in some way in order to be easily catalogued. Many libraries
> by their catalogue info rather than generating it themselves as it is so
> standardised (I have worked in both, so have seen both sides of the
divide).>
> 'the reason that books are easier to catalogue' is because cataloguers got
> together and produced 'rules'  - The Anglo-American Cataloguing code. The
> application of these rules causes unhappiness to traditional cataloguers
> because they can't now do it their own way, but it does mean that many
> problems are systematised. Books don't always have an author, but where
> they do, you have to decide what his/her name is. Take someone most people
> on this list will have heard of - Guy de la Bedoyere. He's English (I
> presume) and so his name in a catalogue should be De la Bedoyere, Guy. But
> if the cataloguer thought he was French he would appear as La Bedoyere,
Guy
> de. The current AA code has 80 pages on the form of a surname. It is NOT
easy.
>
> <Questions of origin and terminology are generally where archaeologists
> begin to disagree>  Sit down and agree a classification scheme. It won't
> please everyone, overall it won't completely please anyone, but it allows
> you to organise material in the same way as other places do, and thus
> scholars can judge whether your collection is going to be useful to them
or
> not.
>
> <In terms of cataloguing books - a book is one object to record...but
> librarians are not required to catalogue what's on every page or
understand
> what the text is trying to say or how important it is within it's
> field.>  Actually, special and academic librarians are expected to have
> that sort of knowledge, both for classification and dissemination
purposes.
>
> Carol Primrose
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager