I have to say, putting all (or certainly most) of our eggs in one independent basket, and henceforth creating even more of a monopoly for OCLC, doesn't strike me as neccesarily the wisest course. The more diversity there is in what, even in the information sector, is still a market, the healthier that market will be.
And I like OCLC!
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-----Original Message-----
From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pam Thompson
Sent: 04 March 2010 14:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Retrospective cataloguing
I do find curious the backlash against this proposal. From a music library perspective, past and current collaboration has achieved much, but far less than might be desirable, and is currently minimal. In 2002, there were over a million music titles in UK academic libraries for which no electronic record existed. It is unlikely that this figure has been much reduced in the interim period, as the cataloguing of new publications, not the retrospective conversion of records, has taken priority. Music cataloguing is expensive; the more (and the more ways) in which we can collaborate, rather than re-invent the wheel on a daily basis in our own institutions, the better.
At present, downloading OCLC or RLUK records is expensive for a small institution. We are delighted that our records are now in the RLUK database, available for use by all RLUK members, but we cannot afford to download others' records from there. The notion of free access to good quality records is one which we would all embrace. Like RLUK, OCLC is expensive. Large institutions and authorities may well be able to afford to subscribe; smaller institutions, especially those with large collections cannot afford to, not least because good in-house cataloguers are still required because of the variability in quality of the records and the amount of editing involved after downloads.
RLUK is hardly an ineffective initiative and it has decidedly not failed. If, between them and JISC, an affordable, free (or even cheaper) service could be achieved, why not? This could be a JISC initiative of very real value, rather than an experimental, technical exercise with no guarantee of sustainability.
Pamela Thompson
Chief Librarian
Royal College of Music
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2BS
Direct line: 020 7591 4323
-----Original Message-----
From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dunia Garcia-Ontiveros
Sent: 04 March 2010 12:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Retrospective cataloguing
Dear Duncan,
I'm very sorry you think my posting is 'perverse and blinkered to an astounding degree'. I am very surprised that you should use such strong language. However unimpressed you may be with the work some of us are trying to do to address the enormous national cataloguing backlog to call our initiatives perverse and blinkered is unnecessary. Ultimately, the goal is to make catalogue records more accessible, something that ought to be worthwhile when money is scarce. By doing this we hope libraries short of funds may find it easier to tackle their retrospective cataloguing backlogs.
Personally, I can't see what's wrong with that and while I respect your right to disagree I wish you could have done it with less offensive language.Dunia García-Ontiveros Head of Retrospective Cataloguing The London Library
14 St. James's Square
London SW1Y 4LG
Tel. 020 7766 4746
Fax 020 7766 4766
To reduce costs and increase efficiency we would like to use email as our primary method of communication with members. We ensure our records are secure and we will not pass on email addresses to any third party without members' express permission. Please let us know if you do not wish us to store your email address on our database and communicate with you in this way.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Duncan Irvine" <[log in to unmask]> Sent 3/4/2010 1:52:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Retrospective cataloguingDear 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
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
<HTML>
<p><font size="1">Please consider the environment. Do you need to print this email? <br />
This e-mail, and any attachments, are private and intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
designated recipient(s) above. Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying are prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. <br />
Although the Royal College of Music ICT Department checks emails and attachments for known viruses and other
defects, you open attachments at your own risk. The Royal College of Music accepts no responsibility for any loss
or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this message. Full contact details are found at
www.rcm.ac.uk.
<br />
</font></p>
</HTML>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
|
