ALA report (for library geeks)
In one of my committees, we're reviewing the draft version of the upcoming edition of the Anglo American Cataloging Rules. Based on an initial examination of the draft, I have to say that I'm REALLY disappointed. This new edition has been billed as a major change in cataloging rules, aimed at simplification and at creating a content standard that could be used by other database-building communities besides libraries. I was hoping for something along the lines of a data dictionary model-- a list of elements with a few paragraphs explaining how each element should be structured. Instead, what we get is the same old rules, organized differently. While AACR is a very effective and sophisticated content standard, it's incredibly complex, and is so geared toward describing text-based material that its usefulness as a content standard for things like image databases is questionable. Fortunately, I heard a lot of people expressing similar concerns, and I think our committee will be providing less-than-positive feedback to the Joint Steering Committee. How much good it will do in changing the rules is in question, of course, but at least I have a voice in the process.
We also reviewed ALA's new strategic plan, with which I was also distinctly underwhelmed. I'm really disturbed by the fact that the American Library Association mentions NOTHING about organizing and providing access to information in its strategic plan. I mean... that's one of the biggest functions of libraries, and ALA doesn't even mention it in their strategic plan. How stupid is that?
My other committee was reviewing the ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services) strategic plan, specifically those portions of it related to cataloging and classification. We had a strategic planning forum on Saturday afternoon, getting feedback from catalogers about how the association can respond to challenges and trends in cataloging. There was a lot of whining about the marginalization and de-professionalization of cataloging, which is to be expected. There also seemed to be a dawning realization that one reason catalogers are being marginalized is that many of us have been so focused on the 'creating MARC records' aspect of cataloging that we've ignored the 'organizing information' aspect of cataloging. I think that one of the biggest mistakes that professional catalogers made was in stepping back and saying "not our job" when reference librarians started organizing web resources into subject-based web pages for library patrons. I don't know how many professional catalogers I heard say, "They should just use Library of Congress Subject Headings", back in the early stages of those developments. *wry smile* I even occasionally said something like that myself. But now I realize that was a real error. Instead of paying attention to what patrons and public service librarians really needed and using our skills to create new and better ways of organizing web resources, we insisted that the current tools were 'good enough' for these new types of resources. We were wrong.
What we should have done, and should be doing now, is spending time doing usability studies with library patrons, paying attention to how they *really* seek information, and building systems to help them find what they need and want easily. I keep hearing about how Google makes libraries-- and cataloging in particular-- obsolete, because people can find what they want even if the information isn't well organized. I don't believe that's true, but I do believe that libraries have made some critical mistakes in assuming that we know how people seek information rather than really studying how they seek information and creating systems that work with that behavior. We can't expect patrons to conform to what librarians expect them to do in terms of information-seeking. We need to make library systems that work with current information-seeking behavior. Fortunately, I think larger 'names' than I in the library world have seen this, and will be moving the profession in that direction, if what I heard at the planning forum is any indication. It remains to be seen whether it's too little, too late.