Kalnin, Mary T.

English

OJS at Oregondigital.org (Oregon State University / University of Oregon)

OLA Quarterly Volume 9 Number 1 Industrializing the Work Flow: New Trends in Technical Services (Spring 2003) July 2014 I am a Cataloger--Hear Me Roar Mary T. Kalnin University of Washington Recommended Citation Kalnin, M. T. (2014). I am a Cataloger--Hear Me Roar. OLA Quarterly, 9(1), 18-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1093-7374.1638 © 2014 by the author(s). OLA Quarterly is an official publication of the Oregon Library Association | ISSN 1093-7374  18I am Cataloger—Hear Me Roarby Mary T. KalninLibrary Specialist II—Original CatalogerUniversity of WashingtonLibrarieskalnin@u.washington.eduWhen I was first asked to write anarticle on cataloging andautomation, I questionedwhether this was to be researched or anopinion piece. I was invited to write mypassion—and so I shall. And my passion iscataloging and automation together! I seeno dichotomy between them. Cataloging isa craft, an art, and a science. Automationdoes not destroy that craft, that art, thatscience; in fact, automation can allow us tocreate much better records, share theworkload, and produce better databasesand OPACS. What on earth am I talkingabout? I’ll get to that shortly. First, how-ever, I wish to discuss the topic of automa-tion in libraries, as it is often perceived.I have heard library staff say thatautomation has caused nothing but troublefor us and our catalogs, for we importincomplete or just plain bad bibliographicrecords into our local systems. Most re-cently, I read an article decrying theaddition of vendor records to the OCLC andRLIN databases. Those who decry theseadditions cite detriments to the staff, to thelocal OPAC, and to patron expectations. Isay wait! Automation need not producesuch an outcome! When a library decides tojoin a bibliographic utility, it must devotesome time to developing a system for theefficient use of that utility’s services; thelibrary will probably revamp its catalogingprocedures. It is necessary to create a smallcommittee to study the bibliographicrecords the library takes from the utility.The committee must decide what criteriadefine an acceptable record and create a listof libraries whose records meet thosecriteria. Once that process is complete,those records can be imported into the localsystem with little or no checking. Thematerials with records that do not meet thecriteria can be cataloged by a higher-levelparaprofessional staff and brought up tostandard. Finally, those materials with eitherno copy or copy so bad that it is almostuseless are given to the original catalogingstaff—paraprofessionals and librarians—forcataloging. This system does presume asystem of well-defined roles and job descrip-tions, but it works—and it works well.When fully implemented this, or a likesystem, takes full advantage of automationbut not to the detriment of staff, the localOPAC, or patron expectations.It is clear that I love cataloging andtechnology and I make no apology. Whenwriting an opinion piece, one writes frompersonal experience; I’ve been a librarytechnician engaged in the rapid catalogingprocess and a copy cataloger engaged inupgrading records and bringing them toAACR2 standard. I am now a paraprofes-sional, original cataloger, and my love ofcataloging and automation has not dimin-ished; it grows stronger by the day.The University of Washington is anOCLC library, and OCLC’s new system,Connexion™, is everything that a catalogercould want. Connexion^(TM) offers us theability to create bibliographic records thatcan be manipulated whenever the librarydeems necessary. It offers the ability totake a MARC record for a Web site anddisplay it in Dublin Core. The Dublin Corecan then be copied and inserted into theWeb site itself, thereby enhancing asearcher’s ability to find it. This gives thebest of both the MARC and Dublin Coreworlds, and provides a much-neededservice to library patrons. When creatingthe bibliographic record, one can useConnexion’s™ best features to their fullestadvantage. Connexion^(TM) has a systemto link the headings in the record to theauthority file records. Once that link ismade, the headings will be updatedautomatically whenever they change in theauthority file. If one’s library subscribes toOCLC’s bibliographic notification service,it will receive a new bibliographic recordfor the local OPAC. If the library sub-scribes to an authority service, it is likelythat there will be notice of the change andperhaps a corrected authority record in anupdate provided by the vendor. Thechange will most certainly be caught 19whenever the library sends a recordcontaining the heading to the vendor foran authority wash.Because the University is an OCLClibrary, I have no real sense of whatfeatures RLG offers as cataloging tools.However, after wandering through the RLGWeb site, I see that technological changesare on the horizon there; the informationgiven concerning changes to its catalogingservice and the outsourcing available toRLG libraries, signals improved catalogingability and streamlined processing. I haveno doubt that RLG participants will findthe most efficient ways to use their newtools to their institutions’ best advantage.I would like to end this discussionwith one final thought. Automation in itselfis not the holy grail of libraries—the prizeto be sought at all costs. It will neverreplace catalogers—someone, somewherehas to create those bibliographic recordsthat populate OCLC, RLIN, and otherdatabases. Used properly automation is atool—a practical way of responding tocataloging needs, to patron needs andexpectations, and to the circumstances thatmold our library world. I believe that withit we can create databases that will becorrect now and in the future. Yes, it willtake an investment of time and patience;but if each of us does a little, we rendermoot the argument that automation leadsto the degradation of the catalog, andthose who follow us will never have toworry that the records they import intothose catalogs of the future will be incom-plete or just plain bad. But then again, Iam cataloger—hear me roar!ReferencesKellsey C., 2002. Cooperative Cataloging,Vendor Records, and European LanguageMonographs. Library Resources & Techni-cal Services. 46:105-110.TLC half-page ad to go hereV o l    N o     •   S P R I N G  % & & '

I am a Cataloger--Hear Me Roar

https://journals.oregondigital.org/olaq/article/download/vol9_iss1_7/411

I am a Cataloger--Hear Me Roar

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OJS at Oregondigital.org (Oregon State University / University of Oregon)