 |
 |
Thanks, Matthew, for a much more nuanced and accurate depiction of the data. I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to spend some time with this report, which was one result of a great deal of work by many people in research institutions around the world. The findings and recommendations are well worth your time. Roy On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Beacom, Matthew <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Although I agree with Roy's suggestion that librarians not gloat about our > metadata, the notion that the value of a data element can be elicited from > the frequency of its use in the overall domain of library materials is > misleading and contrary to the report Roy cites. > > The sub-section of the very useful and informative OCLC report that Roy > cites is very good on this point. Section 2. MARC Tag Usage in WorldCat by > Karen Smith-Yoshimura clearly lays out the data in the context of WorldCat > and the cataloging practice of the OCLC members. > > Library holdings are dominated by texts and in terms of titles cataloged > texts are dominated by books. This preponderance of books tilts the ratios > of use per individual data elements. Many data elements pertain to either a > specific form of material, manuscripts, for instance. Others pertain to > specific content, musical notation, for instance. Some pertain to both, > manuscript scores, for instance. Within the total aggregate of library > materials, data elements that are specific per material or content do not > rise in usage rates to anything near 20% of the aggregate total of titles. > Yet these elements are necessary or valuable to those wishing to discover > and use the materials, and when one recalls that 1% use rates in WorldCat > equal about 1,000,000 titles the usefulness of many MARC data elements can > be seen as widespread. > > According to the report, 69 MARC tags occur in more than 1% of the records > in WorldCat. That is quite a few more than the Roy's 11, but even > accounting for Karen's data elements being equivalent to the number of MARC > sub-fields this is far fewer than the 1,000 data elements available to a > cataloger in MARC. > > Matthew Beacom > > > By the way, the descriptive fields used in more than 20% of the MARC > records in WorldCat are: > > 245 Title statement 100% > 260 Imprint statement 96% > 300 Physical description 91% > 100 Main entry - personal name 61% > 650 Subject added entry - topical term 46% > 500 General note 44% > 700 Added entry - personal name 28% > > They answer, more or less, a few basic questions a user might have about > the material: > What is it called? Who made it? When was it made? How big is it? What is it > about? Answers to the question, How can I get it? are usually given in the > associated MARC holdings record. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Roy Tennant > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:15 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MODS and DCTERMS > > I would even argue with the statement "very detailed, well over 1,000 > different data elements, some well-coded data (not all)". There are only 11 > (yes, eleven) MARC fields that appear in 20% or more of MARC records > currently in WorldCat[1], and at least three of those elements are control > numbers or other elements that contribute nothing to actual description. I > would say overall that we would do well to not gloat about our metadata > until we've reviewed the facts on the ground. Luckily, now we can. > Roy > > [1] http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > On May 3, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > > > 1. MARC the data format -- too rigid, needs to go away > > > 2. MARC21 bib data -- very detailed, well over 1,000 different data > > > elements, some well-coded data (not all); unfortunately trapped in #1 > > > > > > > > The differences between the two points enumerated above, IMHO, seem to be > > the at the heart of the never-ending debate between computer types and > > cataloger types when it comes to library metadata. The non-library > computer > > types don't appreciate the value of human-aided systematic description. > And > > the cataloger types don't understand why MARC is a really terrible bit > > bucket, especially considering the current environment. All too often the > > two "camps" don't know to what the other is speaking. "MARC must die. > Long > > live MARC." > > > > -- > > Eric Lease Morgan > > >