
On the morning of the last day of this week-long conference extravaganza, I discussed the major themes of these conferences with a colleague who is the incoming Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services at an ARL library. Her comments are in italicized text.
RDA is controversial
Frankly, it is being criticized from multiple perspectives, including traditional catalogers as well as digital library developers. Personally, I think that it will be helpful for recognizing the common ground between long established cataloging practices and emerging organically-digital practices. However, I have a feeling that because it will be so comprehensive and complex, it will not be fully and wholly adopted by most institutions or even communities of practice. Rather, practitioners will pick and choose parts of it to adopt for their own needs. Perhaps this is not a sign of weakness in RDA, but a reflection of the increasingly divergent granularity, needs, and practices in the whole "information space."
I would say RDA is struggling, and it is frustrating to see so much effort by highly knowledgeable professionals go into developing - and then defending - what is essentially a very incremental change in the way we do business. RDA's core cataloging audience feels that it makes too many unwarranted changes, and the metadata community feels that it doesn't move far enough from the MARC model to be relevant outside the traditional catalog. What RDA does right: It separates the bibliographic metadata from ISBD formatting. Our systems should enable us recombine parts of the bibliographic record for different needs, and it's good that our content rules are changing to reflect this (we need to lean on our OPAC providers to recognize this as well). What RDA does wrong: It is hopelessly complex. One idea floating around at ALA was the notion of making RDA a set of basic rules, and then allowing communities of practice (i.e. map catalogers) to build out more complex rules for collections and institutions that need them. I wish RDA had gone this way instead of trying to be all things to all constituents, because this would have been a more agile solution in the short term and more sustainable in the long term.
Open Repositories come of age
Open Repositories 2007 was an exciting conference. The OR community is vibrant, bold, and innovative. It was evident to me that DSpace, Fedora, and Eprints are maturing. These repository systems are enjoying wide adoption, rapid development, and are quickly increasing in the utility they bring to adopters. The OR program featured a rich spectrum of topics which were uniformly interesting. There was a spirit of cooperation and discovery among all participants and a genuine excitement about the future.
It was interesting to see FRBR in the context of a digital library (The Eprints Application Profile: a FRBR approach to modelling repository metadata, Julie Allinson, UKOLN). The FRBR discussions at ALA and other library conferences are very catalog-focused, and it would be nice to have more sharing across information communities. In some ways, it seems like digital libraries are better positioned to adopt the FRBR model because they are dealing with smaller collections and immature systems.
Institutional repositories: systems or services?
I'm not crazy about the "Web 2.0" moniker, but I think the user-oriented services that can now be applied to all kinds of different systems - library websites, OPACs, IRs - are the most exciting development out there right now. In terms of IRs, the technologies have existed for a while, but they have not allowed a lot of flexibility from the metadata and customization (library) side and are incredibly difficult for the end user to adopt. The next generation of these systems have a dramatically improved service layer that makes it possible for "regular" libraries (i.e. without a squad of programmers) and end users to make much richer use of the technology.
Top topics of the week:
- Web interfaces for repositories, especially Manakin (DSpace) and Fez (Fedora)
- Needs of librarians vs. needs of users in repositories (they are vastly different)
- Repository as system vs. repository as service (the second is more important)
- The direction of RDA and applying the FRBR model to repositories
- Metadata is important, but there is tension between simplicity and complexity. And who the heck is going to do it?
- The development of fully realized cyberinfrastructure, emphasizing preservation (iRODS)
- Incorporating intellectual property management into the repository workflow
- Storing data sets in repositories, and what to do with it after you have it