Author Topic: Introduction  (Read 154 times)

Will Peaden

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Introduction
« on: October 30, 2019, 12:24:49 pm »
This topic is dedicated to advocacy for our area of the profession. Cataloguing is typically at the bottom of the priorities for a library service, or it can certainly feel that way. There was a sense that cataloguing and metadata were ‘solved’ by outsourcing and shelf-ready records. Unfortunately, the work we do every day to our records largely goes unnoticed and unloved. How do we “sell” the work we do particularly around the legacy data that can make up large portions of our collection. This topic links to the others but rather than focusing on the detail it focuses on the large picture.

Some things we can consider:

  • What are the key drivers for making improvements to legacy metadata?
  • Are the key collections, topics or portions of the collection that could be targeted? And will this interest our senior managers?
  • Can legacy metadata make it as a strategic aim in larger library and university strategy?
  • How much does it cost? How do we make these projects cost-effective? Can collaboration help to elevate risk?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 12:34:13 pm by Will Peaden »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Will Peaden

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2019, 12:33:38 pm »
One of the drivers for setting up the MMG in the first place was to work on sharing best practices and getting an idea at the kinds of things we could share.

The scale of our legacy is one issue, larger institutions have larger legacies to manage. At Aston, it may be more manageable given the type of collection we have and the number of records. In other places, this is clearly not the case. I think Corrine has already pointed out that Leicester has 100 years' worth of legacy! However, if we can show that certain types of project work, and work at scale then maybe we can help each other to justify our projects to our managers.

I am fairly lucky in so far as my current manager recruited me to the post precisely to address the issues of 20+ years of neglect in metadata practice and so I can put my time and energy into projects. However, each time I do anything I do run through the time commitments and resources that will go into these projects and work through the logic of doing metadata enhancement. Saying that we need to conform our data to international standards e.g. NACO, SACO, RDA, MARC21 etc. are all good selling points.


RichB

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2019, 12:38:52 pm »
In relation to the first point - value for money. Resources that are undiscoverable aren't generating a return on the library's investment. It may be tricky to evidence this with statistics though.

Point two - making a collection live rather than just having a list. For example, this is an ongoing battle with our music collection. What's the point of having collections of songs if the contents aren't shown in the catalogue and we end up ordering ILLs for pieces we already have (multiple times) but didn't know about!   

Will Peaden

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2019, 12:52:07 pm »

Point two - making a collection live rather than just having a list. For example, this is an ongoing battle with our music collection. What's the point of having collections of songs if the contents aren't shown in the catalogue and we end up ordering ILLs for pieces we already have (multiple times) but didn't know about!   

That is a great point. It occurs to me is that ILLs will be improved both in terms of what we can lend out but also what we don't borrow. And I think that if you can show that you can improve a sample, cheapy and cost-effectively, that has a benefit like this it can be a springboard to doing other legacy work.

Nick Williams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2019, 01:16:38 pm »
For me at the moment a key driver for making improvements to legacy metadata is to be able to compare through JISC services such as NBK.

I would say key collections, topics or portions of the collection that could be targeted are any unique collections, i.e. stuff that isn’t generic and can’t be replaced / supplied by large vendors.

I think it’s doubtful that legacy metadata can make it as a strategic aim in larger library and university strategy unless you present projects to senior managers in terms of cost savings in the long run. My senior managers are much more interested in immediate matters such as Open Access and REF 2021 than they are in cataloguing issues.

Reclassifying bespoke classification schemes to standard ones and going shelf-ready might qualify with them however. We’ve got masses of print theses records from between 1930 – 2016 that could do with enhancement / upgrading but now that we have electronic only (born digital) theses it is harder to justify work on this older print stock.

Galen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2019, 01:56:35 pm »
The NBK has amongst it's aims the ability to provide institutions with full records where the institution's metadata is insufficient (perhaps for a fee?). This could be useful in determining areas where investment in metadata creation is worthwhile because truly unique collections will be exposed.