Justin: I'm Justin. I'm Skullcom Librarian. My pronouns are he and they. Sadie: I'm Sadie. I work IT at a public library, and my pronouns are they, them. Jay: And I'm Jay. I'm a cataloging librarian, and my pronouns are he, him. Justin: No guests, just the crew. I also didn't get any library news for this one, Justin: but what happened with the Proton guy? I didn't really understand it from the Justin: Mastodon DMs or whatever, the Mastodon posts.
Jay: Oh, just that he's like, J.D. Vance is good, actually, and the Republicans are Jay: better about lobbying against big tech TM than the Democrats. Justin: Sounds like Cope. Jay: Yeah. Justin: Sadie, you were muted. Sadie: Oh, yeah. So that was pretty much my understanding. It's just the shilling for J.D. Vance. Gross. Justin: Yeah. Jay: It's kind of what i was.
Justin: Worried about when you told me that proton has like the storage stuff and i Justin: was like but what if the proton people are like even worse weirdos. Jay: They do have like you can do like they have a crypto wallet yeah yeah but like Jay: all the privacy people weirdly are like into crypto because you can pay for Jay: vpns without leaving a paper trail or something i don't know like mulvad accepts Jay: bitcoin as a form of payment but.
Justin: There is a paper trail it's literally a distributed ledger it's everywhere. Jay: You can also literally mail them cash in an envelope which is like literally Jay: why mulvad like they're like the only like the the true heads know like if you Jay: really don't want to do anything you just mail five dollars in an envelope to Jay: mulvad for your account our. Justin: Sponsor this week is mulvad send them cash.
Jay: I weirdly used to see mulvad like bought Jay: ads for the for the tea like in Jay: the mbta stations there would be like change up Jay: your like your location tracking like Jay: get off at a different stop than you usually do mulvad Jay: like it was like weirdly like little privacy tips Jay: and then it'd be like mulvad vpn or like they have a new browser now that's Jay: basically tor and i think they do it with tor but instead of it being a tor
Jay: network it's a mulvad vpn like Like if you want the version of Tor that's a Jay: VPN instead of an Onion router, Amolvad made one. Jay: That's apparently pretty good. It's still based off of the same Mozilla Thunder backing. Justin: The Mozilla VPN thing or the Mozilla Tor? Jay: Browser. Justin: Yeah. Jay: Yeah, like Tor is based off of a Mozilla browser, right? Sadie: I think so. Jay: Yeah. Justin: Makes sense. Yeah, I've been thinking about switching up my browsers again.
Justin: Because I feel like Brave just doesn't do anything all that impressive. Jay: I just use Safari. It mainly, and this is going to sound so stupid, Jay: because on my computer I can do Apple Pay with it. Jay: And also, if I have to get a verification code sent to me via text, Jay: it will auto-load it into the field and mark the messages read like it does on my phone. Justin: That's good. Maybe I should use Safari on my phone more. With ecosystem.
Jay: I mean, on your phone, it'll do it no matter what you're in. Jay: But on your computer, like Safari, Jay: you have to be using Safari for that to work. But on your phone, yeah. Justin: Oh, is that Apple doing that? I thought that was Bitwarden and LastPass were doing that. Jay: No, that's Apple doing that. Justin: I only noticed it after I put LastPass on my phone. So maybe I also was around Justin: the same time I got an update.
Jay: Yeah. And it's not like the multi-factor Jay: authentication where it's an authenticator sending you a code. Jay: It's like if you get a code texted to you. Yeah. What Apple will do will be Jay: like, here's the code that just got texted to you, and then mark the message Jay: as read, so you don't have to go click the stupid message. Jay: I'm lazy, is the thing. Sadie: I think most people are.
Justin: Speaking of notifications, I got a notification that Guillermo del Toro was Justin: following us on Blue Sky, because I went through everyone Jay was following Justin: and just started following them, because I was kind of getting bored with my feed. Justin: So I was just like, all right, well, if Jay's already following the person, I'll just follow them. Justin: And I think Guillermo del Toro was on that list.
Justin: And I think I accidentally hit follow back when looking at his notifications Justin: and followed us for a second. Justin: Because as soon as I saw it, I was like, who called himself Guillermo del Toro? Justin: And then I clicked on it and I was like, there's no notification there. Justin: And I looked it up like, oh, it was him. Sadie: For a brief moment. Jay: Very funny. Sadie: It was glorious. Justin: That or he didn't like what he saw. The bear followed by a couple of like well-known
Justin: people. So we're followed by a lot of authors and stuff who I'm like, Justin: I don't know your books. I don't know who you are. Justin: I think because we have David and Chuck following us, a lot of authors are like, oh, okay. Jay: They're librarians. We like those. Sadie: Yeah. Jay: In theory. Sadie: They must talk about books. Justin: Yeah. Sadie: Sometimes. Justin: So what are we going to talk about today? Not books.
Jay: Yeah. We're going to talk about Bibframe, but actually we're going to talk about Jay: these three and there's probably going to be more. Jay: But so far, as of yet, there have been three non-scholarly articles titled Bib Jay: Frame Must Die by a cataloger, I believe you pinned. Jay: And yeah, I have read these. And then I've also in the Radcat listserv, Jay: which if you're a cataloging librarian and you're not on the Radcat listserv, Jay: you should get on the Radcat listserv.
Jay: It's where all of the people who aren't libs go to talk about cataloging stuff.
Jay: It's it's auto cap but good and yeah Jay: so then people have been talking about about these and Jay: i want to talk about them because like i agree Jay: with them but i also have some critiques tm of them and jeff edmonds uh if you're Jay: if you happen to listen to this ever thank you for writing these and getting Jay: people talking about this and i hope you take our criticisms in good faith the Jay: way we And if you're a cataloger out there,
Jay: shouts out, join the Discord, let us know what you think about these. Jay: Because I'm honestly curious what other cataloging librarians think of this. Jay: Yeah, because like, I will come right out the gate and say that I'm a bit of Jay: an RDA apologist. Gasp, I know. Jay: And these articles should be retitled, Why RDA Must Die, not Why BitBrain Must Die.
Jay: But I, yeah, so I'm a bit of an RDA apologist, but the reasons I like RDA are Jay: all to do with the original RDA Toolkit and not the official RDA Toolkit TM. Jay: Anyway, I lost my train of thought there. Okay. Jay: And I'm going out of order. So Justin, do you want to do this or you want me to do this? Justin: Yeah, we can start off with what is BibFrame? So we did an episode 135 about Justin: linked open data, and I think we talked about BibFrame in that.
Justin: But BibFrame is a linked data plan to be a replacement for Mark, Justin: but now it's discussed more as a successor to Mark because Mark is old and therefore bad. Justin: And you got to use three number digit fields like in the olden days of computers. Justin: And I mean Mark does have problems that are kind. Jay: Of like unsolvable.
Justin: Because it's so ubiquitous so it's like well what are you gonna do about it Justin: it's why a lot of legacy stuff lives on Fortran still because it's like well Justin: unless there's a Y2K about to happen we really don't have a reason to fix this Justin: or spend all the money to fix it.
Jay: Yeah and I will say that like link data in Jay: libraries is not a totally out there Jay: idea because like i remember when i was in grad school Jay: and just to let people know this was 2015 to Jay: 2017 that like the way Jay: that we were taught like linked data because i took an ontology development Jay: course like i made a linked data ontology in Jay: grad school i've been in the right and i Jay: also like took a metadata like in theory and praxis Jay: course praxis huh practice i just
Jay: got back from an organizing meeting so you know it's on my head right now and it Jay: was like you know in premise and all this they use Jay: like URIs right they're like linked data ontologies Jay: even if they're not right and I will say Jay: that like especially in Europe digital libraries so libraries Jay: have like scanned special collections and archives or like fine arts especially Jay: in Europe have been doing linked data for a long time like the Europeana which
Jay: is like their version of the DPLA has been like a linked data environment I Jay: don't think it was ever a bib frame but it was like using the concept of URIs Jay: and like semantic linking shit together.
Jay: And then when we learned about BibFrame, especially like I've Jay: been at conferences where there have been like BibFrame shills doing presentations Jay: and their main selling point was if you have a patron from your library who Jay: is searching for a book on Google in the little knowledge bar in this side. Jay: It will show up that your library has the book and they can get it. Jay: That basically using linked data is a way to expose your collections to search indexing.
Jay: And that was the main selling point of BibFrame when I was in grad school. Jay: People didn't give a shit about connecting shit. It was expose your collections Jay: to Google so that people can find them on Google. And that was like it. Jay: That was what people cared about. So I'm curious how you two heard about BibFrame Jay: or how it was like sold to you ever at any point.
Sadie: That's kind of pretty much the same thing that I always thought was that I was Sadie: just like, oh, it'll pull it out and put it in places people are already looking. Sadie: And like, I feel like that's the purpose of a lot of discovery layers these days. Jay: Discovery layers don't even really do that. They'll expose it to Google Scholar. Sadie: Huh. Jay: Well, but discovery layers mainly just bring in journal articles along with your books. Yeah.
Sadie: Well, yeah. And I think I've always kind of struggled to figure out what exactly Sadie: the purpose of BibFrame is. Sadie: I remember at one point in time trying to read about it, launching off of something Sadie: that I read on Tumblr and was like, I don't get this. Sadie: I don't think I can wrap my head around this. Sadie: Like some parts of it, the open link data, like the previous episode we had, Sadie: got that. But BibFrames in particular, I don't really understand.
Sadie: I'm going to be honest here. What's RDA? Jay: We will get into that. Sadie: Okay. Jay: Yeah. Yeah. Sadie: Because I don't remember what RDA is. Jay: Put a pin in it. Sadie: Justin. Jay: What's your BibFrame relationship? Justin: I don't know if we really ever talked about it in library school that much, Justin: except that Mark was old and BibFrame was supposed to be a replacement for it.
Justin: And BibFrame could link more things together because a Mark record is just a Justin: document and it has access points. Justin: So it acts like a physical document, whereas BibFrame could link things.
Justin: And really the way it was explained to us more was like the whole semantic web Justin: would be making the web understand human types, like what we talked about in the last episode, Justin: where the real thing was allowing computers to actually reason through things Justin: because you could form triples and you could make sentences and data would be linked together.
Justin: And like librarians and stuff would be the ones like cataloging books and publishers Justin: would catalog books this way. Justin: And that would link all of like publications together, which was always like, Justin: I always thought, well, that's a whole lot of labor. Justin: And I don't think librarians could do all of that, but it would be nice.
Justin: And I always thought, you know, kind of the brute force way that we do it now, Justin: which is like through full text searching and like algorithmic matching and Justin: just cramming more and more data in there was kind of like the stupid semantic web because like it. Justin: It doesn't really teach the connections between things. Jay: But I think it also is limited by just like, what do you do with a print collection?
Jay: If something's not scanned, then full text searching does shit for that, right? Jay: This is a preview into my main grievance with this whole conversation.
Justin: Yeah. But when I mentioned that in the last episode as well, Justin: it's kind of like, yeah, but this, Justin: type of linking through big data Justin: is just what's going to happen because it's Justin: actually cheaper and easier to do even if Justin: it's messier and creates like it's just Justin: good enough linking but kind of for most Justin: use cases you only need good enough so as we are learning with generative ai
Justin: it doesn't matter if it's accurate 90 of the time but if it's 80 of the time Justin: that's good enough for people to use it and say like oh well if it's only wrong Justin: one in five times who cares. Jay: And it. Justin: Turns out yeah people don't care yeah.
Jay: And so these articles some of Jay: their main arguments against bibframe are that Jay: like they argue that it's already outdated because bibframe was Jay: conceptualized before like algorithmic Jay: searching really came into fruition right Jay: like back when you could actually still use boolean on google you Jay: cannot use boolean on google anymore like you can still use some Jay: of the operators like the wild cards and shit but
Jay: you can't the google foo that we used to call it or whatever isn't really a Jay: much of a thing anymore but bitframe imagined that google would still sort of Jay: like yeah google was always an algorithm but not it not the natural language Jay: processing kind algorithm that it is now. Jay: And so Bitframe already didn't anticipate the way that people search for information, Jay: including in library catalogs, for the most part.
Jay: People don't use library catalogs the way we want them to. Jay: People will copy-paste citations, people will ask questions and type sentences. Jay: Yeah, like people don't search the way that we librarians envisioned that they Jay: would, no matter how much we try to teach them otherwise. Jay: And so, Sadie, you had a comment in the notes. Would you please explain your comment?
Sadie: I just, that one line made me laugh. It's seemingly enamored of the auricular Sadie: pronouncements of Tim Berners-Lee. Sadie: Proponents of bid frame have advanced an agenda divorced from reality. Sadie: Like, that's particularly cutting to me, it seems like. Sadie: Like, you dissed Tim Berners-Lee, you dissed everybody who believed in bid frame. Sadie: It's just an excellent sentence all around.
Jay: Now imagine the world if instead of Tim Berners-Lee being the guy who shaved Jay: linked data, it was our boy Ted Nelson. Jay: Imagine how good Bibframe could have been if it was inspired by our boy. Shout out to Ted. Jay: Yeah, because Tim Berners-Lee was all about, the way I've described it, Jay: is reconstructing a pre-Towerbabel divine language. Jay: Everything is these URIs that the computer understands. Jay: No matter what language, it's all just numbers. And I'm like,
Jay: no, that's not how this should be. Damn it. Jay: So yeah that's a cool idea yeah bit frame Jay: and also bit frame is of the link Jay: data forms i think it's rdf i believe is the format bit frame uses uh i think Jay: the name the edit of the editor that most that i think like loc uses is sinopia Jay: or something like that i don't fucking know you can do bit frame and mark edit Jay: too by the way fun fact and so use mark edit. Justin: Every day and notice. Jay: I haven't opened.
Justin: Mark at it in like a couple of years. Yeah. Jay: So yeah, that's BibFrame. I can go ahead and answer the question, Jay: what is RDA now as well, I think. Jay: So RDA stands for Resource Description and Access. Jay: And in cataloging, there are like standards and there are like schema and then Jay: there are vocabularies, right? Jay: Mark 21 is a schema. Jay: BibFrame is a schema. Dublin Core is a schema. Jay: This is the structure, the house that the metadata lives in, right?
Jay: And then standards are things like RDA or AACR2 or descriptive cataloging for Jay: rare materials or whatever it's called. Jay: How do you put things in the house? That's what the standards do. And RDA is Jay: replaced, kind of, again, kind Jay: of, AACR2, which stand for Anglo-American cataloging rules or whatever. Jay: I never learned AACR2 because RDA had already happened by the time I learned how to catalog.
Jay: However, most catalogs in this world are mixed between RDA and AACR2, Jay: and the Library of Congress has not officially adopted RDA yet.
Jay: So if you are in connection and you find a Jay: Library congress record it will not have the Jay: 040 subfield e rda the two Jay: six instead of a 264 for the publication info Jay: it will have the two the old school 260 etc they Jay: have not officially adopted rda and like back in the day you just like buy a Jay: fucking aacr2 book and be like here here's how you catalog your standards for Jay: cataloging and mark 21 have at you aacr2 was functional but also had some stupid
Jay: rules like abbreviating everything. Jay: Including making abbreviations into Latin and then people complain that RDA Jay: is too hard, but then they expect you to do all these Latin stupid abbreviations for AACR2. Jay: This is why I'm like, most of the people who are mad in this conversation are Jay: also wrong about other things, and I'm the only one who's right.
Jay: RDA is a genuine improvement in a lot of ways over AACR2 despite its very significant Jay: flaws because I agree with a lot of the criticisms of RDA, but I think people Jay: also aren't noticing where RDA is right sometimes. Jay: And so RDA comes along and it's like, hey, what if instead of just cataloging Jay: for mark, we instead created these rules of description that can be applied to all kinds of schema, Jay: like Dublin Core or whatever they use in Europe or whatever.
Jay: Here are like the ideas, like what's a title statement? Jay: What's an imprint statement? What's an addition statement? So instead of cataloging Jay: for mark tags, you get these chunks of information, right? Jay: And the chunks of information follow chunks of information about a work, Jay: chunks of information about an entity, chunks of information about a manifestation, Jay: and chunks of information about an item. Wimmy. Jay: Everyone can understand what the I means.
Jay: The item is this exact copy of The Philosophy of Social Ecology by Marie Bookchin Jay: that I just grabbed off my bed, right?
Jay: This is an item, right? the work is Jay: when you go to a catalog in a Jay: library and you search for the philosophy of Jay: social ecology you kind of don't care if it's this Jay: exact item you care about like the concept of this book that you think it right Jay: then there are entities and manifestations and i never really understood the Jay: difference between them except manifestation is like all of the the books that Jay: like are printed exactly like this,
Jay: like this edition and everything, Jay: but I have this item. Jay: But all of the ones that are just like this, like if I bought a second exact Jay: copy, those would be of the same manifestation, but they're two different items. Jay: Stupid bullshit like that. That's not really helpful. Jay: Movie's dumb. And that's not how people live. Jay: And notoriously, Wimmy is really bad for things like music. Jay: If you've got Le Nozze de Figaro, that is the work. But then manifestations
Jay: and bullshit include like a cast recording. It includes the score. Jay: It includes the libretto that doesn't have the score. Jay: It includes a videotape. It includes like all of that is technically the same Jay: work, La Nozze de Figaro. And so in Primo, I would always have music librarians Jay: yelling at me when I managed it, being like, why is it so bad with music? Jay: And I'm like, that's not my fault. And I can either turn it on or off.
Jay: Harvard turned theirs off because it's so bad with music. And that's the reason why, for example. Jay: But rda thinks in wimmy you have like recording bullshit about the work recording Jay: bullshit about the entity recording bullshit about the manifestation and recording Jay: bullshit about the item and that's like how you do rda right rda also thinks Jay: about like how things are connected to other resources right,
Jay: which now Mark does. There are fields in Mark that connect it to other resources Jay: that can hyperlink in catalogs because of RDA, I think. Jay: Does that answer your question as to what RDA is? The main problem with RDA Jay: is that it costs money as a subscription. Sadie: Who owns it? Who do you subscribe to? Who are you subscribing to? Jay: RDA. It's a company, like the RDA steering committee or something.
Jay: So it's, yeah, it's proprietary. And also I learned original RDA, Jay: which is pretty functional, I would argue, and maps very clearly to Mark. Jay: If you go on the RDA website now and look at their example records. Jay: They, these are pre-official RDA. Jay: These are original RDA. They haven't been updated since like 2016.
Jay: In 2017, so right when I'm finishing grad school, Jay: we start getting official rda original Jay: rda has not been updated since then Jay: is still available it is the one i have been Jay: instructed to use as a cataloger i didn't know official Jay: rda was a thing because i haven't done cataloging since my Jay: grad school or had access to rda toolkit right official Jay: rda is the most incomprehensible bullshit Jay: i have ever seen in my life
Jay: because it's so hyper focused on the linked data aspect now Jay: instead of just like a different way of thinking about describing Jay: resources right because like the thing i like about rda Jay: is like the resource explains itself right Jay: you don't do abbreviations and bullshit you don't abbreviate the title you transcribe Jay: exactly as the resource is listed on the resource there's a typo in that fucking
Jay: title you type that typo and then you provide an alternate title but like the Jay: point stands you transcribe the the the resource describes itself. Jay: Whereas at ACR2, you abbreviate and put dot, dot, dots and all sorts of stupid shit. I like that. Jay: Official RDA, I can't even figure out how to use the website. Jay: I don't know where I'm supposed to start. Jay: I have tried. I'm like, what is going on here?
Jay: So that's bad. So official RDA, I think, is what these three articles is really mad about. Jay: Sorry to derail us, but yeah. Sadie: So it's not even BibFrame, really? Jay: No, because no one fucking uses BibFrame except for Library of Congress in Europe. Jay: Probably University of Washington or some stupid shit.
Jay: Like because like in primo for example Jay: in alma primo they can like crosswalk mark Jay: to bib frame for you right so like or Jay: like people are doing mark xml instead of just Jay: mark right they're doing xml records fancy mark Jay: xml is really complicated and stupid no one Jay: actually uses it but you know uses bib frame Jay: it's stupid no one likes it it's hard i Jay: think it's like europe and library of congress uses bib frame Jay: t b fucking h but everyone's got
Jay: their panties in a twist about rda and have since Jay: i've been in cataloging like since i was in Jay: grad school like and i always and like Jay: no one ever argued for like oh a cr2 was better for patrons they just complained Jay: about how they didn't like it it was hard for them to understand because there's Jay: some like rda is more theoretical right There's some like theory that you need Jay: to understand kind of for RDA to make sense.
Jay: And I was in grad school and so I was taught it. And so I was like, Jay: okay, this makes sense to me. Jay: And this is the weird kind of conceptual bullshit I like. Cool, I'm on board with this. Jay: But like, you know, no one pays for professional continuing development, right? Jay: No one pays for that shit, which is an argument I'll get into later. Jay: Anyway, I see the user tasks thing, which honestly, I learned about Ferber in Jay: grad school, and I don't remember any of it.
Jay: I was like, Ferber, yeah, whatever, fucking with me. I don't remember what any Jay: of this user tasks IFLA bullshit is. Jay: So, Justin, do you want to illuminate for us? Justin: Yeah, well, Ferber is the entity relationship model. Jay: Right. Okay, yes, which I kind of agree with. Justin: So a user tasks of retrieval and access in online library catalogs and databases Justin: from a user's perspective.
Justin: And it's separate from cataloging standards. It's a model that explains work Justin: expression manifestation item, which is WEMI. Justin: So it explains how work is a work or item is an exemplar of a manifestation, Justin: which is an embodiment of an expression, which is a realization of a work. Jay: Which is very Buddhist, I have to say. This is like Vajrayana emanations out Jay: of the ground of being bullshit. Jay: Like the Dalai Lama is an item.
Justin: So a work is like a work. An expression might be additions or drafts. Justin: And a manifestation would be the physical embodiment. Justin: And then an item is a singular manifestation. Justin: So one particular book. So copy one, copy two, copy three in your library. Jay: Yeah. Justin: So like the item record, basically. And who owns... Justin: Official RDA toolkit is owned by ALA, CLA, and CILIP. Jay: That's right.
Justin: I don't know what's, I don't remember what KILIP, I don't, Chartered Institute Justin: of Library and Information Professionals, but I don't know. Jay: That's the UK. Justin: Okay. So I guess the three of them own it together. Jay: Yeah. Justin: And then Bibframe is Library of Congress, Stanford, UPenn, and U of Alberta Justin: have adopted, or have been pushing Bibframe and are involved in it. Jay: That's like it.
Justin: Basically so the argument in Justin: the bit premise die papers is that Justin: the works expressions manifestation items is Justin: kind of absurd probably always was yeah users have record-based thinking and Justin: which is like they think in a mark-like way so they think kind of like a card Justin: catalog which is they want a record with a single resource and bib frame turns Justin: it into a cloud of entities and relationships between them.
Jay: Right, which is why it's so annoying for music. Justin: Right. So people don't really think about it that way. They think more like, Justin: okay, this item, this record represents this item, and here's the information Justin: about that item, and it's all one thing. Justin: So most users don't have a need for those conceptual manifestations.
Justin: Kind of the only reason that I ever understood was the purpose of it was to Justin: say like, well, this particular item is in this library and this item's in another one. Justin: And if you wanted to know like where every single version of this edition of Justin: Hamlet was, then you could find all the connected libraries that have this exact edition. Justin: And you could find every single one that has how many copies of it.
Justin: But like who, who needs that information? You just need to know what's at your library.
Jay: Whereas like, I would argue that like one of Jay: the use cases for this that would make sense weirdly is Jay: where holds are concerned so Jay: like this just came up at my library like last week Jay: where there was some hot new book that won Jay: a stupid award or something and we had to Jay: buy a bunch of copies of it from a local bookstore because it was so popular Jay: that it was on back order through our suppliers right and they gave us a paperback
Jay: instead of a hardcover and we had already hardcovers of it and the paperback Jay: sometimes you'll see in OCLC, Jay: a record, as long as it's the same page numbers. Jay: And as long as it's not different editions will include the hardcover and the Jay: paperback as one record and we'll just list both ISBNs with this is the hardback Jay: ISBN, this is the paperback ISBN, right?
Jay: If they're not different editions they can share the same thing as long as the Jay: pagination is not wildly different, which it shouldn't be Jay: This one said in it both first paperback edition and first hardcover edition. Jay: It had both edition statements in the thing. Jay: And we had found that another library had made a record for this paperback one. Jay: And we were like, if we did that, if we used that record and brought it in, Jay: this would not help our holds situation.
Jay: Because we couldn't then use these to fulfill the holds. Jay: On the other one and there's a lot of fucking holds Jay: on that other one and we bought a lot of these Jay: so we're like you know what it's the same page like Jay: fuck it we're just putting it on our hardcover one because we can't differentiate Jay: between paperback and hardcover to fulfill holds right like unless someone like Jay: has a fucking reason but for this it's like we don't give them make that choice.
Jay: So if they were actually separate editions and separate records and everything, Jay: then we couldn't do that. Jay: But yeah, holds are like ILL. I feel like this is where this makes sense. Jay: Sadie, were you going to say something? Sadie: Yeah, I was going to ask, how do you treat large print editions different from that? Sadie: Because that is one use case that I see people being like no i want this very specific like well. Jay: That's a separate edition.
Sadie: It's just considered a separate edition okay i think Sadie: so yeah i've seen very similar things happen Sadie: in like that's a pretty i think perennial public Sadie: library deal is like which ones are Sadie: going to satisfy which holds so people don't get pissed off Sadie: or when is it the last copy of something when you Sadie: actually have like five hardbacks still left but you're out of paperbacks Sadie: like so is it the last copy or is it the not last
Sadie: copy kind of kind of thing so but there Sadie: are people who are like no i want the heart back and Sadie: we say we don't care yeah and and you kind Sadie: of have to just make yeah the judgment call on that like oops sorry Sadie: you get what you get when it's super popular when it calms down you can probably Sadie: have a better chance at what the exact physical manifestation you want but yeah Sadie: no i just large print is one of those things that come also comes up in discussions
Sadie: like this so but yeah it's a separate edition makes sense. Jay: But would academic librarians have thought of that? Sadie: No, that's the other thing. Yeah. Jay: And that is my main criticism with these pieces, is they are so firmly rooted Jay: in academic library thinking, of which I used to be guilty because I did not Jay: yet work in public libraries. Jay: But now that I have been on the other, I have crossed the Rubicon or whatever the fuck.
Jay: I've noticed some shit now. I'm like, oh, like these people don't think about anything. Jay: And to be fair, not a lot of public libraries do their own cataloging anymore. Jay: They either buy them from Ingram or Baker and Taylor already cataloged or there's Jay: consortium like cataloging consortiums that'll do it. Jay: But if you do have catalogers at your library, like still like this is a use case.
Jay: And like, I feel like this entire discussion has been dominated by academic librarians. Jay: And that's that's one such instance where I'm like, ha ha, then more will come Jay: up. Not least the fact, and I will reveal my big trump card at the end, Jay: that I put at the end of the notes.
Jay: But, yeah. the next thing bullet Jay: point though is the labor costs which i think is Jay: the real actual issue here in that Jay: like i mean to quote like the Jay: guiding principle or whatever that justin brought out i'm Jay: making things easier for computers at the expense of people but that's not really Jay: a labor cost thing that's just we're changing the way that we frame what this Jay: is actually for the real labor cost is like the IMLS grants or whatever for
Jay: implementing RDA aren't existing anymore. Jay: RDA costs money to subscribe to, and not every library can afford that. And also... Jay: This is, I think, is the other actual, actual, actual problem, Jay: is we don't pay for professional development and continuing education. Jay: And catalogers don't leave their fucking jobs ever.
Jay: And so the only people who are learning RDA are library school students who Jay: then can't get jobs in cataloging if they don't already have experience in cataloging. Jay: And then how do they get experience in cataloging? Jay: But there just aren't jobs doing cataloging.
Jay: And if there are, they don't pay shit or they expect you to know their specific Jay: ILS or to know how to already do all of this shit because they will not pay Jay: to teach it to you or to train you or anything like that. Jay: And I think that's the real labor cost here is we aren't training people who Jay: are already in jobs how to learn this stuff. Jay: Because shit does evolve. Shit does change. Jay: And I think sometimes people are just being sticks in the fucking mud.
Jay: But part of that is that they're not being taught and paid to learn how this Jay: works or to be part of changing it. Jay: And I think that's one of the actual labor costs here. like just teach people Jay: OG RDA and then also make it free or like a book you can buy which I think it Jay: can be a book you could buy but still by. Justin: Itself wouldn't get people into using BibFrame because the labor. Jay: Costs yeah.
Justin: Getting over to BibFrame has dubious benefits and it requires recataloging pretty much everything. Justin: And there's already so much cataloging work that needs to be done to make things discoverable.
Justin: So yeah, the thing I always bring up is Justin: It's a paper, it's called More Product, Less Process, and it's about the fact Justin: that people are over-describing things in special collections, Justin: and then most special collections still have items that never get cataloged Justin: at all, so no one knows that they exist.
Justin: So it's better to just have a minimalist catalog record or a minimalist finding Justin: aid rather than nothing, because if it's nothing, no one knows that it exists, Justin: probably not even the librarians. Justin: So, I mean, I remember one time we were looking for something and it was at Justin: the bottom of like a pile on a bookshelf that had like just a ton of like postcards Justin: and newspapers on top of it.
Justin: And it was like really important donor material that we couldn't find. Justin: And my supervisor was the kind of guy who just like piles stuff on his desk like a mile high. Justin: So it ended up on the bottom of one of his piles.
Jay: Yeah, like one of the core texts, my sort of shaping ethos as a cataloger is Jay: called Making Keywords Work, Jay: which makes the argument that like really rich catalog records are good or know Jay: that subject headings are still valuable in a keyword searching environment Jay: because we don't make artisanal records.
Jay: The main thing that keyword searches are pulling from Jay: are just subject headings still and so Jay: doing subject authority work is still important Jay: for that reason you have to make the keywords work not that you have to make Jay: artisanal records but if a keyword search is going to work and you don't have Jay: all this full text to be pulling from it has to pull from somewhere so like Jay: thinking about your access points is what's actually important for.
Justin: Discovery or just relying on Justin: a shared vocabulary so like the paper Justin: i wrote about keywords and archaeoornithology paper with Justin: a with a biology professor it was because basically Justin: this subgroup of scientists needed to Justin: come to an agreement on what they were calling things and Justin: they needed their own vocabulary and to start tagging their Justin: papers with it so they could find each other's work and Justin: stick to it so they needed they needed a
Justin: common vocabulary and they needed to implement it in Justin: the keywords for their papers when they submitted authors supplied keywords Justin: yeah so yeah that was another reason why i had to accept that linked up with Justin: data is not a good idea because unless we had state-sponsored jobs to clean Justin: metadata around the world all day which would be good it would be a good make Justin: work job if we needed full employment,
Justin: but there's probably other things we could ask people to do like rake forest debris and Justin: do others you know wpa kind of jobs rather than. Jay: Converting the world. Justin: To bib frame. Jay: Yeah i mean and that's and again like this is bib frame must die but actually Jay: it's argument against rda.
Jay: In a listserv i'm in and i won't Jay: say who's had a one of the arguments against rda that Jay: this person who i think is correct in all Jay: things said that like one Jay: of the main problems with rda or that there's the Jay: main problem with rda again is that it like costs money and so Jay: this is a class issue like again not all Jay: libraries can afford it but also because then Jay: not all libraries can afford to use it it causes Jay: disparities amongst records so not
Jay: all libraries are cataloging to the same standard and Jay: this is ignoring the fact that like rare books has its Jay: own bullshit standards that it follows right like Jay: you'll see like dcrm or dcrb Jay: whatever like records in worldcat basically but Jay: that like my catalog has a acr2 and Jay: rda in it and we have been instructed like for time's sake not to correct a Jay: acr2 records to be rda compliant unless we're already doing a lot of work to
Jay: the record like if we're already there okay make the changes but if not just Jay: like fucking leave it because it still works. Jay: But because between ACR2 and RDA, Jay: there are some differences in how you approach describing things, Jay: this then causes inconsistencies and disparities between places, Jay: including indexing issues. Jay: If you correct a record in WorldCat.
Jay: To be RDA compliant, and this changes the title, then that causes a discrepancy Jay: between that record and then every library who uses that record, right? Jay: Which could be an API issue. It could be like there's all sorts of issues that Jay: this could cause or upstream if it gets pushed to them and stuff, right? Jay: So that was one of the main arguments with RDA is that it causes messy metadata Jay: because not everyone can afford or understand of.
Jay: Including Library of Congress. They don't even officially, they haven't officially adopted RDA. Jay: They still see those 260s everywhere and they piss me off. I'm like, So. Justin: One of the points this article makes is that discovery layers already do a lot Justin: of what we would want BibFrame to do, which is to pull in data that is out in Justin: the open web, I guess, or in other places.
Justin: The point that he makes is that mark data is far less important than full text Justin: and other sources of indexable data. Justin: 80% of all records displayed in search results come from non-Mark records, Justin: even though non-Mark records are only 60% of the database. Justin: And I grabbed that study and I threw that in the notes, but I didn't have time to read it. Jay: And I would say that's an academic library.
Justin: Discovery writ large happens elsewhere, either in discovery layers or in Google or on the open web. Justin: And also I would say a lot of people either, especially in academic libraries Justin: that use IP authentication, never even really go through the library because Justin: they're already IP authenticated on campus or on the VPN.
Justin: So a lot of people don't really know how to use our discovery layer when they're Justin: off campus to get access to things or just the way that Justin: primo is supposed to work is it like tracks your cookies Justin: or something and keeps you logged in i don't really understand Justin: it but it's supposed to keep your browser logged in yeah supposed Justin: to keep your browser logged in so that you don't have to keep logging
Justin: in so you don't even notice when you're using your library subscription Justin: sometimes and also the same thing where google scholar will say your library Justin: has this because you set it to your library and then it'll take you straight Justin: to your library's copy of that article and authenticate you in which is you Justin: know a problem i always had when I was working my first job because all of our
Justin: students were off-campus commuters and did a lot of their work off-campus. Justin: And so I always had to make sure that the proxy was in the URLs that we shared Justin: out because that's what forces them to log in when they're off-campus.
Justin: And so I also had to start teaching people that again in 2020 when people were Justin: off-campus for the first time and saying, Justin: okay, you really need to click the share button because that's going to inject Justin: our proxy into the link before you share it out to your students because they're Justin: going to ask you, why can't I read this?
Justin: So when you're sharing something from the library, get the share button because Justin: that's going to throw the little special URL that's going to tell it you need to log in. Jay: You should be doing that anyway because not all library authentication is IP-based. Justin: Yeah, I know you should, but I'm just saying use your behavior. Jay: Yeah. Justin: We also have LibKey, which is, I don't know how many people use it, Justin: but it works really well.
Justin: And of course on Paywall, If you're logged in, it will shine green when you Justin: have access to it. So it'll take you straight to the PDF with one click. Justin: So even if you do work at an academic library and have access and don't need Justin: them paywall that much, it still is the easiest way to get a one click PDF because Justin: it'll just show up as green. Justin: And you can just click and go straight to the PDF. So you don't have to click around five times.
Jay: Yeah. Yeah, which like, again, my main argument, my main arguments here are Jay: that that's still so academic focused because the majority, because even the Jay: public library where I work uses a discovery layer. Jay: It's a public library discovery layer called BiblioCommons. Jay: And there are other public libraries that use it and it will bring in Hoopla Jay: stuff and Libby stuff and other. Jay: I don't think we have it set up so that articles show up in it.
Jay: But it also is like what our website backend is. Jay: So like reading lists will show up in your search results, for example. Jay: But that discovery layer is powered by the fact that like all of our like Hoopla Jay: stuff is also Mark records in our ILS, right? Jay: So all of our discovery layer is Mark results.
Jay: Unlike in academic libraries where Jay: it's all just database results book Jay: reviews public libraries even if yeah in public libraries even Jay: if even if they have like ebooks Jay: and stuff like a lot of it is still Jay: going to be physical materials or and Jay: or mark even in a discovery layer environment so Jay: i don't and also with discovery layers like bringing stuff from outside the Jay: web someone has to set that up it's not going to bring in google search results
Jay: and it's also not going to expose your stuff elsewhere stuff has to have an Jay: oai feed or be part of some community. Jay: Content zone or whatever that you have to turn on it's a pain in the fucking Jay: ass to Because I've had to do it in two separate discovery layers to set up Jay: all of the external shit. And it's a pain in the ass. Jay: Proprietary ones don't play nice. Primo doesn't play well with EBSCO and vice Jay: versa. EBSCO doesn't play well with ProQuest.
Jay: WMS, in theory, plays nice with all of them because it is provider neutral in Jay: theory. But it doesn't have all the databases in there. Jay: So I don't even I don't think discovery layers and bib and bib frame like I Jay: don't even think that's a correct comparison to be making. Jay: To be honest, like I don't discovery layers aren't about connection.
Jay: Discovery layers are about just putting everything in one place, Jay: but not about this sort of like linked environment where things connect to other Jay: things. And like, yeah, I don't know. Jay: So I just like don't even agree with bringing that argument fundamentally. Jay: Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Jay: Are we looking through the rest of the bullet notes? Justin: Another thing the articles bring up is the duopoly problem.
Justin: So the creation and maintenance of descriptive and authorities metadata in such Justin: an environment, a duopoly, is more challenging than it was. Justin: Ownership and control of collections have been shifted from libraries in the Justin: print age to multinational corporations. Justin: Does it make sense to overhaul the practice of cataloging in such a way that Justin: only minimally affects the system?
Justin: And he's talking particularly about big e-book collections in which collections Justin: shift in and out of your discovery layer and your collections that you own because Justin: they are big packages of e-books. Justin: So I go to buy e-books sometimes and we already have the book, Justin: even if it just came out this year.
Justin: So when I'm selecting for the sciences, it's actually very hard for me to spend Justin: my money because we usually have books pretty much automatically from the point Justin: in which they're published because we get them in big databases. Justin: So I have to go looking for books about teaching science or critiques of the Justin: field and stuff that isn't pushed out by Rutledge or Elsevier or any of the Justin: main publishers that we get big bundles from. Justin: So part of it is...
Justin: And it's, I guess, the idea of having, I didn't copy these notes over very well, Justin: but it was, it's going to be very difficult to convince these companies to switch Justin: over to a linked data model, which benefits everyone minimally. Justin: And Jay has a note that this is public focused, public libraries still buy a ton of materials. Justin: In the paper, he talks about how everything is basically just a strip mall, Justin: like everyone's got the same books.
Justin: Collections aren't unique. Jay: I still disagree with that. Justin: Yeah, there's a particular part about special collections, which are physical Justin: assets that are genuinely unique. Justin: And it's also the ones that BibFrame are least suited to describe because it Justin: was conceived to serve an interconnected online world rather than an analog Justin: one. So the data is too homogenous.
Jay: I still disagree with that, though. Academic libraries might all have the same Jay: collections because they all subscribe to the same databases, Jay: but even that's not true because some universities can't afford to subscribe Jay: to all of the databases, and some might just have only JSTOR or might just have this other thing. Jay: So like with books, maybe that makes sense for academic libraries.
Jay: A lot of them do have exactly the same thing. Public libraries, Jay: even if there's a lot of overlap, they're still, at least for physical materials, Jay: like largely curated. There are still collection development librarians. Jay: And when I was at the Gerber Hart, for example, all of those were donation-based, Jay: and that included a lot of self-published authors, which academic or public Jay: libraries will collect a lot of self-published stuff, actually.
Jay: And, you know, those get catalog records or like independent publishers. Jay: So like, I also just disagree with, I think this argument is still so academic Jay: focused, like the homogeneity of connection. Jay: Like it's, then what's the point of WorldCat if not to see how collections differ Jay: between libraries if we all have the same thing? Like, you know, Jay: like, I don't know, like, I didn't understand this argument.
Jay: And also, a special collection, there are things in my library, Jay: which probably should be in special collections, but which aren't, Jay: because a curator hasn't gone that special and put it in the special collection. Jay: But they're very rare, quote unquote, materials that aren't in special collections. Jay: So don't get cataloged as such. Jay: Special collections is a marketing term. Jay: Public libraries, and not even just mine, public libraries have like community materials, right?
Jay: They could be the only library in the world that has that thing. Jay: Special collections is a marketing term. is a self-published Jay: romance novel that a patron printed out Jay: like got published and now their public library has it Jay: and maybe that's the only library is that not a rare book like Jay: and that's cataloged according to rda and not whatever Jay: rare book thing that rare book Jay: catalogers use where they over explain the shit out of Jay: everything like i i just
Jay: i don't like this argument and i think it's very got blinders on to the realities Jay: of how things get described and why things might be in special collections versus Jay: not also our special collections we have shit that other libraries have not Jay: everything in a special collections is unique yeah. Justin: Well i think the whole point is he's talking about distinct collections of the physical ones and so.
Jay: Not even with special collections, Jay: like yeah a lot of libraries have like Jay: overlap but that doesn't mean every single Jay: library if every library had all the same exact shit we Jay: wouldn't need interlibrary loan even among Jay: academic libraries you know if it was just special Jay: collections that was the unique thing which doesn't get interlibrary Jay: loan you know i just like didn't understand this Jay: argument and i just thought it was like to
Jay: me this gets as like theory brained as Jay: this art this article is trying to argue against it's Jay: like oh rda was is conceptually about Jay: linking digital materials and unique Jay: whatever but we're all too fucking homogenous now Jay: and the only distinct things are physical i was like shut up like this doesn't Jay: this isn't making your point about why bib frame is bad this is a like i don't Jay: know a like a retention policy problem this is a collection development argument.
Jay: This is a like, let us own things or curate our own ebooks and articles argument. Jay: Like this is unrelated to a metadata standard, I think. Justin: Yeah, I think the second article has a hard time connecting it back to BibFrame. Justin: I think it's focused on why RDA data doesn't work with all of the proprietary Justin: data that we get from our ebook collections. I think that's the connection there.
Jay: Which like with rda like if you look at an aacr2 mark record and an rda mark Jay: record do you want to know what the difference is the main big difference it's Jay: the 260 field it's the main one i swear to god that's the main thing for publishing information. Jay: Aacr2 is a 260 and lumps it all together into one thing including copyright Jay: info and the 264 has all these stupid fucking second indicators that indicate
Jay: whether it's publication or manufacture or copyright or I forget the fourth one. I don't care. Jay: Because you only ever use one of four unless you're a nerd. Jay: Four is just for copyright. That's literally all it's for. Jay: And that's like the main difference. That and the abbreviations.
Jay: And like the article makes this point that most libraries who say they are doing RDA, Jay: what that means is that they have put the 336, 7, and 8 in their records, Jay: which is like automatic and OCLC now. Jay: And like also that they do a 264 field instead of a 260 field. Jay: That's like it. That is the big difference between RDA and ACR2.
Jay: Or you put like a subfield E author Jay: in your 100 field and a subfield e editor in Jay: your 700 field or whatever like you say how Jay: the person like what relationship the person has to Jay: the thing being described did this person write it did Jay: they illustrate it i think that's nice i like Jay: that i think we should keep that that's good actually that's so fucking i'm Jay: so annoyed at people who get mad at this even though i agree with them but they're
Jay: they're fucking stupid nerds there's no difference it's all mixed in.
Jay: It's all mixed together this no Jay: literally this was going to be one of the points and one day maybe Jay: i'll write this the erotics of metadata article i want to Jay: write we're talking about the main reason why i don't like doubling cores because Jay: i think it's boring and doesn't look good even though i actually Jay: also have structural issues with it i just i don't Jay: like that it doesn't nest and i like nested xml Jay: records and like aesthetically i
Jay: don't like dublin core but i made the argument about like Jay: the pleasure of cataloging and that most people Jay: their their their gripe with rda is an aesthetic one Jay: because they don't like it because it's not fun for them Jay: or they don't understand it or it makes them feel stupid like outside Jay: of the labor thing and the money thing most catalogers probably Jay: aren't thinking of that most are just like i don't understand what Jay: a gnomon is or i don't understand what like
Jay: an entity is like i don't know what all Jay: the theory is and like why would they right and Jay: especially in official the official rda is just like incomprehensible it's stupid Jay: it's it's dumb it's bad but that like when i tried looking up like actual tests Jay: of like rda versus acr2 for like user studies there weren't any right which Jay: should tell you something. Jay: But like, also these people weren't like making that argument.
Jay: They weren't thinking about like, well, is this better for the way that patrons Jay: search or not? It was just, I don't like it. Jay: I think this is bad. Which like, there is something to be said for authority, right? And expertise. Jay: But like, I was like, the main reason people don't like RDA is because it's Jay: not fun for them personally.
Jay: If you just like take your blinders off and you go, what Jay: if I just changes to 62 to 264 and then Jay: change the second indicator congratulations it's rda Jay: now basically i know that's grossly oversimplifying it Jay: but that is in most libraries that is the way that people interact with rda Jay: is a 260 versus a 264 and then some like relationship designators i'm not even Jay: making this up damn it i kind of love.
Sadie: That you're on the public side of the public library side of things now, Jay. Jay: I'm so spicy now. I'm like these fucking bourgeois. Justin: You're that guy in... Justin: In Party Girl. Jay: Oh, God, I am. Justin: When they're sitting there talking about, do you go public or academic? Jay: Howard doesn't approve of academia. He thinks it's for wimps. It is. Yeah. Jay: No, I was talking with my roommate about that because he loves that movie.
Jay: And he showed it to one of his boyfriends. Jay: And I was like, oh, yeah, the part where they're at the table, Jay: like, bitching about public libraries versus academic libraries. Jay: And I'm like, I understand the public people now. Jay: Like, they're right.
Jay: Academic librarians are up their own asses i Jay: i i was part of the problem but i Jay: mean it is true that most of the original cataloging at Jay: scale that gets done is academic libraries especially at like you know fucking Jay: princeton or yale or upenn or university of washington like even outside of Jay: special collections like that's where you're gonna get a lot of like really artisanal it, but, Jay: and not every public, again, some public libraries don't even have cataloguers.
Jay: It's done at a consortial level, or they just buy everything pre-catalogued. Jay: Like, it's true that, you know, most of the cataloging labor that happens in Jay: this country is probably happening at academic libraries, at least for people Jay: who might be doing like original cataloging, right? Jay: Or like more advanced copy cataloging. Jay: That's going to be happening in academic libraries. Jay: But, still, people use libraries at public libraries, damn it.
Jay: Me and Sadie are going to take over the podcast from you, Justin. Justin: Well, it's, I mean, when I worked at my first university, we had no physical Justin: acquisitions because we didn't have any money for them, so... Justin: The library was so starved that it was really just evidence-based acquisitions, Justin: and it was all just knowledge-based data that flowed in and flowed out.
Justin: So, you know, I would talk to people at bigger universities and say, Justin: like, you know, you could run a library without catalogers because you just Justin: run it on a shoestring and everything just comes to you from the vendors. Justin: And they, like, didn't believe me. And I was like, I don't know. Justin: And then I know a lot of big universities that, like, don't have catalogers.
Justin: And so it's like a you know it was Justin: i was trying to explain like the precarity of their position but Justin: they just got mad at me like i was saying their job didn't matter i Justin: was like no it does it's just that like you like you Justin: can get by without it if you are like small enough Justin: if you're big you have to have a cataloger but if Justin: you're like a small community college like they might Justin: not have one and i i don't know i
Justin: think that was kind of the point they was making in the second article about Justin: we don't own our data and so like why make it Justin: linked open data because i think he was saying like why Justin: why fix mark because like why do Justin: we need our data to be linked and open in this ecosystem where it's dominated Justin: by two companies so i think that was the connection he was trying to make because
Justin: i wanted to like get that point out because i didn't want to like be unfair Justin: to this article it was just i was trying to like i think it's not quite clear Justin: what the connection is in that one i think that one's kind of the weaker part Justin: of his argument where it just kind of right. Jay: And I agree with that point, like, especially like, again, I think the argument Jay: is beyond, it's not a bib frame.
Jay: It's like the problem isn't necessarily bib frame. The problem isn't, Jay: oh, because some of the problem is RDA. Jay: But the problem is more so like, because like, I feel like, you know, Jay: bib frame isn't like there are other link data on there are other like link Jay: data ontologies like used in libraries or like schemas. and stuff like Jay: It's not like completely unheard of. Jay: It's just that most of it's not describing stuff you would use Mark records
Jay: for. Most of it is in digital library spaces. Jay: Again, so like digitized special collections and digitized archives, Jay: but not like Tom Clancy novels. Jay: Bibframe is for Tom Clancy novels, you know, like Bibframe is meant to replace Mark. Jay: Bibframe is meant to replace cataloging and not metadata.
Jay: That distinction, kind of. and then they make Jay: everything bib frame but yeah like i agree with Jay: like i think bib frame is a i used to be like rooting and tooting for bib frame Jay: i was like yeah this sounds like cool this sounds like a cool idea this sounds Jay: good like sure why not fuck it let's go i was for it but like it was being developed Jay: by like lc or something and then got it's like a private company now or something.
Jay: And so just like the development of it got put Jay: into private hands i think or corporate hands or Jay: something and i just think it's a failed project that Jay: took too long and didn't evolve at Jay: the speed of information retrieval because again Jay: like i said in europe they were using linked data for fucking ever i mean it Jay: was fine like that's what i was always taught like european digital libraries
Jay: were ahead of the game in a way that we just never did over here like i don't Jay: i think what the actual problems are in this article in these articles if we can like summarize them, Jay: is like the cost, which is around like the cost of like RDA. Jay: Like if we're going to use RDA, it should not be a closed standard. Jay: It should not be a proprietary standard. Jay: It should be open so that all of the libraries can use it. And it shouldn't be incomprehensible.
Jay: It's incomprehensible right now. It's pretty fucking dumb. Justin: And there is the open rules for cataloging out there. People have tried to make.
Jay: Yes, but I feel like it's Jay: going to be hard for a library to make an Jay: argument to actually use it like we would Jay: we would need to like all as a profession be like reusing this now is how do Jay: you code for it right unless it's basically replicating rda and then i feel Jay: like the other problem is like bib frame and And RDA and like all of these standards, Jay: not just that they left out public librarians and stuff like in their conception,
Jay: but they just like left out most librarians when they were being developed.
Jay: Like like input from them and everything like Jay: the majority of the profession was not part Jay: of creating these standards or Jay: saying we're going with this now and so like of course like it's not going to Jay: be in touch with the way that people actually search because people who work Jay: with patrons didn't develop it you know like that that's why it's so theory Jay: and conceptual without being tied to anything.
Jay: It's not grounded at all. To me, it feels like when people, like, Jay: you have to add a fancy computer thing in order for people to care about it anymore. Jay: We saw this with the digital humanities, which I like, but still. Jay: And then now we're seeing it with AI, you have to add in the new computer shiny Jay: to get money. I feel like that's what just this whole endeavor was.
Jay: I feel like these things, like BibFrame and RDA and all this, Jay: they aren't necessarily the problem, their symptoms of a problem. Jay: I feel like these articles are trying to get at. But like I make in my fucking Jay: notes, why aren't we also mad at OCLC? Jay: I know some of us are, but they're also gatekeeping. Jay: You got to pay them to use their MARC records, right? You got to pay them to be in WorldCat.
Jay: That gate keeps like 90% of interlibrary loan, no matter which sort of method Jay: of interlibrary loan you're doing. Jay: If you're not a fucking OCLC member, they're too fucking bad, I guess.
Jay: Like at least you can access like mark and then Jay: the oclc sort of explanation of mark Jay: like for free and i actually think their explanation is better Jay: than library of congress's like i prefer the oclc bib formats Jay: website over the mark 21 website tbh Jay: but like you still gotta pay oclc if Jay: you want because like there are web browser extensions Jay: for like amazon and shit or even Jay: like what do you think google or whatever or
Jay: any of these things is pulling from for the little widgets that Jay: are like oh you're trying to buy this book on amazon but like your library Jay: has it or if you're in goodreads it's like find this in Jay: the library or like any of that shit it's just like worldcat Jay: data that's all that is that's just searching worldcat Jay: that's what that's all we want for bibframe is just to replicate what worldcat
Jay: already does in a widget right but we gotta pay oclc for that to even work so Jay: why aren't we also mad at oclc why aren't we saying oclc must die you know you know i. Sadie: Mean there are there are definitely people who are saying oclc must die like. Jay: But not as many as are saying rda must die i i. Sadie: Believe you on that front. Jay: But i. Sadie: See oclc and i'm like oh god what now, Sadie: Yeah.
Justin: I wasn't really taught AACR2 or RDA because they knew RDA was literally about Justin: to come out my second year of library school. Justin: So they're like, here's AACR2, don't get used to it, but RDA is not out yet, Justin: so we can't teach it to you. So I never had any real interest in cataloging Justin: because they were like, well, I guess I'll figure it out eventually.
Justin: And then I remember they made all the librarians like on the same day do like Justin: an eight hour RDA training. Justin: And our cataloger was pissed. She had to be in that meeting all day on her computer. Jay: How else do you do professional development and continuing education? Justin: Well, she just didn't want to be on an eight hour meeting. Jay: Going to school sucks. I don't know what to say. Like, wow, you got to learn Jay: shit somehow. God damn it.
Justin: Well, she'd rather be cataloging books and getting them cataloged for the first Justin: time because it was a dark archive. Jay: Yeah, well, like even non-RDA, like standards, standards should be living and be able to change. Jay: And you got to learn that when those changes happen. Sadie: I don't know. Jay: People get so like, I learned the thing once. I know it forever. Jay: It's like, no, you don't. Sadie: It sounds like a labor issue, honestly. I'd rather be doing this thing.
Sadie: It sounds like you need another cataloger. Jay: Yeah, so that you can go take your professional development. Jay: Anyway, it's got me riled up more than I was expecting. Jay: I also want to say I did a control F in all three articles. Jay: And at least referring to public libraries, the word public shows up a grand Jay: total of zero times across all three articles. Jay: Whereas large academic library shows up like six times in one of them and then
Jay: shows up a couple times in the others. Just saying. Justin: All right. Jay: God damn it.
Justin: I also went through the open rules for Justin: cataloging page and like a lot of them Justin: are blank but it looks like they're still active but Justin: the idea is they're filling in gaps for areas of cataloging that are not freely Justin: available so if there's already a freely available version of the rules or description Justin: type we're going to skip it for now and focus on areas that are not really available.
Jay: Yeah like i think the rare books description stuff is freely available or like Jay: the archives one is freely available so that probably wouldn't be in there yeah but this. Justin: Looks pretty active like provide feedback by january 31st 2025 they've got new Justin: committee members as of november.
Jay: 2024 so yeah because i know one of the leading people who did that is no longer Jay: a librarian because i'm friends with them i was gonna say they're a friend of Jay: the pod but i don't think they've been on ever before but i've i've done things Jay: with them i know them friend. Justin: Of the you. Jay: Friend of the me. Justin: Okay. Well, maybe we'll do an Open Rules for Cataloging episode and dive into Justin: what that is more and see if that's something people should learn about.
Jay: And if you disagree with my takes, join the Discord and we'll talk. Justin: Because I can be convinced. Jay: Actually, when I'm wrong. I weirdly can't have my opinion changed if I learn Jay: more. I just sound cranky right now. Justin: Don't forget to ring the bell. Jay: Sure. On YouTube, where we get cross-posted. Justin: Her. Jay: Comments open on our youtube videos.
Justin: Yeah we get comments sometimes nothing interesting Justin: oh shit oh usually just like that's cool or peanut sorts in bio i don't know Justin: it's usually like spam or just like nothing interesting like great episode cool Justin: so yeah comment great episode yeah learn about vpns london. Jay: Fog ice cream bar now.
Justin: People kept tagging me in discord while we were recording so i was i thought Justin: maybe breaking news was happening in library world but no it's just i've been Justin: in discord all day and people are following up with shit i've been saying all right good night.