jon aubrey (email@example.com)
Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Thanks for the buzz. Nice to see that my queries
sparked such thoughtfully responsive commentary.
I would think that the size of a video collection
would directly affect the cataloging, labeling and
shelving of it. My library has a fairly large
collection and a rather small A/V room to house it in.
We have no other choice but to limit what gets
displayed in the A/V room. I could certainly argue
that some performing arts titles that almost never
circulate should be shelved "upstairs" in "the 700s,"
while other popular documentary titles might circulate
considerably more if they were shelved somewhere in
the A/V room.
It seems to me that some of what has been brought
up in this discussion parallels the LINUX vs. Windows
saga, as far as what OCLC is capable of cataloging
appropriately for efficacious public access vs. what
librarians think will function better out here in
patronland. Dare I say it, what's keeping a crazy band
of revolutionary A/V librarians from creating a kind
of public pool cataloging network that better reflects
real world experiences? Yes, OCLC does have systems in
place that allow for the amending and recataloging of
items by librarians in the field, but how often is
this system taken advantage of? Would we be better
served if we sought to considerably overhaul how A/V
material is cataloged? Might this not be necessary in
the near future anyway given all the "new media"
appearing on the horizon? Are there enough librarians
out there with the time, energy, patience and will to
start up such an enterprise, or is that why OCLC
exists in the first place?
Personally, I'm a whatever-works-best-in
your-situation person (and leave it at that), but
isn't there a real need to take a fresh look at how
A/V material is cataloged?
The Stick In Your Spokes,
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games