Sketch:
https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/ul/
(try diff record numbers e.g. 1189, 8631, 11314, 12198)
Library catalog: How to make the system more readable as something that changes and can be changed?
Readable/Writable records
A proposal to approach records differently:
* records keeping record of their changes (procedural)
* records that can be questioned and altered by non-librarians
* a catalog interface in which the marc-view (what pertains librarians) becomes more central -- the hidden structuring role of the MARC standard is profanated->readable->more possibly writable? The content of the record remains readable and searchable for researching and finding materials (books), but becomes readable and researchable in itself in its structure, role and history.
* a series of possible writabilities: ADD (adding), MOD (modifying), REM (removing), BUT (questioning); a speculation on the implications of this catalog opening (for the catalog, librarians, community, research)
e.g.
search for: 11633 in https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/ul/ BUT!
(maybe compare https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/eg/opac/record/11633 ?)
* The proposal implies new cataloging procedures and implies a consistency in the practice as well as in the particual usage of some fields - hence the question: does this proposal want to be a standard? Decisions of particular fields are compliant with MARC standards - e.g. the use of local tags (9) - it's the intention, the approach and the value given to these usages which is in tension with bibliographic standards.
["How might we use standards not as truth-telling mechanisms, but as doorways into conversations among ourselves and other standards-making bodies in higher education?" https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/133952/vol1_chapter%206.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ]
[as we approach the catalogue and records as sites of local knowledge and negotiations - rather than 'simple' bibliographic 'descriptions' - classification codes, keywords and their possible changes become important traces of these processes, making records themeselves, besides books and materials, as readable cultural objects and the catalogue as a site of critical engagement ]
On Citing Particulars - speculations
(i.e. referring to physical books via their particular records instead of unchanging-abstract information)
A question that came up in a conversation with a friend last night- when I was trying to explain what we have been busy thinking this week. Normally in writing/research we cite fixed information (names/titles) - what would happen if we would rather refer to books location in libraries (a particular book -"this one!")? and if these books become unfindable because of transformations that occured in the classification? -> if the book is simply not findable you would search elsewhere, while if a trace of these changes is possible you would perhaps start asking other questions instead of just searching for the book, become concerned about how that book has been understood through time, your research would switch attention and you would become interested in these processes.
* we cite particular editions but not particular books we have spent hours on - but sometimes it is that particular material book with its traces, place and neighbors that we may want to homage/include/point to in our bibliography. Nevertheless we accept citation protocols and abstract our references. But can this not be done by the reader (who will find/locate a physical -or digital- copy suiting their circumstances) rather than the writer? --it may be done in case of archives and rare materials (aknowledging the library/archive and sharing path to material--particularity justified by rarity)
* E.g. In our republishing of Borreman's Guide for Convivial Tools (workshop) we refered to books from our library which were currently scattered around but could be regathered in a new 'convivial tools' category/shelf mentioning/citing also their current classification code --> A newer edition reflecting back on the agency of such collective engagement and the transformations proceeding from that would start from comparing such changes in classification, and in the records themselves this process would became readable, including reference to external-contextual materials.
9 = Local tag in Marc (in any of the three positions)
e.g.
009 Local control number- obsolete
59x Local Notes
69x Local Subject Headings
9xx Local-use miscellaneous
let's just keep/accept the 9's meaning in the standard but explode its value (to us)
"For interchange purposes, documentation of the structure of the [*9*] fields and input conventions should be provided to exchange partners by the organization initiating the exchange. " No standard ways -> local tags -> must talk!
proposals:
* keep track of call number changes in the marc record. to be saved in a field, with subfields for every call number change [decidere un field] es: ? =998 +a757.3 klem 1 +b750.9 tsc 1
* maintain differences from external catalogs, keeping also disagrreed upon choices? es: =666 +a deleted subject headings
* 692 empty field https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/692.html can be used for proposed additions to the keywords.. visible in marc but not processed by search. when librarians 'validate' then it goes to 690?
REMARCABILITIES
READWRITEMARC
A syntax for addressing records and proposing changes ( to a librarian, to a machine, to other users )
ADD, REM, MOD, BUT
ADD available for:
* subject headings and keywords (69x)
* description (530 if empty? else 59X - Local Notes?)
* external resources (856)
BUT available for:
* all fields
MOD available for:
* subject headings and keywords (6xx)
* classification (084)
* field? (I mean as in proposing new MARC fields or different usages...quite advanced but it's a move from content to structure/structuring/structural changes)
REM available for:
* subject headings and keywords (6xx)
IF MOD =084+a x > x ADD =998
e.g. MOD =084+a 777tso =790tso > 777 tso ADD =998
modifications:
move marc field 650 to marc field690:
MOD =650 > =690
modify current field to '730 bur':
MOD =084+a() > =084+a(730 bur)
removals:
REM =
better: get rid of complex syntax, keep ADD/MOD/REM/BUT as request/proposal types (also for different levels/temporalities of processing by librarians)
WORK FLOWS FOR LIBRARIANS
ADD -> 'just' needs validation by librarians (from interzone to record)
MOD -> needs manual editing by cataloguer-librarian
REM -> needs manual editing by cataloguer-librarian
BUT -> either it stays linked to record or it enters the record-->different procedures
- if it doesn't modify record -> it stays as discussion linked to the record/visible next to it
- if it also enters a record, options:
- we add it as an external reference to 856 if it's a page or an #anchor in a general BUT page ?
- or does it enter the record as Local Note 59X ?
- * Thinking that the best is if it has it's own special mode as question/open conversation linked to record
* I'm imagining a mail notification when a new entry/request appears + a page that gathers all requests for overview and easier processing (e.g. All ADD requests, All REM etc)--> can also be/should be public ---> the interzone
-->contributors should leave a contact: this is not an impersonal process, an outsourcing, an aggregator of data!
DESCRIPTION FOR INTERFACE (on click/hover?):
ADD: "With an ADD operation you can propose an ADDition to this record. You can add keywords (690), notes and descriptions (590), or external resources, e.g. links to digital materials (856). Your proposal will be incorporated in the website and remain linked to this record but librarians will need some time to integrate the proposal in the record itself. For an overview of all proposals and discussions see [this] page "
MOD: "With a MOD operation you can propose a MODification of this record. You can propose changes to keywords (6xx) and even of Call Numbers, i.e. the classification code. This is a complex operation! In case of keywords changes you should first think whether your proposed change can be more easily handled with an ADDition and/or a REMoval. Your proposal will be incorporated in the website and remain linked to this record but librarians will need some time to discuss and eventually integrate the proposal in the record itself. For MOD proposals we also ask you for a contact email so that we can get in touch with you. For an overview of all proposals and discussions see [this] page "
REM: "With an REM operation you can propose a REMoval to this record. You can propose to remove keywords (6xx). Your proposal will be incorporated in the website and remain linked to this record but librarians will need some time to discuss and eventually integrate the proposal in the record itself. Removed keywords are not literally removed from the record, they are in fact moved to field 666. For REM proposals we also ask you for a contact email so that we can get in touch with you. For an overview of all proposals and discussions see [this] page "
BUT: "With a BUT operation you can question anything about/in this record. You can raise questions or join existing conversations. Your proposal will be incorporated in the website and remain linked to this record but does not have any simple integration in the record itself. If your trying to propose and actual change or should a change proposal emerge from a discussion please get in contact with us. This is never a straight forward operation! For an overview of all proposals and discussions see [this] page "
ref ginger coon
Thursday 04
meet on #marcru (freenode)
wrap up steps:
- procedural ones: clarify proposal on how to approach the MARC record - the proposed switch to read-write relation + the particular fields uses/misuses (for librarians too) -->writing
- a proposal of a syntax for marc modifications? that could be a way to exchange between user-librarians-systems please expand "syntax"
- for example.. ( i'm thinking about it.. :P )
- =650 \0$aTextile design$xHistory$y21st century. == REM
- possible actions.. remove, modify, swap, add.. ?
- technical: let the "users" be able to modify (the record | a copy of the record) or submit a proposal ^^^ (we add it into something like this https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/ul/index.html e.g. it's a marc viewer + pseudo-editor? or proceed differently?-->submission/contribution form/emailing/a page of its own)
- graphical speculations/experiments:
* QUESTION OF LOCAL/IMPORTED (concerning overwriting/deleting/retaining):
If we want different levels of readability of the marc, how to treat imported keywords ->retain all in one field (650) + local keywords in 690
--> select/retain in 650 what we like and delete the rest + add ours in 690
--> new field: 666 -->for things that come from external database but we exclude? because they are redundant/outdated/problematic
--> if besides adding it is possible for non-librarians to request deletions it also go in 666, but maybe in a subfield
666a : deleted by librarians
666b : deleted by others
* LOCAL KEYWORDS-->MESS-->ORGANIZE AND ADD LAYERS? (e.g. librarian added, students added, invited additions etc)
todo: grab all keywords and assess damage--> before doing anything more crazy with them (at the moment they don't really work well)
690a : local keywords added by librarians
690bcd: others
NOTES from unreMARCable conversation Wednesday afternoon
Library of congress, bibliographic records
MARC21: standard
*Marc is being shown*
https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/ul/ e.g. search for 11314
https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/eg/opac/record/12198?locg=1;detail_record_view=0;page=7;sort=pubdate;query=create_date%282020-01-01%29;expand=marchtml#marchtml
MARC: structure (where what information will be stored)
Rietveld library, attempt to make this format readable and foreground the system that the library uses
How to make readable the choices of the library/books that are in the library, show changes and shifts that happen
readability: important to show the catalogue as a becoming/as something that is writable
e.g. of change of classification/location
https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/eg/opac/record/3592?locg=1;expand=marchtml#marchtml
084 is new call number
999c is old one
How to make the system more readable/ as something that changes and can be changed?
Why is it so important 'to get your hands in the system'?
Something new they had to deal with
cominh with possibilities but also danger to be eaten out by library of congress
OPAC
How to make the richness of the records legible
subject headings versus keywords?
650 versus 690
690 --> local keywords
call number=classification number
no fixed database of keywords, keywords are always added
////////////////////////////////////
previous notes from the infrastructural manoeuvres conversaion:
https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/unboundlibrary_infrastructural_manoeuvres
readability + writability...
talking about tomorrow's marc contibution.
not introducing to marc but sharing concerns about readability, rewritability..
* think of ways to make readable
marc research unit: readability-interpretability
both in a larger sense of the interest in foregrounding the structures of a library and the effects and traces of records in the catalog.
how to read and talk about traces - toxicities.. (and eventually think about make them visible in an interface?)
possibly have a sketch of a what "readable" can mean in relation to a marc record / library system?
marc research unit: re+writability
how do you allow access to the records, test the limits of authority, responsibility, care for the catalog.
what combinations are possible of roles and technical means.
procedures / syntaxes / roles / methods to open up the catalog
procedural manoeuvres
--
the question of making records writable..
... or setting up a process for making the proposal of changes welcome, expected, not an exception
approaching the fordibben aspect of 'changing' the catalog YEAH
in relation to tracking book/recod movements that already happen..
showing the non-fixity of the catalog - making the changes readable and therefore imaginable to write.
getting into the writability (what is writeable/rewrite) starting from readability
what could be directly writable to all users? Some fields writable, others not? And what does that division mean?
- keywords?
Is there a process for negotiation? How do the changes propagate?
import - export - ...
particular libraries, standardized libraries
an archive without 'primary author' (or no author at all). it is used differently locally, but when imported it will annihilate a local change?
comparison between catalogs as a way to make readable
long-term crosschecking tools or federated cross checking tools.. so you can see the shift of one document across the different fields
multiple levels, not just heading some content but challenging what counts as valid bibliographic information in a record
--
examples of 'readability' towards 'writeability'?
from rietveld library:
* show trace of moving from old aura catalogue to current one.
* other changes?
rebal..
passage from marc to unimarc/.?
tactical fields
http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL34_35/050.pdf
-- rebal
interacting with different types of catalog and of librarians
from self-organized libraries to more institutional libraries.
lot of frictions with the institutional librarians, for the difficulty of changing the catalog.
who manages the catalog, what's the aim of the catalog itself.
-- feminist search tool sidebar
contextualizing the readable version of marc fields:
For the data set of the Feminist Search Tool, Read-in made a selection of the records of the Utrecht University library on the basis of the dates of publication. Therefore, the time period of the publications of this data set are works published between 2006 and 2016. Read-in selected this specific time-frame in order to attain a data set that would be manageable to work with in the limited time we were given. Choosing a more recent time-frame was motivated by the following observation(s) the art collective Guerilla Girls had made in the following fragments, anticipating an often heard utterance that the questions we’d be addressing would maybe had been a problem in the past, but surely no more today:
Guerilla Girls research, 1989
- Do women have to be naked to get into the Metropolitan Museum? Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art sections are women, but 85% of the nudes are female.
Guerilla Girls research, 2004
- Do women have to be naked to get into the Metropolitan Museum? Less than 3% of the artists in the Modern Art sections are women, but 83% of the nudes are female.
This filter is an interpretation of tag 264 - Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice (R), subfield code $a - Place of production, publication, distribution, manufacture (R)
--
the proposal of making reader on the catalog.. in the catalog
Readable/Searchable/Writable tension
-----------------------------------------------------------------
basic template- most used fields used in our lib
=020 \\$a ISBN 978
=084 \\$a call number (i.e. classificasion code)
=100 \\$a Primary author + $e relator field
=245 \\$a$b$c Title
=260 \\$a$b$c Impressum
=300 \\$a$b$c Colation
=490 \\$a$v Series
=508 \\$a Designer, photographer… i.e. Design: Laura Pappa
=520 \\$a Annotation field, used for summary
=690 \\$a Local keyword
=700 \\$a Secondary author + $e relator field
=856 \\$a
=930 \\$a Requestor
Todo---starting from readabilities to make way to writabilities
* 2 axes of reading marc fields
field numbers etc (number->meaning/translation--->standard one and our interpretation)
understanding it through comparing (from field number-->'depth' move through database, other elements--->contextual)
- comparing/bring close records within same catalog
* A complex issue with classification readability
////
catalog search/dig/restoration:
*movement in classification
1) different (call)numbers in 084a and 999c for aura to evergreen changes
e.g. https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/eg/opac/record/3592?locg=1;expand=marchtml#marchtml
2) for changes in newer records/after evergreen --not retained in record but overwritten in 084-- compare siso from backup catalog (e.g. http://all-syste.ms/~anice/catalogue_quarantine_version_2 ) to current one. And place old one in 999? disregarding the aura/evergreen change, just using it to track movements in classification.
*recognizing imported and locally created records:
////
visualization
*when a difference/change in classification is present---> what shows? how to make it readable? discoursively (e.g. "This record was once classified as X and has now changed to X"? graphically?
- * how to translate classification number and how to deal with local modification and siso squatting practices?
- --> compare SISO reference guide to our work-documents ---> start from the formal reference or start from usage?
- e.g. extract all codes from siso and then visualize our changes and addition
- or start from list of existing codes and look them up in reference list + documents
- * This seemingly straightforward linking of numbers and classes does not even exist for the original SISO reference--> only thing available is http://www.bibnet.be/portaal/Bibnet/Open_Vlacc_regelgeving/Regelgeving/vlacc_regInhoudelijk/vlacc_classificaties/VlaamseSISO.pdf
- for now can link classification number in marc to line in line in txt file (pdftotext of sisoreference); later integrate the local modification and addition to reference manual.
*when a record has been imported from external sources---> how to show it?
- * and how to highlight the differences between imported and local keywords or other materials? (e.g. field 690 and 9XX)
* How these intricacies are shown raises different questions and possibilities of writing in
- - e.g. emphasis on different context of categorization (loc next to local)
- --> in terms of ADDING --> different localities become possible --> e.g. 690 librarians, 691 students, 692 different groups/unions interacting with library
- --> in terms of questioning --> to really engage questioning you would perhaps show original records from other databases, not just the selections we locally made/retained.back to cross-checking tools https://catalogue.rietveldacademie.nl/class/?r=9781857026986&l=9780385482608