Controlled Vocabulary

In both IST 604 (Cataloging of Information Resources) and IST 616 (Information Resources: Organization & Access) we have been covering the concepts of subject headings in bibliographic records

What are they? Well, to the chagrin of my professors, none of my textbooks had a satisfactory, easy to understand definition. This one is from Wikipedia’s entry about Index term:

“...is a term that captures the essence of the topic of a document. Index terms make up a controlled vocabulary for use in bibliographic records. They are an integral part of bibliographic control, which is the function by which libraries collect, organize and disseminate documents. They are used as keywords to retrieve documents in an information system, for instance, a catalog or a search engine. A popular form of keywords on the web are tags which are directly visible and can be assigned by non-experts also. Index terms can consist of a word, phrase, or alphanumerical term. They are created by analyzing the document either manually with subject indexing or automatically with automatic indexing or more sophisticated methods of keyword extraction. Index terms can either come from a controlled vocabulary or be freely assigned.”

To be clear, subject headings are not the title, author, publication information, or any such data you might find in a catalog record (or, bibliographic record, if you prefer). They describe the content of the item itself. Most folks know this type of description from tags. You know them and use them all the time - here’s an example of some of my tags on a flickr photo of mine:



Pretty straightforward, right? Well, take a look at the image these tags describe and think about how you would tag it.



Let’s say, for example, you picked “overcast” as one of your tags. That’s a pretty subjective term - it has meaning for you, but someone else might say “cloudy” or “gloomy.” So what happens to this image if someone is searching for images that are “cloudy” on flickr? My image won’t appear in their search. And this is one of the problems with socially-based tagging (and cataloging): words have different meanings to different people.

This same concept is applicable for any item in a library’s catalog. Say you are searching for Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and for some reason, all you can remember is that it’s about “love,” so you search the subjects in the catalog for that term. If the items in the catalog are sourced solely on the tagging system I mentioned above, then you might or might not find the play you were searching for, because the assigned tag might be “suicide” or “passion” for Romeo and Juliet.

I think you’ll agree with me in saying that this is a problem for library users. There needs to be one agree upon term for certain words for subject headings. Well, rest easy reader, as there is a concept called controlled vocabulary that will help you out of this information quandary. One of my textbooks has a reasonably good definition of this:

Controlled vocabulary: A list or database of terms in which all terms or phrases representing a concept are brought together. Often a preferred term or phrase is designated for use in surrogate records in a retrieval tool; the not to be used have references from them to the chosen term or phrase, and relationships (e.g., broader terms, narrower terms, related terms, etc.) among used terms are identified. There may also be scope notes to explain the terms and there may be hierarchical listings.
(Taylor, Joudrey; The Organization of Information, p. 450)

So in a controlled vocabulary environment, there is a single agreed upon term for many concepts, organizations, and even people - so that we are all talking about “the same thing” when describing an item. What does this look like in a catalog record? Well, these headings are in the 650 and 651 fields in this MARC record:



You see how they are linked (blue text) and are not editable? That means they are linked to a controlled vocabulary, which is in this case the Library of Congress’ Authorities, which is the most commonly used set of controlled vocabulary in the US.

Let’s take the first one “Camping” and talk about that for a moment. I know your sharp eyes already picked out how that heading is not just the word “Camping,” but that it is subdivided into more specific categories. This is always done in subject description - more specificity is preferable. So then. The “camping” heading tells us that this is a catalog from an exhibition of pictures about camping. All books like this would be described in the same way.

But what if someone doesn’t search by the specific keywords in the controlled vocabulary? Well, that’s not a problem, as the files for each word have synonyms that refer to the heading (the agreed-upon term) so that you can search with a different word and still find what you are looking for.

Pretty neat, right? I thought so too!

There is one problem with this system though. The Library of Congress’ Authorities are, as you can imagine, mind-bogglingly massive, and so is slow to change. Perhaps some sort of combination of social sourcing and controlled vocabulary would be in the best interest to the user? I have no broad plans for this or suggestions, just an idea.

If you want to know more, let me hear from you in the comments!

Librarians in Second Life

I just finished reading Marilyn Johnson’s new book This Book Is Overdue!: How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All. It’s a great read, and if you are interested in the future of libraries and librarians I would recommend it to you. In the book, Johnson discusses librarians who are on the Second Life website, answering reference questions and representing their respective libraries in that virtual world. While reading this, one word arose in my mind:

Why?

Before I explain myself, I understand that many of my fellow librarians are actively “doing librarianship” on Second Life, and I feel sure they have a different, and equally valid opinion about this. (If you are familiar with Second Life, let me hear from you in the comments!)

That being said, I do not understand why there is such a push for librarians to practice our craft on Second Life. Three things come to mind when I questions this:

First, Second Life is only a duplication of services widely available through library websites. Electronic reference services are available through many library websites, as are the catalog of items in the library’s collection (OPAC, if you want the acronym). In addition, many libraries offer their digitized assets in a much more pleasant virtual environment than Second Life offers. Of course, this idea of library websites could really be a post unto itself - meaning a list of things that all library websites should have, and how many of them are not really that great.

Second, the user interface of a website is far more user friendly than the interface in Second Life - meaning people in general know how to navigate a website as this is a commonly used form for the presentation of “virtual objects.” The Second Life experience requires the user to install the program, sign up for the service, learn navigation, and also assumes a high speed internet connection. For people already on Second Life, these things are not a problem - but for the people not on Second Life (the majority of internet users) these hurdles prevent them from using the library services on Second Life.

Third, why is so much focus and effort spent on such a small user group? I know Second Life was pretty popular at one point (and I’ll talk about that in my fourth and final point) but the numbers just don’t seem to justify all the money and effort spent by libraries on their presences in Second Life.

Finally, one rarely hears about Second Life after the initial media blitz of a few years ago, and so I suppose my question is, what does the user base look like now? What do the users do? How long do people spend on there? There really needs to be some studies done about usage on Second Life.

Still, though, I ask “why?”

Young Librarians Blog Highlight

Readers,

I have a blog highlight up over at the great communal blog, The Young Librarian Series. I talk about the inspiration behind my posts about library design, and the key elements of a great library space. I invite you to check it out!

Jason

Justice John Paul Stevens

I just finished reading a profile of Justice John Paul Stevens in this week’s New Yorker. In it, they mention his concurring opinion in the case Baze v. Rees, which I read, and found so compelling, I wanted to share most of it with you here. I am not trying to tell you to think a certain way, nor am I trying to espouse some point of view about the death penalty on this blog, I simply think this is one of the most well-reasoned examinations of the death penalty I have read. I am interested to know your opinion in the matter - let me hear from you in the comments below. Without further ado, here is an excerpt from Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion in Baze v. Rees.



The thoughtful opinions written by The Chief Justice and by Justice Ginsburg have persuaded me that current decisions by state legislatures, by the Congress of the United States, and by this Court to retain the death penalty as a part of our law are the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process that weighs the costs and risks of administering that penalty against its identifiable benefits, and rest in part on a faulty assumption about the retributive force of the death penalty.

    In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976) , we explained that unless a criminal sanction serves a legitimate penological function, it constitutes “gratuitous infliction of suffering” in violation of the Eighth Amendment . We then identified three societal purposes for death as a sanction: incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. See id., at 183, and n. 28 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). In the past three decades, however, each of these rationales has been called into question.

    While incapacitation may have been a legitimate rationale in 1976, the recent rise in statutes providing for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole demonstrates that incapacitation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient justification for the death penalty. Moreover, a recent poll indicates that support for the death penalty drops significantly when life without the possibility of parole is presented as an alternative option. And the available sociological evidence suggests that juries are less likely to impose the death penalty when life without parole is available as a sentence.

    The legitimacy of deterrence as an acceptable justification for the death penalty is also questionable, at best. Despite 30 years of empirical research in the area, there remains no reliable statistical evidence that capital punishment in fact deters potential offenders. In the absence of such evidence, deterrence cannot serve as a sufficient penological justification for this uniquely severe and irrevocable punishment.

    We are left, then, with retribution as the primary rationale for imposing the death penalty. And indeed, it is the retribution rationale that animates much of the remaining enthusiasm for the death penalty. As Lord Justice Denning argued in 1950, “ ‘some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong-doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.’ ” See Gregg, 428 U. S., at 184, n. 30. Our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has narrowed the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty to include only those who have committed outrageous crimes defined by specific aggravating factors. It is the cruel treatment of victims that provides the most persuasive arguments for prosecutors seeking the death penalty. A natural response to such heinous crimes is a thirst for vengeance.

    At the same time, however, as the thoughtful opinions by The Chief Justice and Justice Ginsburg make pellucidly clear, our society has moved away from public and painful retribution towards ever more humane forms of punishment. State-sanctioned killing is therefore becoming more and more anachronistic. In an attempt to bring executions in line with our evolving standards of decency, we have adopted increasingly less painful methods of execution, and then declared previous methods barbaric and archaic. But by requiring that an execution be relatively painless, we necessarily protect the inmate from enduring any punishment that is comparable to the suffering inflicted on his victim. This trend, while appropriate and required by the Eighth Amendment ’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, actually undermines the very premise on which public approval of the retribution rationale is based. See, e.g., Kaufman-Osborn, Regulating Death: Capital Punishment and the Late Liberal State, 111 Yale L. J. 681, 704 (2001) (explaining that there is “a tension between our desire to realize the claims of retribution by killing those who kill, and … a method [of execution] that, because it seems to do no harm other than killing, cannot satisfy the intuitive sense of equivalence that informs this conception of justice”); A. Sarat, When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition 60–84 (2001).

    Full recognition of the diminishing force of the principal rationales for retaining the death penalty should lead this Court and legislatures to reexamine the question recently posed by Professor Salinas, a former Texas prosecutor and judge: “Is it time to Kill the Death Penalty?” See Salinas, 34Am. J. Crim. L. 39 (2006). The time for a dispassionate, impartial comparison of the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society with the benefits that it produces has surely arrived.

III

    “[A] penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 331 (1972) (Marshall, J., concurring); see also id., at 332 (“The entire thrust of the Eighth Amendment is, in short, against ‘that which is excessive’ ”). Our cases holding that certain sanctions are “excessive,” and therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment , have relied heavily on “objective criteria,” such as legislative enactments. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 292 (1983) ; Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957 (1991) ; United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S. 321 (1998) . In our recent decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002) , holding that death is an excessive sanction for a mentally retarded defendant, we also relied heavily on opinions written by Justice White holding that the death penalty is an excessive punishment for the crime of raping a 16-year-old woman, Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977) , and for a murderer who did not intend to kill, Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982) . In those opinions we acknowledged that “objective evidence, though of great importance, did not ‘wholly determine’ the controversy, ‘for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment .’ ” Atkins, 536 U. S., at 312 (quoting Coker, 433 U. S., at 597 (plurality opinion)).

    Justice White was exercising his own judgment in 1972 when he provided the decisive vote in Furman, the case that led to a nationwide reexamination of the death penalty. His conclusion that death amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment in the constitutional sense” as well as the “dictionary sense,” rested on both an uncontroversial legal premise and on a factual premise that he admittedly could not “prove” on the basis of objective criteria. 408 U. S., at 312, 313 (concurring opinion). As a matter of law, he correctly stated that the “needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes … would be patently excessive” and violative of the Eighth Amendment . Id., at 312. As a matter of fact, he stated, “like my Brethren, I must arrive at judgment; and I can do no more than state a conclusion based on 10 years of almost daily exposure to the facts and circumstances of hundreds and hundreds of federal and state criminal cases involving crimes for which death is the authorized penalty.” Id., at 313. I agree with Justice White that there are occasions when a Member of this Court has a duty to make judgments on the basis of data that falls short of absolute proof.

    Our decisions in 1976 upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty relied heavily on our belief that adequate procedures were in place that would avoid the danger of discriminatory application identified by Justice Douglas’ opinion in Furman, id., at 240–257 (concurring opinion), of arbitrary application identified by Justice Stewart, id., at 306 (same), and of excessiveness identified by Justices Brennan and Marshall. In subsequent years a number of our decisions relied on the premise that “death is different” from every other form of punishment to justify rules minimizing the risk of error in capital cases. See, e.g., Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 357–358 (1977) (plurality opinion). Ironically, however, more recent cases have endorsed procedures that provide less protections to capital defendants than to ordinary offenders.

    Of special concern to me are rules that deprive the defendant of a trial by jurors representing a fair cross section of the community. Litigation involving both challenges for cause and peremptory challenges has persuaded me that the process of obtaining a “death qualified jury” is really a procedure that has the purpose and effect of obtaining a jury that is biased in favor of conviction. The prosecutorial concern that death verdicts would rarely be returned by 12 randomly selected jurors should be viewed as objective evidence supporting the conclusion that the penalty is excessive.

    Another serious concern is that the risk of error in capital cases may be greater than in other cases because the facts are often so disturbing that the interest in making sure the crime does not go unpunished may overcome residual doubt concerning the identity of the offender. Our former emphasis on the importance of ensuring that decisions in death cases be adequately supported by reason rather than emotion, Gardner, 430 U. S. 349 , has been undercut by more recent decisions placing a thumb on the prosecutor’s side of the scales. Thus, in Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U. S. 163 (2006) , the Court upheld a state statute that requires imposition of the death penalty when the jury finds that the aggravating and mitigating factors are in equipoise. And in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 (1991) , the Court overruled earlier cases and held that “victim impact” evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crime on the victim’s family is admissible despite the fact that it sheds no light on the question of guilt or innocence or on the moral culpability of the defendant, and thus serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to make life or death decisions on the basis of emotion rather than reason.

    A third significant concern is the risk of discriminatory application of the death penalty. While that risk has been dramatically reduced, the Court has allowed it to continue to play an unacceptable role in capital cases. Thus, in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279 (1987) , the Court upheld a death sentence despite the “strong probability that [the defendant’s] sentencing jury … was influenced by the fact that [he was] black and his victim was white.” Id., at 366 (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Evans v. State, 396 Md. 256, 323, 914 A. 2d 25, 64 (2006), cert. denied, 552 U. S. ___ (2007) (affirming a death sentence despite the existence of a study showing that “the death penalty is statistically more likely to be pursued against a black person who murders a white victim than against a defendant in any other racial combination”).

    Finally, given the real risk of error in this class of cases, the irrevocable nature of the consequences is of decisive importance to me. Whether or not any innocent defendants have actually been executed, abundant evidence accumulated in recent years has resulted in the exoneration of an unacceptable number of defendants found guilty of capital offenses. See Garrett, Judging Innocence, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 55 (2008); Risinger, Innocents Convicted: An Empirically Justified Factual Wrongful Conviction Rate, 97J. Crim. L. & C. 761 (2007). The risk of executing innocent defendants can be entirely eliminated by treating any penalty more severe than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as constitutionally excessive.

    In sum, just as Justice White ultimately based his conclusion in Furman on his extensive exposure to countless cases for which death is the authorized penalty, I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents “the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment .” Furman, 408 U. S., at 312 (White, J., concurring).

IV

    The conclusion that I have reached with regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty itself makes my decision in this case particularly difficult. It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by The Chief Justice or Justice Ginsburg, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment . Accordingly, I join the Court’s judgment.

Library Open House

Friends! Readers! Fort-Worthians!

On behalf of the staff of the Amon Carter Museum Library, I would like to invite you to the Library’s Open House next Thursday, April 1, 2010 from 4-7 PM. Jen and I will be there, as well as the crack library staff. We will be leading tours through the library’s collection, providing you with an inside look at how the Carter’s library functions, as well as some great selections from our collection (meaning: cool books)! Bring your friends and such, just RSVP to 817.989.5042, or to library@cartermuseum.org.

Hope you can join us!

Jason

Marfa!!

We have just returned- all connections restored. Stay tuned for more!

Return From Spring Break

Readers, we have returned from Spring Break! Jen took me on a surprise trip to Marfa, Texas. It was wonderful, and I look forward to sharing more with you all about it over the next few days. For now, let this video that I took at the Chinati Foundation speak for itself:

Spring Break!

Hello!

The next week and a half serves as my spring break for the semester, so I just would like to tell you that I will be posting sporadically throughout that time, (if at all)! I would recommend checking out the other great sites on my “links” page. See you again soon!

Jason

Reading 2.0 Responses

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/literacy/do-books-have-a-future.html?play

Well, as promised here are my thoughts about the video above.

The first time I watched it, it really was difficult for me to believe what I was hearing. As you all probably know, I am a former educator and a librarian in training, so as you can imagine this video really bothered me at some very fundamental levels. I think I could really rant about this for a while, but let me just share with you some of my favorite quotes from this video with my responses:

The stuff that really matters is a very small part of the book.

I would respond that perhaps a large part of the intellectual merit of reading a book is the challenge of evaluating the “good” in a book, rather than having it told to you. It seems to me (thinking back to me literature classes) that almost everyone has a different opinion about the value of a book. Why would we want this told to us? Also, as I mentioned before, there is real intellectual merit in having to discern what is significant about a text, or as it’s described in the video, the “stuff that really matters.”

No one has to write anything anymore, except at the highest level.

I wish he was a bit more clear about this comment. People write all the time. They write on facebook, on blogs, on flickr, and for magazines, classes, and even for publishing books. I don’t really understand this quote, because it is plainly obvious that people write every day, it is still (despite what the video says) a key form of communication between people.

Video is the new text.

If video is the new text, where is the video I can watch that tells me all about AACR2? Where is the video Jen can watch to prepare for medical school? I should just watch videos instead of reading my texts for class, or watch the video version of the French Revolution (History of the World, anyone)?

Books are not as good as the internet for contemporary works.

I will freely admit that there are massive amounts of information on the internet, and a fair amount of that information is very helpful, but I feel sure that if one performed a study comparing works in print (published in the last 5 years) to works on the internet, books would far outnumber the electronic resources. Even today, much of the information that is published is in book format, not on the internet.

Books... they're just not that important.

If books are not important, what do you say about the Domesday Book? The Book of Kells? The information in books help us to define our cultural identity by giving us information from the past. They contain much of what we have of the collective knowledge of mankind. How are they not important?

Why read his book when he has a blog?

A blog and a book have two completely different intents, with different content. Blogs are far more topical and casual than a book is. A book has a central idea or theme, and is generally written in a more “serious tone.” I really doubt that if you read Malcolm Gladwell’s blog and then read his books, you will feel like you gained the same knowledge and insight from both.

At its core, the problem is that this is simply a reflection of a growing trend in society that individuals (especially younger people) are unwilling to be challenged on any level, especially intellectually. And, if you’ll permit me some gloom, that scares the heck out of me, folks.

What would you say? What do you think about this? I’d love to know!

Reading 2.0

I have a real problem with this video, and I will write more about it tomorrow. For now, watch it, and let me know what you think about what it says:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/literacy/do-books-have-a-future.html?play

PS - PBS, please make your videos actually embed-able, not just fake embed-able.

What is Cataloging?

The title to today’s post has been a question floating around in my mind for the past several months. As a matter of fact, I wrote an answer to that question a while back, and when I re-read it, I was very much disappointed with my answer. As you probably know, I am in two cataloging courses right now, and to that skill and field is very much on my mind this semester.

When I wrote that original post, I took a very narrow view of cataloging. Really, I discussed what I knew at the time, but due to what I have learned from class and from fellow catalogers I feel better equipped to answer the above question. That is not to say, though, that I won’t try and answer it again.

Cataloging is a specialized term librarians use to describe how they create records for items in the library’s collection to be used in that library’s catalog. That’s a pretty narrow definition, though. Let’s take a step back and look at this outside of just the library, and their traditional collections of books and music.

My preferred definition is that cataloging is the generation of metadata about an object through the use of accepted standards, and that metadata is then presented in a standardized framework.

Wow, that’s pretty jargon-heavy, isn’t it? Allow me to break that down a bit.

Metadata is commonly defined as data about data. Still confusing, I think. It certainly was for me when I started learning about all of this. To use an example, metadata is like the song information you have in iTunes. The title, album, artwork, etc. are all data that describes that item (song). How about another example - when you upload a photo to say, flickr, you create “tags” that describe, to you, that photo. So, a photo of a cat might be tagged with “cat” or the cat’s name, or whatever. When you tag, or create information about a “thing” that then describes that thing, you are generating metadata.



Look there, Metadata on flickr!

Feeling better about what metadata is? I hope so, because it’s only going to get more complicated from here.

Much of the metadata generated today is created through the use of standards. This ensures that metadata is generated in a consistent format with standardized grammar, sources of information, and language. Would you like another example? Well, let’s think about iTunes again. A metadata standard would help you determine what the accepted sources for the metadata are. Where does the album title come from - the spine, the cover art, the CD itself? Standards help us have a consistent spot to look for this information. These standards also help us determine how to phrase the metadata in a consistent manner. Once again, it would help us determine how to present the album title, and what is (and is not) capitalized or punctuated.

There are many metadata standards out there, and at this point the one which is used by many library catalogers in the United States is AACR2r, or the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd revised edition. Here’s a photo of my copy, sitting on the desk:



It came loose-leaf, and it is well thought out, but very long. Of course, there are many other metadata standards, including ISBD (International Standards for Bibliographic Description). These standards are different for different items being described. AACR2 just happens to be the one right now for library items, but it will soon be replaced by RDA.

The metadata generated through these standards needs to be displayed in some form of standardized format. Think about the iTunes example again - we have all this metadata, but it is really of no use unless we can present it (as we see in the iTunes interface) in some usable manner. That’s where metadata structures come in. Amber Billey does a great job of talking about the most commonly used (except for MARC) metadata structures here. Wait. MARC? Well, MARC is an acronym (another one, imagine that) for MAchine Readable Cataloging. MARC is the common structure used in libraries, but some use Dublin Core and other formats. MARC presents the metadata in a standard format, so that library systems can read the metadata. What does that mean? Well, it takes something that looks like this:



And displays it like this:



Really, that is the point of all of this - so that you, the end user of the “thing” about which this metadata is generated can look at that metadata and determine if that thing is for you without having to look at that thing itself. Connecting people with the information they need.

Well, I hope I didn’t confuse you all too much! Please let me hear your comments or questions in the comments below!

What Makes a Library Important?

This is an article I have been intending on sharing and reflecting on for a while.

Beyond the Bullet Points: New Years Resolution, by Dave Lankes

Dr. Lankes points out that in order to help retain funding, as well as keep the library’s importance and impact at the forefront of people’s minds, we should make this the “year of the librarian.” Not quite like this, though:































I think, though, Dr. Lankes makes a great point - it is librarians, and not the collections and resources they steward that make the difference. How much good does having all those items do if no one knows how to find them, how to search them, or how to use them? Librarians make the difference between having a bunch of stuff and having a library.

I think for many people library is a bit of a loaded term. They think of the library as a place filled with books and quiet voices. I say library means those things, but also means that it is a place where people find the information they need (in any form or capacity) not just in a book, or the latest issue of Scientific American. That might mean connecting them with resources to start a business, go back to school, or just read the latest Dan Brown thriller (in any format of the patron’s choosing - Kindle, iPad, e-book online, or a book). People can interact in the library, meet in the library, study in the library. Use the videoconferencing software to interview for a position. Have a movie festival with lectures and discussions. Really, the library can be pretty much what its patrons want it to be, but the library has to be attuned to those needs.

On this same point, let me throw another link at you.

New Libraries Revitalize Cities, by Jonathan Lerner

That link points out what libraries can do, they can be what their patrons want them to be. They use Rem Koolhaas’ Seattle Public Library as an example of that - which is a building I love. Then, Mr. Lerner starts talking about libraries with pools and clinics. This I disagree with, One of the threads I have discovered in the course of writing the Library Design posts is that all good libraries are clearly libraries, as evidenced by their design and their visual cues. The library can be an element in a larger community construction project that includes separate pools and clinics, but the library must be an entity unto its own.

What do you all think? Should the library be defined by items, or by the people? What should the library “of the future” look like? Besides the flying cars, of course!

Dallas and Fort Worth

As you all are probably aware, Jen, Cosby and I live in the city of Fort Worth. We really do like it here, and are passionate advocates for the city, especially in the cultural aspects of the city. On Monday of this week, NPR had a short segment about the cultural rivalry between Fort Worth and the city to our east, Dallas. Take a read (or listen) to this story before continuing - as it will put this in perspective.

Dallas, Fort Worth Battle For Cultural Supremacy by
JOHN BURNETT and WADE GOODWYN

First, let me correct one thing in this story - the quote about Fort Worth and Dallas they mention is from Amon Carter, and it actually goes like this...

Fort Worth is where the West begins, and Dallas is where the East peters out.

The rivalry between Fort Worth and Dallas has been around since the founding of the two cities, but it only became a bit more heated when Amon Carter merged the Star and the Telegram to form the Fort Worth Star Telegram. This paper became a source of Fort Worth boosterism, and painted Dallas in a generally less than optimal light.

I would be lying to you, reader, if I told you I had no opinion about this rivalry between Fort Worth and Dallas. Simply put, I think and feel that Fort Worth is far superior to Dallas in many areas, and this segment on NPR revealed many of the reasons I like it here so much better than Dallas. Before you ask, yes, I have lived in Dallas. Why, do I think, that Fort Worth is better than Dallas? Allow me to list a few reasons highlighted in this segment.

My first problem with Dallas is that in that city new always means better, or “quality.” We all know this is simply not true - look at the myriad of historic sites across the United States, and tell me with a straight face we would be better off if those areas were replaced with something new. I daresay you couldn’t do that - because it is those older and significant places (buildings, etc) that help give us a cultural identity. Since the early 1900’s, Dallas has worked hard to systematically erase its past. Some examples of this include the construction of 75 (destroying an important African-American community and part of a freed slaves' cemetery), the lack of any significant historical buildings in downtown Dallas, save the courthouse and the School Book Depository, and the recent destruction of the studio where Robert Johnson recorded many of his songs. Not to mention the effort by a Dallas resident to destroy the home of Stanley Marcus, an important Dallas citizen. This lack of historical context and grounding leads to the lack of a feeling of community, or sense of civic purpose and being. Because there is so little to cling to culturally, Dallas needs to create things (like the new Arts District) that cause a splash, as if to say, “Look at us! We bought culture!”

On the other hand, Fort Worth is filled with historically significant places. The Stockyards is just one very good example of this. Fort Worth embraces our history and roots, as exemplified by the moment in the report where John Burnett says he can smell cow manure because of the Kimbell’s proximity to the Will Rogers center (constructed through the efforts of Amon Carter in honor of his friend, Will Rogers). Men in cowboy hats and spurs are common and accepted here. As a matter of fact, Jen told me the other day of cowboys coming into the Kimbell with their spurs on (they had to take them off, out of concern for the artwork on display). There are many active civic groups working in conjunction with city and county officials to ensure our cultural heritage is preserved. And typically, historical sites are actively protected by the city (Heritage Park, for example) - without prompting by the citizens - a rare thing, indeed.

I will reserve my comments about the quality of the architecture in Dallas, and point only to this - Fort Worth knows how to pick them. The buildings in Fort Worth, specifically in the Cultural District, are praised as masterpieces by masters of Architecture. Tadao Ando, Buckminster Fuller, Legorreta & Legorreta, Robert Venturi, Philip Johnson, and Louis Kahn all have buildings here. This august group will soon be joined, as mentioned in the report, by the architect Renzo Piano, who is designing the new addition for the Kimbell. To the best of my knowledge, Dallas lacks the breadth of architects, as well as buildings of equal importance to Architecture. (So much for that skyscraper envy Wade Goodwyn spoke of!)

The cultural district in Dallas is a manufactured experience. I can almost see Dallasites thinking, “We need a cultural district so we can keep up with Fort Worth!” Not really built out of a love of culture, but a desire to show off. Contrast that with Fort Worth’s Cultural District, which grew out of the Fort Worth Frontier Centennial Exhibition of 1936, as well as the major endowments of wealthy Fort Worthians to found two of our museums (as well as the Bass Performance Hall), respected as some of the best in the world.

I will not even speak of the safer downtown, free parking, and other cultural events (Van Cliburn, anyone?) here in Fort Worth.

At the end of the report, the fellow from NYC chimes in and speaks condescendingly about Dallas and Fort Worth. He needs to be reminded that the Kimbell was able to purchase The Torment of St. Anthony only because the Met couldn’t afford it, and the Kimbell is better connected (in this case) than the Met is.

Towards the conclusion of the report, Mrs. Stevenson says this quote, which I think sums up this discussion rather nicely:

You know, they turn up their nose at us, I think. Dallas has always had an ego that perhaps, Fort Worth doesn't.

PS - To all of you readers who have yet to visit Fort Worth and Dallas, please come and visit so you can decide for yourself - though you might have some biased your guides in Jen and myself. The same goes for all you crazy folks who think Dallas is better.

The State of the Internet

You might remember me talking about the Internet in 2009 in numbers in a previous post. I just wrapped up watching this video, and it makes me wonder some, what are we librarians doing with all this data and information out there? Anyhow, it’s a cool video, and enjoy!

Classroom vs Real World Experience

I’ve been thinking a great deal about all of the new knowledge I am assimilating in the course of my studies for my MSLIS. Mostly, it was because of this article by a newly minted librarian over at The Desk Set that gave me the catalyst for this post. I want to say first that in my experience, one is superior to the other - I firmly believe that the two are linked and are very much symbiotic.

I don’t know if I would call hands-on library education the “school of hard knocks” but it is certainly incredibly helpful to people earning their library degrees. Ideas, themes, lectures and readings can go only so far in education, and those ideas you are learning in class need to be tested in the real world so so you can discover how to best implement them, and if they even work for you in the first place. Interpersonal skills are very important in the library profession, and that certainly is not learned in the classroom. In addition, I would also say that there are some things best learned in a hands-on setting. Cataloging is a good example of this. No matter how much you look over AACR2 or MARC fields, you really need someone “looking over your shoulder” and guiding you along the path to the creation of “good” metadata and bibliographic records. To their credit, Syracuse does a great job of trying to integrate real-world learning with the topics you are learning in the classroom, much more so than what I have found at local library schools (please correct me if I am wrong). I do want to give a HUGE “Thanks!” to the staff of the Amon Carter Museum Library in giving me so much excellent, thoughtful, erudite, and patient instruction in my real-world learning!

However, based on my experience, real-world, hands-on learning should not be the only manner in which you learn skills and gain experiences. Nothing is a substitute for classroom learning. In the classroom, I am exposed not only to the things I know, but to other alternatives to the way I do things - methods which might be better than the ones I already employ. Also, in the profession, there is a certain jargon and preferred vocabulary that you only really learn through lectures, readings, and classroom discussions. Classroom based learning also exposes you to developing trends and ideas, allowing you to be very much up to date on key themes in the profession. Only with the classroom learning I obtained in my reference class could I be really good at answering patron’s questions at the Carter.

If you are in library school, I cannot urge you enough to find a library and volunteer so you can get real world learning along with your classroom instruction. As an added bonus, it makes you much more competitive in the job market!

Social Networking for Professionals

Every Wednesday, the American Library Association sends out an email titled American Libraries Direct. It’s a great summary of trends and topics in the profession, and usually has a few links in it I want to read more about it. The article Your Virtual Brand by Meredith Farkas was just one of those articles.

Ms. Farkas points out that for librarians (and I think more broadly, job seekers in general) having a professional online presence is important. She highlights several options - a blog, and an online portfolio. I would add to that (as she mentions in the article) Facebook, as well as the social networking site for ALA members, ALA Connect (which more librarians need to use - but that’s another post). This blog, for me, is part of my online presence, as well as my Visual CV, my Facebook, and my other accounts (Aardvark, flickr, YouTube, and Vimeo). That being said, social networking is not all fun and games, as Ms. Farkas points out - and this is something that is lost on many users of social networking sites (check out Lamebook (NSFW), for example).

As a user and consumer of social media, you need to be always cognizant of the people who can see the “stuff” you post online. Maybe this means setting up different groups on Facebook so you can better control who sees what information in your profile - a group for coworkers, a group for professional contacts, and a group for friends and family. Then, you can easily control the information you are sharing with certain groups of people. Or, you might not even want to post that questionable content online.

If done properly though, online sites like the ones I mention above are incredibly helpful in showing off your talents to prospective employers, but once again, you need to be cognizant of the content you are sharing. Not every single thing should be shared - only things that highlight particular skills you have. For example, on my Visual CV, I have two “portfolio” items - a video introducing my work in an online reference tool, as well as a presentation I created about bibliographic records. This will expand with the work I am doing for class this semester, as well as in my work at the Amon Carter and my internship. Like I mentioned before though, be selective - choose your best work from a skill set to share, and even then you might need to edit your work some. Have someone else look over it to make sure it looks its best.

Of course, you don’t have to do anything at all online. However, as Ms. Farkas points out, it really helps you to stand out in this competitive job market. I will tell you from personal experience that social networking and having an overall internet presence has allowed me to connect to and make acquaintances with people I am very happy to know but I would not have otherwise ever met.

What about you - any good tips for social networking online?

Hello Everyone (From Cosby)

I don’t have much to say today, except I am glad mom and dad are home. I like when John and Amber come check on me, but it’s nice to have mom and dad home. Here are a couple of photos made recently of me, I hope you like them!

Cosby