Response #4: Kyle Olmon

I have to admit that I enjoyed the sensationalistic manner of the readings for this week. All too often, I get bogged down in the dry exposition of the theoretical or jargon-y articles selected by my various teachers.  I appreciated checking in with Roy Tennant to see what provocative statement he was going to shout this time. His call-to-arms for the revision or replacement of MARC records was a nice insight to the workings (or lack thereof) of various committees and stakeholders intent of updating an outdated record system. Coyle & Hillman join in the chorus and sing of the trials and tribulations of RDA and how it is also not living up to library and user’s expectations. Like Tennant, they suggest that you cannot base a new format (like RDA) on an old tradition (in their case the AACR) without addressing fundamental changes in the information providers relationship with the community. That point is driven home in Eden’s commentary about a re-envisioning of the Technical Services department in the library system. He laments that OPACs are time and resource intensive operations to build and maintain in an age when a vast majority of the users are becoming more content with incomplete, often unreliable information obtained from Web search engines. To borrow Eden’s metaphor, it seems like most of the major players in the information science field are trying out different colors of “lipstick on a pig”.

-Kyle

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s