Content uploaded by Shawne D. Miksa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shawne D. Miksa on Apr 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
You Need My Metadata:
Demonstrating the Value
of Library Cataloging
Shawne D. Miksa
ABSTRACT. How do we demonstrate the value of cataloging to doubt
-
ing library administrators? What sort of data need to be gathered to sup
-
port this effort? Catalogers face a dilemma in that they often have to
endure misunderstanding of their jobs from colleagues, patrons, and,
most unfortunately, administrators. If the library cataloging practice is
to continue evolving then administrators should be informed of the
long- and short-term effects of investing in professional catalogers and
cataloging departments. This paper examines cataloging practice from
the point of view of library administrators with the aim of clarifying
strategies that will ensure both quality of cataloging and the longevity
of the cataloging process. In order to do this, we must demonstrate the
quality of our work as it relates to funding, information systems, and the
indispensable library patrons.
doi:10.1300/J517v08n01_03 [Article copies
available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800
-
HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights
reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Metadata, cataloging, catalogers
Shawne D. Miksa is Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Sci
-
ences, University of North Texas, Information Sciences Building, Room 205, P.O. Box
311068, Denton, TX 76203-1068.
This article has been peer-reviewed.
Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 8(1) 2008
http://jlm.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J517v08n01_03 23
INTRODUCTION
As a Library and Information Science (LIS) educator and researcher,
I have advocated for a change in the perception of library cataloging and
of catalogers both to ensure the careers of those who currently work as
catalogers and those of my beloved students who plan to work as cata
-
logers in the future. The idea of a person specifically trained to maintain
the quality of the information within the system, so that users of the
system are happy returning customers, should logically be employed in
a library. However, based on research I have conducted over the past
year I am certain that we are unwittingly sabotaging the quality of li
-
brary catalogs by undermining the value of catalogers and the work they
can do. I use the term “sabotage” for lack of a better term and perhaps it
is too harsh, but if it serves to make administrators aware of the situation
then I am confident in using it. In this vein, one of the more important
questions becomes “How can we effectively demonstrate the value of
library cataloging to library administrators?”
The most common response to this idea of “sabotage” is the lack of
funding for libraries, especially public and school libraries. Salamon
(2005) remarked that “American public libraries are supported by a
Byzantine system of federal money, grants, local fundraisers, private
donations and state and local tax revenue” and that even with the 1969
Library Systems Act the amount of funding here in Texas is 8% below
the national average (p. 3). This is particularly evident when it pertains
to library catalog development and maintenance as well as the time,
effort, and funding needed to enable catalogers to perform effectively
(Miksa, 2006).
Could we make an argument that it is a lack of understanding about
the long-term value of cataloging that often puts it at the end of line when
it comes to funding? Is it viewed as non-essential when it comes to mon
-
etary issues and good access to information?
SETTING THE CONTEXT
In 2005, I conducted a survey of the rural, suburban, and urban public
libraries within the Northeast Texas Library Service (NETLS) and the
North Texas Regional Library System (NTRLS) in order to measure the
extent and utilization of cataloging tools and resources owned and used.
The survey was sent to each library director with the request to let the
person responsible for cataloging respond to the questions. One question
24 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
asked that each respondent (n = 103) give the average number of hours
per week dedicated to cataloging. Table 1 indicates the responses, cross-
tabulated with the type (rural, suburban, urban) of library (Miksa, 2006).
Rural libraries accounted for half of the libraries surveyed and most
of the librarians working within them described their current position as
director, many of which also functioned as the cataloger. This is on par
with the multiple roles that most rural librarians are required to take.
(These numbers only pertain to number of hours per week and are cross-
tabulated neither with need for original cataloging, nor with competing
activities during the same time span.)
Time and again I am confronted by the unfortunate news of the com
-
plete disregard for the skills and service that catalogers can normally pro
-
vide. At conferences, I have had librarians slip me their business cards
and ask me for advice on how to convince a director to keep positions for
professional, and not paraprofessional, catalogers. I have had students
describe how they are forced to catalog incorrectly by their employers.
A woman in tears asked me for advice on how she might save her catalog-
ing job from a supervisor who believed catalogers were no longer needed
Shawne D. Miksa 25
TABLE 1. Number of Hours per Week Devoted to Original or Semi-Original
Cataloging
If your library performs its own semi-original or original cataloging, what
are the average hours per week?
Total
N/A (n = 2)
N/A
2
Rural (n = 55)
0
4
11-20 hours per week
11
21-30 hours per week
3
31-40 hours per week
2
Less than 10 hours week
35
Suburban (n = 39)
0
4
11-20 hours per week
8
21-30 hours per week
6
31-40 hours per week
2
Less than 10 hours week
19
Urban (n = 7)
21-30 hours per week
1
31-40 hours per week
1
Less than 10 hours week
5
Total 103
in a library because they received records from a vendor. Just as discon
-
certing is to hear of the shuffling around of an entire cataloging unit in a
major academic library here in North Texas due to the erroneous belief
that outsourcing and copy cataloging alone, and the lower costs associ
-
ated with that practice, will give quality library service to students and
faculty.
EXAMPLE:
LACK OF AUTHORITY CONTROL
This high cost of employing a cataloger and effectively using catalog
-
ing software modules naturally affects related decisions such as whether
or not to include other facets of the system. For example, an often ne
-
glected facet is an authority database. It is especially perplexing to see
the lack of attention to authority control in public and school libraries.
Any bibliographic database worth using must have a corresponding au-
thority database to ensure successful searching by subject or name head-
ings. Yet, I very often talk with librarians who do not even understand
the function of an authority file, much less know the overall process of
authority control. A librarian who does not understand this cannot ex-
plain the necessity of it to their library director or corresponding admin-
istrator.
This lack of understanding of authority control is a particularly dis-
turbing trend that I have observed and have somewhat measured in the
study of North Texas libraries. Results indicate that 61% of the 103 re
-
sponding libraries performed authority control on name and subject
headings, with only 17% outsourcing those records (19 respondents
skipped these two questions). However, when asked about the amount
of time spent actually maintaining the authority database the reported
numbers were low. Table 2 provides the breakdown of time spent.
26 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
TABLE 2. Frequency of Authority Database Maintenance (N = 103; Response
n = 72)
If you have an authorities database, how often do you maintain the records?
Weekly 9.72% 7
Monthly 2.78% 2
Occasionally 29.17% 21
Not applicable 55.56% 40
Other 2.78% 2
Table 2 illustrates the other side of this trend–the employment of
an authority database but very little actual authority control (maintaining
bibliographic records and keeping them up-to-date, plus updating the
authority records). There is still a significant percentage who are not
investing quality time on this important part of bibliographic control,
even when factoring in the 31 libraries that did not respond to this ques
-
tion. The survey did not ask for reasons behind time spent, but we can
interpret the results in several ways, starting with the fact that many li
-
brarians just do not seem to understand authority control on the whole.
Alternatively, they may understand its importance but have an implicit
belief that outsourced records are good enough and need no mainte
-
nance. Or, it may simply be rooted in the more realistic lack of funding.
Another interesting possibility is a tension I have often heard about or
witnessed between library departments about who is in charge of the da
-
tabase. For example, I was recently contacted by a public service librar-
ian at a state university who was in the midst of an argument with the
head of technical services about the maintenance of subject headings in
the catalog because of a concern from public services about “dead end”
searches. The gist of the argument lay in the belief that outsourced rec-
ords came with very precise headings and that the cost of updating the
authority database more regularly was prohibitive.
To the credit of the public service librarian, libraries do tailor subject
headings and their corresponding authority records for local practice
and local users. The argument about prohibitive costs is understandable,
but it is disheartening nonetheless. Records outsourced from respected
major vendors do not necessarily ensure accuracy of subject headings,
especially when we factor in the needs of users of a particular library
collection. Every collection is different, starting with the users, and to
make the assumption that headings used for one library will always work
for all others is a sign of a potentially debilitating complacency. Stated
another way, accepting all headings breeds complacency with mediocre
bibliographic control.
To clarify, the fact that outsourcing and copy cataloging are the pre
-
dominant sources for bibliographic records is not at issue. What is at is
-
sue is the misperception that these processes alone suffice for quality
organization, control, and access to information in our libraries. Whether
catalog records are created inside the institution or without, humans still
make them and so the records are prone to error. (This is not to say that
computer-generated records would be absolutely perfect.) As such, there
is a constant need to ensure the quality of records with a firm process of
quality control in place. This requires the complete bibliographic control,
Shawne D. Miksa 27
or cataloging, enterprise–the cycle of organizing, controlling, and pro
-
viding access to information resources, regardless of format, that begins
with acquisition of the resources and revolves around the governing
of the access points to ensure retrieval. I use the term “cycle” because
there is no final stage; the enterprise is in continuous motion. It is an
enterprise that, within our current stage of bibliographic control, is un
-
able to be fully automated due to the abstract processes such as subject
analysis, selecting the most appropriate thesauri and classification sys
-
tems for the collection and its users.
ASSESSING AND DEMONSTRATING THE VALUE
The scenarios discussed above have long provided a sturdy soapbox
from which to rant, rave, or otherwise heap loads of criticisms on those
who would not see what seems so obvious to me. The only problem was
that those I had hoped to “convert” were never in the audience. Even
the few administrators I have managed to interest in my arguments al-
ways counter with “it costs money” or with the all-purpose answer, “We
have better technology and the Internet.” Even those knowledgeable
about the cataloging process do not factor in the entire cataloging enter-
prise. At the American Society for Information Science and Technology
(ASIST) 2005 annual conference Michael Leach, the then-incoming
ASIST president, remarked that the cataloging process needs to be
streamlined in order to catalog more in less time by focusing on the key
access and identification points for a given format (personal conversa-
tion, 2005). I agree that dismissing unneeded steps from the cataloging
process is beneficial, but we need to be very careful about what processes
are streamlined or cut altogether because of the potential detrimental ef
-
fect it can have on users’ access to information resources. Removing or
downsizing processes, such as authority control, is a bit like trying to run
a car with a fuel tank and an engine but no fuel line in between.
My suspicion is that the whole argument concerning the value of
cataloging and library catalogers comes down to a disagreement about
the definition of a professional cataloger. At the American Library As
-
sociation Annual Conference in July 2004 the word on the “floor” was
that catalogers had better start calling themselves anything other than
a “cataloger.” But, this message conflicted with another interesting tid
-
bit–that even though the job title may be off-putting, influential com
-
panies, such as Google, know the value of the cataloger’s product–
metadata. We can change our job titles, but being forced to do so points
28 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
to the larger misconception that a cataloger and a “metadata specialist”
are two completely different professions.
In a Technicalities article, Bohannan (1998) lauded the skills that are
at the heart of what catalogers do–they analyze, classify, do systems de
-
sign and analysis, and they observe and monitor (p. 8). At the same time
she admonished catalogers for not “being good at verbalizing the adap
-
tations and transferability of these skills” (p. 8). She also pointed out
that what should really be sold to administrators is that “catalogers
know how to put the ‘value’ in value-added services” (p. 7). Working as
a cataloger means to work beyond the application and manipulation of
metadata. It is to enumerate the list of items in the collection; to bestow
description beyond that of what an information object or resource may
be; and to make the connections between resources for the user and in
many cases based on the feedback from the user. I often tell students in
my cataloging class that cataloging is out-guessing the user; always an-
ticipating their needs by enriching the catalog records with access
points that may be used (i.e., a possibility of use, but not an assurance).
This anticipation of use takes skill and if it is not recognized as value-
added then we risk the chance of libraries losing value and standing with
the people and institutions we serve. All current talk amongst ourselves
suggests we are already traveling down that path. This loss of interest by
the people will ultimately result in a loss of funding.
OCLC recently published a study on the perceptions of libraries by
information consumers in which they found that 84% of the respondents
use search engines to begin an information search and only 1% actually
begin a search on a library website (DeRosa et al., 2005). The organi-
zation also reported that “quality and quantity of information were top
determinants of a satisfactory information search” and that “search en
-
gines were rated higher than librarians” (2005). On the other hand,
OCLC found that a majority of the respondents were aware of the “many
library community services and of the role the library plays in the larger
community. Most respondents agree the library is a place to learn”
(2005). We have to factor in the real issue, which is that a list of hits on
Google is sufficient for those using libraries that do not serve more schol
-
arly or in-depth researchers.
STRATEGIES
If indeed we want to (or need to) compete with Internet search engines
and directories, or just operate at the same level as these search engines,
Shawne D. Miksa 29
we must increase the investment in our catalog systems and those quali
-
fied to maintain the content of the systems, as well as evaluate the con
-
tents of countless other systems. This long-term investment will take a
broader definition of funding–one that means more than just money. Skills
and knowledge of professional librarians have value, but is this type of
value regularly included in any standard operating budget beyond that of
the level of salary paid to professionals and paraprofessionals that is
based solely on the presence or absence of a graduate degree? I am aware
that library budgets are complex and laden with operational and politi
-
cal realities, but I would hope we are not so much of a consumerism so
-
ciety that we no longer recognize the idea that a job worth doing is one
worth doing well. If we provide a quality product then experience tells
us that customers will return for more. The tricky part is that the prod
-
ucts we organize are no longer limited to just tangible objects (i.e., we
are in the digital age with non-tangible objects). As one of many 21st
century societies, we are very enamored with the non-tangible–perhaps
so much so that we tip the balance and neglect the physical library for the
virtual. However, we don’t seem to extend this obsession into the craft-
ing of library budgets beyond that of providing access to the Internet and
electronic resources. For instance, in a report on public libraries commis-
sioned by the Texas State Library, the consultants write that “in business
terms, materials represent a public library’s major product line” and that
Texas is ranked “45th among the fifty states in the average amount of
money available for public library purposes during the 2000 Fiscal
Year” (Himmel and Wilson, 2003, p. 14). This strikes me as particularly
perplexing considering the interaction with non-tangible resources we
have in today’s information environment. Basing budget solely on tangi
-
ble objects, but then expecting the non-tangible as well, is faulty logic.
This harkens back to the idea that all a librarian really does is stamp
books and shush noisy patrons, instead of the more common and diffi
-
cult information “wrangling” that is now part of her daily work reality
and which makes her indispensable.
In his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote the
following about the component parts of the price of commodity:
If the one species of labor should be more severe than the other,
some allowance will naturally be made for this superior hardship;
and the produce of one hour’s labor in the one may frequently ex
-
change for that of two hours labor in the other.
30 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
Or, if the one species of labor requires an uncommon degree
of dexterity and ingenuity, the esteem which men have for such
talents, will naturally give a value to their produce, superior to
what would be due to the time employed about it. Such talents can
seldom be acquired but in consequence of long application, and
the superior value of their produce may frequently be no more than
a reasonable compensation for the time and labour which must be
spent in acquiring them. In the advanced state of society, allowances
of this kind, for superior hardship and superior skill, are commonly
made in the wages of labour; and something of the same kind must
probably have taken place in its earliest and rudest period. (Smith,
1961, p. 48)
The “species of labor” required for quality maintenance and output of
an information system should be recognized and acknowledged (i.e.,
several workers with different skills or one worker with multiple skills).
Turning the system on, dumping information into it and then asking it to
perform correctly will not suffice. The dexterity and ingenuity of a cata-
loger (or metadata specialist, if you prefer) lends to the superior value of
their product–well-constructed metadata and a well-maintained infor-
mation system. (To be fair, there are many “species” of librarians and
each have their own type of dexterity and ingenuity.)
One way to demonstrate this argument is to focus on issues of access
in information systems. All library administrators have been confronted
by unhappy patrons in one way or another; problems stemming from
unsatisfied access to information with the library’s collection are partic
-
ularly important. For example, using the real situation previously de
-
scribed, a more experienced library user has encountered “dead ends”
when searching via subject headings at his preferred library. He points
out his dissatisfaction to the Reference librarian who, wanting to verify
it, does the same search and gets the same results. The patron fills out a
user satisfaction card that eventually finds its way to the Director of the
library. At the monthly staff meeting the Reference librarian also points
out not only this particular patron’s dissatisfaction, but many others as
well. The Director assesses the situation and identifies the problem
as stemming from budget cuts that forced the library to switch from one
outsourcing vendor to one of less reputability. The quality of records
from the new vendor is low and is coupled with the fact that the library
employs only one part-time paraprofessional who works with all the
outsourced records. What will the Director do to improve the situation?
Shawne D. Miksa 31
One strategy would be to find another vendor with higher quality rec
-
ords and make another switch. Another approach would be to keep the
vendor but increase the level of bibliographic control within the library
by employing a full-time professional cataloger. Alternatively, the library
could form a consortium with other libraries and share bibliographic con
-
trol and catalogers, or share catalogers across several libraries. Still an
-
other approach would be to do nothing and assume the risk of losing
patrons. There are other strategies (e.g., assessing the accessibility and
ease of use of the entire catalog) but how would the director calculate the
value of each?
Bell (1973) writes that “money is a rough and ready measure” but the
“value of money diminishes as one’s hoard of it increases” (p. 305). He
also speaks of the individual goods and social goods and we must natu
-
rally ask whose goods are these in this particular scenario? Does the pa
-
tron or the library make up the individual goods? Does the patron or the
library make up the social goods? Bell, citing Adam Smith, argues that
social goods are not divisible, like individual goods are, and the “nature
and amount of goods must be set by a single decision, applicable jointly
to all persons. Social goods, therefore, are subject to communal, or po-
litical, rather than individual demand” (pp. 304-305). Using this logic,
we could say each decision made by the Director may be applicable, but
will necessarily disappoint any or all of those involved. How then would
the Director proceed?
In the short run, we may be able to satisfy the library user by supple-
menting catalog search with resources and knowledge from the reference
librarian. In the long run, we could change vendors based on research
about the quality of products (i.e., records) offered, employ a full-time
professional cataloger, and develop a plan for economic bibliographic
control that ensures quality, usability, returning customers, and money
in the coffer. On the whole it is a service issue that revolves around
money and quality access to information.
This short paper does not give a complete strategy that demonstrates
the value of library cataloging because there are other causes of bad
access in library information systems that are not entirely the result of
administrators’ lack of understanding of the cataloging enterprise. I previ
-
ously used the example of lack of authority control in many libraries. It
is difficult to make my case when there are many situations in which
those who are employed as professional catalogers lack the necessary
cataloging skills and knowledge or do not know how to acquire them. In
the survey of North Texas libraries, I listed over a hundred cataloging
tools and resources and asked respondents if they used them, and if they
32 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
did, how often. Table 3 shows the results when asked about typical catalog
-
ing tools, in particular the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edi
-
tion, one of the most important tools for a cataloger.
The actual list of tools and resources listed in the survey was much
more extensive but Table 3 demonstrates what the overall survey discov
-
ered about the lack of tools or the low usage of the tools used. When
respondents were asked if they regularly subscribed or monitored de
-
velopments in cataloging and classification (i.e., listservs, publications,
etc.), the majority of them did not monitor developments or skipped
those questions entirely. For example, only eight (8) respondents sub
-
scribed to relevant cataloging and technical service listservs when asked
to choose from a list of thirty-seven common electronic discussion lists.
The other ninety-six (96) respondents skipped the question entirely.
When asked what affected the availability of cataloging resources and
Shawne D. Miksa 33
TABLE 3. Rate of Use of AACR2 and Other Tools (Miksa, 2005)
Cataloging Tool Rate of Use
Daily Weekly Occasionally Rarely N/A
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,
2nd edition, 2002 Revision–with
2004 Update
5 9 13 1 52
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,
2nd edition, 2002 Revision–with
2003 Update
00 9 266
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd
edition, 2002 Revision
12 7 564
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,
2nd edition, 1998 Revision
12 3 667
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,
2nd edition, 1988 Revision
01 6 369
Concise AACR2, 1998 1 0 5 4 66
Concise AACR2, 1988 0 1 3 5 65
Use AACR2 via Cataloger’s
Desktop (CD-ROM)
12 2 072
Use AACR2 via Cataloger’s
Desktop (Online)
21 1 071
Library of Congress Rule Interpretations
(LCRI)
7 2 10 8 53
ALA Filing Rules 4 1 7 11 54
Library of Congress Filing Rules 8 5 8 5 54
Total respondents 91
(skipped) 14
tools 80% of the respondents indicated budget limitations (89.3%) and
staff limitations (75%) as the main factors. Other responses included
availability of training, or ability to travel to and from training sessions
and investment in training part-time personnel.
The most perplexing result of the survey was the feeling by approxi
-
mately half the respondents that even with these limitations it was not
detrimental to their providing users with a reliable catalog system
(Miksa, 2006). How is this not detrimental? As information profes
-
sionals, we know that information on the Web can be incorrect, unin
-
formative, or too deeply buried in a source to make sense of it (I do not
necessarily agree with the opposite statement made in the WG’s February
25th background paper that “Relevant information buried within a text
has become more easily accessible” [Fallgren, 2007, p. 2]). Users flock to
the Web because of its speed and convenience (although they may in
-
evitably experience finding something, discovering it is wrong, re-
searching, etc.). Can we claim to be more reliable when we don’t invest
in our own systems, as the data from the survey suggest? On the other
hand, it may speak volumes about the confidence librarians have in pro-
viding reliable service despite the lack of money and resources.
The absence of any real discussion in any of the background papers
on the education of catalogers was puzzling, but not surprising. I do not
have hard data on the most current state of library cataloging education,
but I strongly suspect that we are seeing in our catalogs the result of the
disturbing lack of knowledge of many cataloging librarians and library
administrators that resulted from relegating traditional courses to the
back burner over the past decade or so (As well, I believe our cries
of woe concerning users abandoning library catalogs for Google or
Yahoo! really originate in our feeling guilty about not providing a com
-
pelling reason to use the catalogs in the first place.). If library school stu
-
dents are not pushed (whether by faculty or accreditation standards) to
take the courses, then we are failing our profession by not producing
well-rounded graduates no matter what library position they occupy.
Given the coming changes to cataloging that will ride in on the new Re
-
source Description and Access (RDA) due to be completed in 2009, we
are facing a choice of either being proactive and prepared or suffering
the consequences of belated reactions.
Catalogers face a dilemma in that they often have to endure misun
-
derstanding of their jobs from colleagues, patrons, and, most unfortu
-
nately, administrators. If the library cataloging practice is to continue
evolving, then everyone involved, in particular administrators, must be
aware of the long- and short-term effects of investing in professional
34 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
catalogers and cataloging departments. My survey of North Texas pub
-
lic libraries is only a small sample of the problems facing many libraries
as we try to hold our own with companies such as Google and, more im
-
portantly, as we address the fact that outsourcing and copy cataloging
alone do not always provide the best products for use in our information
systems. It takes both of these practices and the skills of a cataloger to
ensure those systems function at the highest level.
In another lifetime, librarians were meant to be educators, to help the
people in a civilized society to be learned and informed. Bade’s (2007)
emphasis that “what happens in libraries is communication, not transpor
-
tation” (p. 2) is such an important statement. In my classes, I educate stu
-
dents to be communicators of information, to be translators between the
users, the creators, and the systems–not just in the sense of language, but
in helping people to use all these forms of explicit or implicit structure.
We do not necessarily have to bend and give way to current informa-
tion behavior phenomenon (i.e., user-supplied subject tags, non-con-
trolled vocabulary) simply because it is popular or because users expect
“the Search”–characterized by Batelle (2005)–to be easy. By this I do
not mean that we cannot work to make the process as efficient and ef-
fective as possible–but users should realize that in addition to the data
doing its work, they must also do their work. It would be detrimental to
believe that relevant information to any query will be generated with
little effort on the part of the searcher in most types of searches. The
comment that “it remains to discern how bibliographic control should
evolve to meet these user expectations and needs and to discover what
other user needs we have not considered” (Fallgren, 2007, p. 3) is dis-
turbing in that it implies an acquiescence to users’ expectations simply
because they are expressed. In addition, accepting “the consumer envi
-
ronment” instead of a “learning environment” undermines the strength
of cataloging and classification traditions.
Received: July, 2007
Revised: November, 2007
Accepted: December, 2007
REFERENCES
Bade, D. (2007). Structures, standards, and the people who make them meaningful.
(Invited response presented to the Working Group for the Future of Biblio
-
graphic Control, May 9, 2007, Chicago). Retrieved December, 2007 from
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/bade-may9-2007.pdf
Shawne D. Miksa 35
Batelle, J. (2005). The Search: How Google and its rivals rewrote the rules of business
and transformed our culture. New York: Portfolio.
Bell, D. (1976). The Coming of the post-industrial society: A venture in social forecast
-
ing. New York: Basic Books.
Bohannan, A. (1998). Sell your skills, not your job. Technicalities, 18(8), pp.1, 7-9.
De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Cellentani, D., Hawk, J., Jenkins, L., Wilson, A. (2005). Per
-
ceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC Membership.
{Electronic version]
Dublin, OH: Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Retrieved December, 2005 from
http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm
Fallgren, N. (2007).Structures and Standards for Bibliographic Data Background
Paper for the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Retrieved
December, 2007 from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/
mtg2paperfinal2.pdf
Fallgren, N. (2007). Users and Uses of Bibliographic Data Background Paper for the
Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Retrieved December,
2007 from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/UsersandUses
BackgroundPaper.pdf
Himmel & Wilson, Library Consultants. (2003). A study of public library development
in Texas [Electronic version]. Prepared for Texas State Library and Archives Com-
mission, Library Development Division, 1-56. Retrieved January 8, 2006 from
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/tpl/
Miksa, S.D. (2006). A Survey on the extent and utilization of cataloging tools and re-
sources in North Texas public libraries: A summary. Presented at the Association of
Library and Information Science Educators Annual Conference, January 16, 2006,
San Antonio, TX.
Salamon, J. (November 24, 2005). More demands on libraries but less funding: Texas
facilities labor to meet growing needs with money they receive [Electronic ver-
sion]. The Austin-American Statesman, 1-4. Retrieved November 30, 2005 from
http://statesman.com
Smith, A. (1961). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. (C.J.
Bullock, Ed.). Harvard Classics, Vol. 10. New York: Collier.
doi:10.1300/J517v08n01_03
36 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
