It's really not that difficult

I should probably wait until I've listened to more of this radio play before writing about it, but I'm finding it hard to get through the first five minutes. The play in question was the Afternoon Play on BBC Radio 4 yesterday and is called "Dewey Eyed". Within 4 minutes of listening to it, I wanted to throw things at the computer screen, although I settled for pulling out my headphones and searching for something else to listen to.

In all fairness, if I had read the summary more carefully, I might have known not to listen to it at all, given it refers to "the Dewey cataloguing system." I'll give the librarians a moment to climb down from the ceiling before explaining.

Dewey is not a cataloguing system. Cataloguing systems are what cataloguers use to create catalogue records of items. They're descriptions of what the item, giving its title and author and usually some keywords to describe what it's about as well (subject headings). They are not what librarians use to work out where on the shelves to put the books. That's a classification scheme, of which Dewey is one. When you look at a library catalogue, that bit at the top where the title and author and all the other bibliographic information is contained? That's the catalogue entry. The bit at the bottom with the apparently random letters and numbers? That's the classification number.

Getting them mixed up might sound minor to someone who doesn't know the difference, but if you do, then it's a major problem. Yes, it's reasonably specialised knowledge, but no more than, say, knowing the difference between a chiropractor and a chiropodist. Using the wrong word jars and jars badly, to the extent that, as much as I want to give this play a chance, I really don't think I can. The really sad thing is that the author probably researched Dewey to write the play and still managed to get the terminology wrong. Commissioning editors, actors, producers and all kinds of other people will have looked at the play and its precis, and not one of them picked out the mistake.

There's probably another post in here somewhere about how people don't really understand what librarians do, and how we don't just stamp books all day, but that will have to wait, I think.

I've got some cataloguing to do.

Library news:

A passionate defence of libraries which, as Tom Roper's blog points out, doesn't quote a single librarian. His full response is here. It's passionate and constructive and why isn't this possible? This is also an interesting piece on the availability of books in libraries. I'm incredibly lucky that Oxford City Library has a great and wide-ranging collection, but I'm aware that this is the exception rather than the rule.

In response to the list of Movers and Shakers in the library world, librarians can now add themselves to the list of Shovers and Makers. I'm currently resisting the urge to add every single blog listed to my RSS feeds.

Florida country is thinking of privatizing their libraries. Um. Okay…

An interesting piece about content control and who should have it. I need to go and read the original blog post linked in this article, but I like the idea that librarians "have the public's back"…

…like this. While I don't things are as problematic as the article suggests, there are interesting questions raised by the DRM on eBook readers that no one seems to be thinking about. Apart from librarians, of course.

Provocations: Leadership in Transformational Times. The presentation isn't complete without the talking, but the slides are cool (ignore the typos) and there's some great ideas and challenges.

I might have posted this before, but it bears repeating: What Google can learn from history. As a Classicist, I'm all about the long view.

Wyoming libraries go for a novel *ahem* form of advertising

Skeletons in the stacks in Vermont. Literally.

Internet access in libraries is a wonderful thing, but this is a very good point about how limited it is.

Oxford University Library Service has found a site for its new repository. This should amaze me, but then it's from Oxford city council, so I guess it shouldn't. Having blocked the original plans (because the size of building needed would 'spoil the skyline' despite being in the middle of an industrial estate), they're now complaining that it's not being built in Oxford. Considering the size of the site that was eventually required, there's simply nowhere in Oxford that it could have been built. Honestly.

Michigan University Press will publish its monographs digitally. E-publishing is now the norm for journals, but I don't think it's been extensively tried with books yet. And while we're on the subject Google is doing interesting things with e-access to books. The copyright issues on this one are so huge that I don't understand most of them, but this one is going to run for a while.

Cook's library in LA closes

Interesting piece about the value attached to research depending on where it's published


Web 2.0:

What happens to Twitter conversations when they're finished? Apparently, no one archives them. In fact, I could have filled this whole entry with links to guides/search engines, but I'm limiting myself to the former and this one: The Tweetbook

Teaching social media in primary schools. This sounds like a horror story, and may well turn into one. Definitely something to keep an eye on.

Defusing traditional arguments against letting go of content. Cute slideshow.

Legal news (libraries and others):

Interesting piece about how privacy law works in the UK including an interview with one of the lawyers generally considered responsible for it.

New Zealand withdraws anti-piracy law, for now.

Free Legal Research Resources Online. US-only, but I wonder if there's a UK equivalent.

And finally:

The cartoonist has a point…