I see metadata as cataloging. Libraries have a strong historical tradition of organizing materials. I think it is fair to say that the way we’ve done this has changed over time with the emergence of new technologies. There are at least two questions that should, in my opinion, guide us in participating in the process of evolving our cataloging: “How do we continue to do what is appropriate and right (contextually speaking)” and “How do we adjust what we do to fit our changing environment (e.g., to take advantage of new perspectives)?”

I see metadata as cataloging; It is what cataloging is becoming. It is the same thing, and yet we give it a different label because we need to adjust our perception of it… just enough so that we can question it. We need to distance ourselves from it… just enough to look at it differently, make judgments about it, and then reintegrate our new perspective into our work. It is at this point, I believe, that “metadata” becomes “cataloging” again… the need for a different label is gone – until the process begins anew.

The same is true of the “digital library” — what is a digital library? Isn’t a digital library the same thing as a traditional library? In a way, I think, it is a trick we play on ourselves to allow us to question some of our basic assumptions, make some discoveries (and mistakes), and then integrate what we’ve learned. At that point, the “digital library” disappears and there is just “the library” (we may even look back and think, “Wasn’t it there all along? It sure seems like we were doing library work.”)

I believe a key question when looking at metadata formats from the digital materials community is, “How do libraries differ from other institutions of cultural knowledge?” For instance, are there similarities between libraries and other institutions of cultural knowledge on which we could be building? How similar are our missions or should the differences between our materials be the determining factor? What role would a unified authorities system play across a diverse material environment?

Ultimately, I think we should make metadata decisions based on the context of the digital materials community (and the materials that we are digitizing). It isn’t that digital materials are somehow fundamentally different from their physical counterparts or that a different level of description is required. The decision is made to foster an environment where people working towards the same goal can share ideas, tools, and realizations.

The purpose of metadata is to ask the questions; when we understand the answers, I believe, we’ll realize we’ve been cataloging all along (but we have to ask the questions to truly understand the realization). We could liken the question of whether metadata is cataloging to the Zen parable:

“Thirty years ago, before I had studied Zen, I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. And then later, when I had more intimate knowledge, I came to see mountains not as mountains and rivers not as rivers. But now that I have attained the substance, I again see mountains just as mountains, and rivers just as rivers.”

All this is sort of the philosophical underpinnings of a viewpoint. It is a different thing to implement this perspective as a way forward, I know. For instance, libraries have large numbers of catalogers who are trained to catalog. It may or may not be interesting to them to look at what they do from a broader perspective (though it should be, because what they do is interesting from the micro and macro views).

Pragmatically, I’d suggest librarians start with MODS and MADS. It is the most similar to what they already do so won’t seem like such a stretch. Get comfortable with it. Look at what moving the information around a little does to the overall organization (in comparison to what it would look like in MARC record). Look at what is added to and left out from the MARC.

It is important, though, not to stop there. After all, the Library of Congress is not advocating that people stop using MARC in favor of MODS. MODS and MADS are just one set of (possible) answers.

To truly investigate the question of evolving cataloging we need to look from a variety of perspectives. If MODS and MADS is as far as one wants to question, I think it makes more sense to just stick with MARC. MARC is more granular than MODS/MADS and, though it has its fair share of organizational problems (even related to its level of granularity), it is certainly well understood by a select group of trained professionals (you know who you are).

To work with metadata (in the sense I’ve been discussing here), one should look at other metadata formats… EAD, TEI, Dublin Core, VRA Core, and even XOBIS! Look at similarities and differences. Discover why decisions were made when the authors created the schema (for instance, were they made based on the material in hand, because of traditions within the community, or to satisfy perceived user needs?)

The goal of working with metadata shouldn’t be to make a definitive and final decision about which format a library should use, but to be open to evaluating and re-evaluating the strengths and weaknesses, uses and user communities, and even the cataloging communities from which the metadata comes. It is important to be pragmatic… not to overwhelm yourself with more than you can digest at a time, but when you have new projects (or have time to investigate) take a look at other metadata formats. You might like what you see.

One of his links, O’Reilly’s “What is Web 2.0″, is the first piece I’ve read on “the Web 2.0″ that actually explains in plain text what that phrase might really mean (I’ve read many interpretations). There are two main points of interest to me: 1) that added value (a large part of what libraries do) is only as good as our ability to use it, and 2) that people are as important as ’smarter’ algorithms in going forward with Web development.

On a related note… I recently attended the NISO OpenURL/MXG workshop (I’m still trying to write up a summary… I’ve been a bit under the weather) and was very impressed with what David Walker at Cal State San Marcos has been doing (unfortunately, his web page doesn’t link to what he demoed (yet)). He is a great example of a library programmer working to address the issues raised by Dempsey and others. It is great (and inspiring) to see.

What brings all this up was an interesting teaser from Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog: Quotes about order and disorder. He says, “Order seems very much a part of the public perception of the library, often counterposed to the potential disorder of the materials themselves.” I used to do a lot of writing about cataloging and (dis)order while I was working towards my LIS degree (I copy cataloged my way through library school, taking one or two courses a semester, and writing has always been a form of “sense-making” for me).

One thing that interested me about cataloging at that time was the catalogers need to be able to live peacefully in a completely chaotic environment. One might look at cataloging as making order from chaos but, to me, being able to live in the chaos always seemed to be a more central part of the process than the order that was created (though I know (or at least believe) that patrons benefit from the end result). I’ve often wondered if being as ordered as many catalogers seem to be (from the outside) was just a method for dealing, internally, with having one foot in the yawning void.

In other words, there should be some similitude of order resulting from the cataloging process but the process itself requires a cataloger to keep one foot in order (reason, rules, conventions, etc.) and the other firmly planted in the chaos (changing authorities, changing rules, a never-ending landslide of things to be cataloged, user needs, changing retrieval patterns, etc.) When I was studying to be a cataloger, I often thought of the process of cataloging as a sort of religious practice (if you’ve read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance you’ll get my drift I imagine).

It is a matter of being conscious and aware in every moment. Cataloging is not about “sorting socks” (as I’ve heard another librarian say), but about making conscious decisions (wholly present in the moment and in the process — if you are not, I don’t see how you can do it for a living year after year… the chaos will get to you). It is not unlike the Japanese tea ceremony where everything has a purpose and an order. The process is the end result.

So while it may seem like catalogers create order, what they really do, in my opinion, is perform a practice that maintains that balance in the library. I can go on and on about how they are not appreciated as much as they should be and how they should be paid more than they are (since they are the core of the services that the library provides, and will continue to be even in our single search box era), but I think the real reward for catalogers is in the cataloging itself (they surely don’t do it for the money). They are the monks of the library world… creating balance and constructing pathways that users can use to navigate the information landscape.

I think after I finish reading Cryptonomicon (my current book) I need to return to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance again (I’ve read it three times (so far), the first time in high school, and never fail to get something new from each reading).