A talk sponsored by the Committee on Archives, Libraries and Museums (CALM) at the Museum Computer Network, 2004, exploring the differing conceptions of cataloging practiced by museum and library catalogers. Includes comments gleaned from a casual survey of museum catalogers on the role and organizational position of catalogers in museum. Discusses the role of standards in cataloging strategies.

1. 1

2. 2

3. The cataloging function is typically buried deep in the job description for the
registrar. In fact, most museums don’t have a position known as a cataloger, but
subsume cataloging within registration duties.
3

4. 4

5. If cataloging is just a function of the registration process (at least in most situations),
then how do we define it? There is a subtle difference between the way CIDOC
describes cataloging and the way this randomly discovered definition of library
cataloging describes it. In the museum case, we are told that cataloging means
describing an object according to some system and arranging the resulting
information into a record. Nothing is implied about what is to be done with this
orderly record.
The library definition tells that the purpose of the record is to help us FIND the item
and that to do so, we should create the record so that it may be found in a variety of
different ways. The first definition emphasizes careful description. The second
emphasizes access to the information we create.
5

6. Occasionally we do find a position in a museum that is actually called a “cataloger”.
Note that this position reflects the CIDOC definition fairly accurately. Also note that
this position reports to a curator and not a registrar. In fact, in the few instances I
was able to locate cataloger positions in museums, they all reported to curators, not
collections managers. Also, in this case as in most of the others I found, these
positions were temporary.
6

7. This is the job description for the curatorial cataloger where I work. It reports to a
relatively new position at the museum known as the Programs director. This person
is, in practice, a curator, although his other duties include management of a nascent
education department and the creation of symposia, workshops and seminars. I
should also note that our institution includes a library and manuscripts archive along
with the museum.
7

8. In early 2004 I posted a number of questions to the MCN list that were intended to
be not so much a rigorous survey as a way to incite a conversation about the role of
cataloging in museums and the use of cataloging standards
Only in the larger museums were people actually dedicated to the task of cataloging
objects and only in the rarest of circumstances was that task carried out on a full-
time basis.
In all cases, these people reported to the collections manager
8

9. Cataloging was usually described as something that was done on an as-needed
basis. If a lot of stuff was acquired, there was a lot of cataloging
9

10. The real truth here is that very few places actually seem to employ the vocabulary
standards that we take for granted as of utmost importance. I sure was relieved to
discover that we weren’t the only place in the world that couldn’t seem to get this act
together!
Actually, the response seemed to explicate the conception of what cataloging
actually means in most cases. For the most part, it’s about providing an accurate
description of an object so that you can be sure that the object you’re looking at is
really the one described in the record and that you therefore match it to its
administrative data. It’s almost never about facilitating an ad hoc search across a
set of broad categories.
The quote is by a librarian in a museum. It came in the context of discussing the
problems of getting folks who had very full plates to learn how the standards work
and how to apply them. And it also spoke to a sense of insularity that is felt not just
between museums, but between different groups and departments within museums.
How does this happen? What is it about our particular culture, organizational
structure, values or whatever that leads to what in many cases becomes a
devaluing of cataloging as a profession and the trivializing of the standards that are
designed for that profession?
10

11. Public Access vs. mediated Presentation
Perhaps the most fundamental difference in approach between libraries and
museums, is in their relationship to the public. The mission of the library is to
provide access to its holdings by the public. By definition this assumes that
information is extracted by the patron and not a curator. In contrast, in a typical
museum information about the collections is dispensed pedagogically via exhibits,
publications, public lectures and symposia. The only people accessing the database
without programmatic guidance are museum staff.
In terms of information system design, the library assumes a public access system
providing largely unmediated access to information about its holdings. The Museum,
on the other hand, operates on the implicit assumption that information on
collections will be accessed primarily by staff members in the process of putting
together mediated presentations of museum holdings for the public.
In the former case, the system emphasis will be on “discovery;” the ability to locate
relevant material within the database. In the latter case, the emphasis will be on
depth of description and unique physical attributes: curatorial staff, for the most part,
knows what is in the collection and how to find it within the database. What they
need from the database is accurate ownership information, dimensions and
thorough descriptions.
11

12. 12

13. Effects of “Inward” vs. “Outward” Orientation
Facilitating discovery involves the adoption of standardized descriptive techniques,
including the use of standardized categories and vocabularies. These standardized data
structures and vocabularies make it possible for researchers to work comfortably in
systems at many institutions without needing to learn the idiosyncrasies of local
terminology. Standards also facilitate public access via the Internet and, of significance to
potential inter-institutional collaboration, make possible the creation of union catalogs. This
is the technical area of information services that bibliographic and archival catalogers are
trained in. In the past decade it has been increasingly important in museum cataloging as
well.
With certain exceptions, the Museum’s emphasis on depth of information, combined with its
reduced need to facilitate discovery, diminishes the need for controlled vocabularies and
content standards. While it is true that terminology employed by curators tends to be highly
specialized, it is not necessarily the same terminology adopted in standards such as the
AAT or the ULAN or even at other institutions by other curators. At the same time, the
orientation to an audience that is almost exclusively internal decreases any interest in
adopting widely accepted standards in the information management professions. The
feeling that “we know what we’re talking about” overrides interest in adopting widely used
standards or even in making this information publicly accessible. What has happened at
THNOC is that the majority of relevant and detailed information input by members of the
“curatorial” staff is stored only in free-text description fields. This information can be
extracted during a search by in-house users who know and understand our terminology, but
the data is much less accessible to users outside of the collection. In the case of
information entered into category-specific fields, such as object type, Medium and even
Maker, cataloging has often not used standard vocabularies or even in-house authority
terms.
13

14. At the same time, the opposite trend has taken place with processing staff assigned
to manuscripts and library materials. There, emphasis has moved increasingly
toward the adoption of national and international information standards. The
THNOC library has been cataloging all new materials within the OCLC library
system for many years. The manuscripts department has adopted both the use of
MARC format cataloging for collection level data, and Encoded Archival Description
for the production of finding aids. This has been done even though our ability to
display and access data in these formats is almost non-existent. It’s sort of a leap of
faith – the belief that we would someday be able to put this data in a real system –
but it also reflects a fundamental professional viewpoint: it is difficult for folks trained
as librarians and archivists to see the museum CMS as an information retrieval
system.
[1] See the Online Archive of California, www.oac.cdlib.org/, The Consortium for the
Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), www.cimi.org/, The Open Archives
Initiative, www.openarchives.org/
14

15. So what it comes down to is that we catalog stuff when the stuff itself is going to be
sent somewhere or put on display or have it’s picture taken and put in a book or on
a web site.
To add a thought to the second quote: not only does access to information call
attention to the way information moves in and out of museums, it is the movement
of objects in and out of museums that calls attention to problems of access. And the
huge danger is that descriptive cataloging tends to occur only at these transition
points – when the object is going on display, or loaded to a web site or a digital
library – and that this now-fixed information stays at those transition points; i.e. on
the web site, in the digital library, in the book, on the wall label, and NOT in the core
information system for the museum? How often is it that the only time that
standards for descriptive cataloging are really adhered to is when the destination
requires it, such as in a digital library. How often has extensive label copy been
written that never gets back into the collection record, even though every modern
CMS is designed to facilitate this? How often have Dublin Core records been
created from scratch for uploading to a digital library because they can’t be pulled
from the CMS?
15

16. 16

17. We’re unique – don’t hear this as much as you used to, but still a favorite claim.
There is also the common misconception that a vocabulary standard imposes a
strait-jacket-like constraint on use of descriptive terminology, whereas the
recommendations are generally to use and/or adapt terminology as needed. Indeed,
the hardest concept for many museums is the understanding that a controlled
vocabulary is one that is consistent. Also, the adoption of standards means
designing local practice and lexicons in such a way that you can map your system
to another system that is documented, known and understood by other institutions
and system vendors.
The argument that we don’t share our data with others is a typically a narrowly
interpretation of the concept of “other” that designates the other as someone from
outside the institution that conveniently neglects the data that is supplied to the
Education and Development departments and assumes that the institution will never
migrate to another system.
Lack of resources is a very serious issue in most institutions, but in many cases the
argument that inadequate resources requires the institution to stop cataloging
acquisitions is probably symptomatic of the structural indifference to the extended
value of the collections data. When such decisions are made, how often is
extensive research on items presented on web sites and in exhibitions continued?
When such decisions are made, are records still being prepared for submissions to
digital libraries? Does it seem likely that catalogers would be laid off in libraries who
acquired primarily rare materials that had no footprint in OCLC?
17

18. There are many standards in existence and many that are in use in most museums.
Many of these are simply part of the environment and we use them without any
more thought than we give to the standards that supply the 120 volt power we
power or machines with
18

19. There are many conventions that we use directly in our work that suffer little
controversy because they are part of the software systems that we use every day.
These are implemented by our vendors and not only are they accepted by users,
they often come to shape our workflows and practices.
19

20. Finally, there are “optional” standards, and the vocabulary standards typically fall
into this category. Here we often run into arguments over adoption and
implementation, simply because we have to think about them. We realize that we
are possibly expected to change long-standing practices that, viewed from the
standpoint of daily routine seem “better.”
20

21. 21

22. The problem of NOT adopting – and adapting – standards is that the in-house
standards, assuming they exist, are typically designed to service the needs of a
specific area of the institution – one or more of the famous information “silos” that
develop in many companies and institutions. As such, they produce data that
becomes difficult to re-purpose which really means moving between systems.
Also, while a locally developed system may be better than a standard, it also
requires local maintenance. Maintaining such a system adds a significant layer of
work to the institution, work that is typically not done.
Finally, even if you do none of the activities that require integration with other
systems, you will still have the problem of moving your data to a new system. You
will be sharing your data with yourself in about 6 to 8 years when you replace your
system. In the case of THNOC, a migration of the collections information from our
14 year old CMS to our new system required 6 months of planning and a cost of
36,000 dollars. On the other hand it took hours to import our MARC format data into
our library system and minutes to get our EAD formatted Manuscripts finding aids
into our archival system
22

23. 23

24. 24

25. The level playing field can be seen in the marketplace with off-the-shelf products
that implement standards that have been adopted by professional organizations,
thus guaranteeing a market,
25

26. Or totally new categories of product, such as a CMS sold as a subscription
application service that relies for its sales appeal on a widely accepted data
standard?
26

27. The most important way to think of standards is as an “exit strategy” or a way to bail
on a product or method that you don’t like or can’t use anymore. Not everything
uses the same standard, but being able to move between them is the reason they
exist. In the data field we call the tools to do this “cross-walks”. Think of the brick
that connects your laptop computer to the wall outlet as a cross-walk between A/C
and D/C current.
27

28. Take it seriously
The people who do this work are specialists. They need training and authority to
over-rule some smart and very powerful people in your institution
28

29. And who does all this?
29