For every solution a new problem

It seems like everytime I solve a problem I create a new one.

As I’ve mentioned several times before, we are using MADS (largely downloaded from OCLC as MARC and transformed to MADS) for authority control. This is great for insuring a consistency during cataloging, particularly as we have moved to a slightly more distributed cataloging workflow. We now have 6 part-time people rather than 2 part-time people working on cataloging. Having more consistent cataloging in terms of authorities has in turn has helped with standardizing the faceted browsing of the site.

However I find that I’m now facing two new issues:
1) I now need MADS form that allows the catalogers to create local records, and make changes to existing records. It would also be useful to have an upload feature that allows someone other than me to add new records from OCLC to the database. I knew this would be a need, but for every feature I add to the admin side of the application, time is taken away from the other parts of the project that I should also be working on, including: project management, collection development, metadata workflow management, interface refinement and new feature implementation. So it is a balancing act of what needs to be done the most urgently, and since it only takes me a minute or two to add or change a record, this may fall pretty far down on my list even though the catalogers are requesting it.

2) I’m also struggling with how to take advantage the data in these records. Currently we store them in eXist, the catalogers can search the terms, and then select the appropriate term, and have it added to their record via the nifty subject suggest utility. It is great for the catalogers, but doesn’t really do much for the users of the website.

MADS records are interesting, they have related terms, variants, broader and narrower terms, etc. I’m wondering should all or at least part of these records be indexed with the items? For example, if I have a record cataloged with “Automobiles”, for the best search results, shouldn’t I also index this record with the variants of this term like “auto”, “car” and “Motorcars?” Do OPACS generally do this? I’m unsure, as I really don’t spend much quality time with our OPAC. To me adding the variants and related terms makes a certain amount of sense, but broader and narrower terms probably don’t.

Are there other ways I can take advantage of these broader and narrower terms? Perhaps I could have have a little icon next to each term on the browse collections pages indicating that variations/broader/narrower terms are available?

While thinking about the above, I’ve noticed some eccentricities in the MADS data that might make some taking full advantage of the MADS records a little tricky. For example:

<mads version=”beta”>
<authority>
<name type=”corporate” authority=”naf”>
<namePart>Burlington (Vt.)</namePart>
<namePart>Dept. of Streets.</namePart>
</name>
</authority>
<variant type=”other”>
<name type=”corporate”>
<namePart>Burlington (Vt.)</namePart>
<namePart>Streets, Dept. of</namePart>
</name>
</variant>
<variant type=”other”>
<name type=”corporate”>
<namePart>Burlington (Vt.)</namePart>
<namePart>Engineering Division.</namePart>
<namePart>Dept. of Streets</namePart>
</name>
</variant>

Nowhere in the above record is Department spelled out. I would think that would be a useful variant to have for a keyword search. Also, I find a lot of corporate names that include geographic subdivisions as part of the name:

<name type=”corporate” authority=”local”>
<namePart>Edmunds Elementary School (Burlington, Vt.)</namePart>
</name>

wouldn’t it make more sense like this?

<name type=”corporate” authority=”local”>
<namePart>Edmunds Elementary School</namePart>
</name>
<geographic>Vermont</geographic>
<geographic>Burlington</geographic>

Then you could potentially break out the geographic sub divisions for faceting. I guess that gets back to the argument of pre or post coordinated headings. All in all I find authority records baffling, but I’m still hoping to make some use of them. I’d be interested in any work that others are doing utilizing authority records to improve access.