Hmmm - I don't think this is quite alright, somehow. Assessing my own use of databases, I find I do use Google for an initial meta search engine (e.g. "amazon girls who grow plump in the night"), and then quite often click on entries within the relevant database to see what else they have by the same (in this case) band. Interestingly, in this example, on Amazon, you end up with something which looks like a name authority file! My last example for this was the band Man, who I thought had sorted this out a bit better than they have this time I looked, but if you try it out, you end up with the same wholly useless results you'd expect (and forgive) with google (try "Man Welsh connection" on the latter, then on Amazon click on the artist), but flabberghasts me (and I'm sure a number of other users) when you go into a local database ..... Very odd.
My favourite example of user frustration over this is the top of "most helpful" of the customer reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Youngbloods/dp/B000002W4K/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1216727758&sr=1-4 (clicking on Youngbloods you end up a name authority file as with Caravan - this wasn't here last time I checked, so...) I'm sure the recent email on either this or the UK lis-link list (apologies for not keeping it to forward) over concerns within the publisher industry about improving data quality are as a result of these kinds of problems, which are, I would guess, ultimately the result of organizations relying too heavily on inadequate search engines utilized on substandard information on their databases.... And the name authority pages Amazon seem to have initiated indicate that. Anyway, ignoring my frustrations in searching for retro rock - as ever, I'm suspicious that quantatitve research in these areas skims over things like this, and qualitive research, such as that which I've mentioned in an earlier mail, has far too great a tendancy in the library industry to be lacking in anything resembling objectivity! Rant over! Time for a break... Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: 22 July 2008 12:20 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG > I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think > about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for > linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources.  I > imagine most people will be searching the open web using keywords (in > various increasingly sophisticated and machine-assisted combinations), > and FRBR/RDA will kick in only when they've discovered a resource of > interest.  At that point, FRBR/RDA will present them with the > _context_ of their resource, giving them a structured choice among the > expressions/formats in which the resource is available to them > (available based on the user's online identity, which will include > their rights), and other works related in various ways to the resource > of interest that are also available.  In other words, I can see > FRBR/RDA thriving, but I don't see library catalogs (other than > possibly as linking mechanisms to data about a subset of offline resources). Your scenario may very well prove correct. FRBR will not be so much a finding tool, but a way of displaying to users the different materials (both digital and print) after they make a keyword-type search. That seems to be a somewhat different goal from its original purpose, but that's OK. The FRBR Objectives are: "The study has two primary objectives. The first is to provide a clearly defined, structured framework for relating the data that are recorded in bibliographic records to the needs of the users of those records. The second objective is to recommend a basic level of functionality for records created by national bibliographic agencies" (http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf) p. 7 [pdf p. 15] >From this, it would seem that if user tasks have changed so fundamentally, (or >if the user tasks were never *really* to find, identify, select, and obtain: works, expressions, manifestations and items, but are something else) then things should be reconsidered. But even if we accept your scenario, there seems to be a problem. This assumes that the information in a FRBR/RDA record is sacrosanct. I thought one of the purposes of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control was to reconsider the utility of our bibliographic data and workflow in a global environment where we can all share metadata. So, instead of looking at FRBR as a statement to the information world of "this is what we do, use what you want for interoperability, but we won't change it," I thought we are supposed to be thinking "is what we are doing relevant in today's environment? Are the old ways useful anymore, or if not, can we repurpose them? If they are no longer useful, they should be scrapped." *And* (very important!) "the user is the center." Again, do users want FRBR displays? Would they find them so incredibly useful? I realize that these are the displays that library catalogs have striven for since the time of Panizzi, but people seem to have managed without them for a long time now. That's why I think the Working Group's recommendation is the best course: "The library community is basing its future cataloging rules on a framework that it has only barely begun to explore. Until carefully tested as a model for bibliographic data formation for all formats, FRBR must be seen as a theoretical model whose practical implementation and its attendant costs are still unknown." [http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.p df] p. 33 (pdf p. 38) At the same time, I think everyone would agree that it would be nice to know, after a keyword search has led me to a specific page in a document and I am reading the text, that there is a later edition somewhere. Or to know that the author has written other articles and books, published during specific time periods. As others have mentioned, the relationships section of FRBR potentially will be the most useful. Still, new search and retrieval tools are being created almost every day, and the Web2.0 initiatives may turn out to be not just a flash in the pan but they may have some lasting impact and value. All of these incredibly powerful tools came only after FRBR was issued. I don't think it is wise to ignore them. An interesting discussion. James Weinheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 327 fax-011 39 06 58330992
