Of course we have to talk about the larger context, but I don't understand why we have to stop talking about the catalog. It seems there are two arguments here, at the very least. How can we make the argument that comparing catalogs to Google is incorrect and useless (i.e., apples to oranges) if we can't talk about the catalog? Do we just wish it away?
I have to talk about it, especially when as I teach people how to catalog. We can't dismiss away the fact that we still have catalogs that need upkeep and maintenance--they need "food"--and that still operate within certain perimeters and with certains tools and resources. I can't teach new catalogers to not understand the present catalog and only understand how we want the catalogs to be and to operate, to not "hide" information, as you say. They have to do both. It may be, too, that we are trying to talk while using different definitions. I use the term "catalog" as a shorter way to talk about bibliographic data as a whole. Are you making a distinction between "catalog" and "bibliographic data"? I'm also not sure I understand how catalogs "hide" information, especially if they are accessible via the web. Do you mean they are not "indexed" by search engines and incorporated into something like a "Google" search? ************************************************************** Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Library and Information Sciences College of Information, Library Science, and Technology University of North Texas email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101 ************************************************************** ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA Miksa, Shawne wrote: > Karen wrote: "We have to quit thinking that catalog = library, and start > looking at a wider range of services that we can (and do) provide." > > Whoa! Stop! > > This would imply that 'we' have all been thinking this--as if we all have > tunnel vision. I don't think that is true at all. Obviously the library as a > whole has many components that all work togehter, the catalog being one of > them. But, let's us not equate all arguments on this listserv as "catalog = > library". There is a larger context in which the library catalog functions. > So let's talk about that larger context. I say this because I think that the constant comparisons between the catalog and Google ignore the fact that the catalog is not the library. Let's talk about where the library fits in to a very large and very active information environment, and how we can use our bibliographic data to make libraries visible participants in that environment. I'll start by saying that as long as we keep our bibliographic data hidden away in library system databases, we will remain invisible to most people seeking information on the Web (which is the #1 place where people seek information today). I think we should stop talking about the catalog altogether and start talking about how we are going to connect our data to web searches, web services, and to be easily integrated into mashups, pipes, etc. Let's quit focusing on the catalog and instead focus on bibliographic data and its role in this new world. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
