Shawne:
I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by continuing to use "catalog"
when we really mean "bibliographic data as a whole"--these are two
different things, in my opinion, and it's the second that we need to
focus on, rather than continue to fuss over catalogs.
A catalog which is "accessible to the web" as most are now is a very
different thing than bibliographic data available to the web for various
uses and re-uses. The current catalogs must be known about and searched
individually, preferably by people who know how they work (and don't
work). Data available to the web as a stream or service open to search
engines and other services provide ways to access the information that
doesn't require that the seeker of information know where the catalog
can be found, or know what the boundaries are around that catalog (that
it includes mostly books, not articles, etc.) Bibliographic data
available freely on the web can be combined and presented in different
ways, available to those who might want to try new aggregations and
methods of discovery and presentation. Users should benefit from this,
as should libraries themselves
Personally, I have no problem with people continuing to learn
cataloging, though I hope with some realistic context that will enable
the students to imagine themselves doing bibliographic description
outside the boundaries of traditional cataloging and catalogs. These
may well be the people who will provide the expertise for institutions
who will need to make the changes we anticipate, and they will need to
know both the "old ways" and the "new ways" to accomplish that task--a
real challenge to the teacher/trainer, for sure.
The catalog will still be a perfectly good inventory tool for some time
to come, but the data is far to expensive to hoard, and it does
libraries no good to continue to do that.
Diane
Miksa, Shawne wrote:
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
------------------------------------
