To me the hard part is ensuring consistency, first of terminology, but more fundamentally of granularity and categorization. The great virtue of MARC/AACR/LSCH cataloging is that it is as consistent as it is across many catalogs and institutions and disciplines. That's not a natural development. The natural tendency of thinking communities is to divide and redivide and to use language, categories, and levels of conceptual granularity to draw distinctions between one community and another. The uniformity achieved by the library cataloging (and it's by no means perfect--just way better than average) comes from open standards and professional discipline driven by an economic necessity to cooperate and interoperate across all the divisions that most intellectual communities depend on to define themselves. Diane's right that we can make data and terminology standards much easier to access, but I don't see what's going to compel diverse communities to use these standards consistently. And like Shawne, I don't see a path yet to contribute to a bibliographic description commons.
As for catalogs--when I use my libraries' catalogs (and I do--the Twin Cities library systems all recognize me as a user), it's not mainly bibliographic information that I'm looking for. I want to know what each collection includes, and whether a copy is available, and how long the wait for one will be, whether the titles I'm waiting for have arrived at my branch--and all of these are kinds of information that Google can't give me. To sleight this as an "inventory" function is a serious mistake. I'm happy to see the bib information and access points finding wider use in open web environments, but that won't begin to give me what my libraries' catalogs do. Stephen Miksa, Shawne wrote:
I like fussing. This idea of "hoarding" and "hiding" is difficult to understand as it makes it sound as if librarians, and especially those who catalog, are cave dwellers who can't speak. I would also ask you to not generalize all cataloging courses as traditional. We've been incorporating "non-traditional" ideas into our courses for quite some time now--although I don't use those two terms in my syllabi. Fundamentally, no matter the environment, we create a "representation" or "surrogate" of an information object for use within a system (define that as you like). You write: "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." In your view, where does that bibliographic data originate? Who puts it into a shape or form so that it is available for "the web"? Or does it shape itself? I was recently contacted by a library looking for a fresh new student to help catalog some original materials that have no previous records/bib data in any system. Once those description are made--formed into some sort of representation--then that data can be shaped into anything we want and made available through any system, web-based or not. When I try to understand your argument I don't see that part of it--I just see something "miraculous" happening and then all of sudden things are on the web. Are you suggesting that we set are representations afloat--like paper boats in a stream? My epiphany wore off --I've lost site of your point of view. ************************************************************** 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 **************************************************************
-- Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coordinator/Head, Database Management Section Technical Services, University Libraries, University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 / Fax: 612-625-3428
