Shawne Miksa wrote: > 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?
I'm not saying that I necessarily like the way things are going--in fact, I do not. I feel just as Mac does, who wrote in one of the recent messages that he fears for the future. But even though I may not like the trends in metadata creation, we cannot stop these developments. For example, the fact that Google stopped development of OAI-PMH (using only DC!) in favor of XML Topic Maps is a huge development. Imagine that you are a publisher, or any other producer of non-MARC records (i.e. anybody who is not a library), are you going to go in the direction of our directives or in Google directives? Especially when our directives are not directly useful in any way except that there may be a record after a few months or years in a local web-OPAC someplace (i.e. hidden to 99% of users of the web), or it may be in WorldCat, where it is hidden to probably about 95% of the world's users (since I am sure very few users go to the OCLC site). Or do you opt for XML Topic Maps, put your full-text into Google Books and/or Google Scholar and/or Amazon.com, which are the places where people go? (Especially after this deal that Google made with the book publishers. It now looks as if Google will be one of the major--if not the major--book retailer in the world) I think I know where most publishers would go. So, who will be following the library directives? Libraries and nobody else. This is the information world as it is Metadata creation is being done on many levels by many people in many ways. There are many experiments going on right now. For example, when I hear that students are creating AACR2/LCSH/MARC21 records, I just cringe. It takes months just to learn enough to do LC copy without being revised. To learn how to do simple original records takes a lot longer. To learn how to do complex records takes a career and never stops, and you need other opinions. I remember an incident when I was learning. I was fortunate to work with Ann Murphy (the recording secretary for AACR2, and someone with long years of experience. Look in your AACR2), and I had a question about something I was cataloging. I remember how shocked I was to hear (as I was to hear many times after that!), "I've never seen anything like that before." I have great respect for experience and consultation. But not everyone does, especially "information specialists" who are making the decisions. They like the idea of creators making metadata, or secretaries making metadata, or automatic metadata creation. Many publishers manage the process of their publications with systems using metadata, and some think that is enough. Have you seen "OpenCalais" by Reuters? It makes metadata automatically for you. For free. Or, if you have a larger collection, you may have to pay something. Sure, the results stink (not as bad as I have seen in similar projects of the past), but you get RDF-encoded metadata that someone can edit, and it can even work with authorized forms. And although the records stink, you have to be very good to understand how they stink. Explaining to others how these records stink is extremely difficult, since these other people are mostly skeptical--after all, they think you are just trying to save your job! This is the information world as it will be, and perhaps relatively soon, especially with looming budget cuts. Again, I want to emphasize that I do not like this at all. Users need reliability, consistency, and I believe they want information presented to them in an unbiased fashion, which they do not get in other systems. But thousands of projects are going on out there. The place where the newest developments in information are happening is *definitely not in libraries.* This is most unfortunate, but at least in my opinion, the future lies with these projects and not in libraries. This is a bleak picture I have created, yet I think there are still possibilities for us to influence the future course of these projects. But it will take a sea change in our attitudes and "world view." Yes, we all are snowed under with physical materials, many have significant backlogs. But our users don't just see our collections as their entire world anymore. Their focus has shifted to the web. Our focus must shift as well. How can we help our users find the information they need in this expanded universe? Do we just give up? Or do we change, and change in fundamental ways? Our focus should have shifted years ago, and I only hope it's not too late. I would hate to see libraries relegated in people's minds to "nostalgia interludes," a pleasant place to browse old books and meet a friend for a cup of coffee, but if you want to find real information, it is much more effective and to use easier tools and newer information. Oh, libraries will come in handy if I can't get something for free, maybe the library can deliver it to me. I hope it doesn't come to that. Jim Weinheimer
