On 08/08/2011 23:42, Kevin M Randall wrote:
<snip>
James Weinheimer wrote:
On 08/08/2011 19:00, Kevin M Randall wrote:
I was really hoping for something that could become part of the
conversation *here*. I'm sure there are others who would appreciate it too.
</snip>
That means redoing an awful lot which I really don't feel like doing or
have time for.
I specifically stated that just one example would do. If you don't feel like
contributing something to explain an argument that you have been making for a
long time, what choice have I but to question your commitment to serious
involvement in the conversation
</snip>
That is really unfair. I have spent many hours discussing my opinions of
FRBR, on this list and several others, plus doing a number of podcasts,
each of which takes some time. Therefore, to conclude that because you
don't want to look at those things and I am supposed to redo it, means
that I am not serious, is unfair and I must protest. So far as I know, I
was the first one to attack the FRBR sacred cows and for some time, I
was alone. Many out there don't agree with me and that is fine. We can
agree to disagree.
One thing I want to point out (again!) is that I am *absolutely not*
claiming that no one, ever, wants works, expressions, manifestations,
and items because they do. I have said this over and over and over
again, so many times I am thinking about making a macro for it. You
mentioned that you have wanted WEMI, and I have said I have wanted it
too. So what? We are both library-types. Knowing how the public searches
is what is of the highest importance. In any case, I consider that the
argument is moot since our catalogs allow WEMI *right now* and they have
for almost two centuries (if not much longer). The problem is that the
structures for this type of access worked much better in a printed
environment where people were forced to browse pre-arranged individual
records (of varying types). In several ways this structure simply fell
apart with the transfer to computers because of keyword access, the
weird alphabetization of the computer and the problem of adding
cross-references to the headings in a keyword environment. The catalog
became even less comprehensible to the average person. Add the fact that
people now search library catalogs like they do Google (very
understandable) and they necessarily get inferior results. It is no
wonder that things have broken down.
Finally, these problems with the online catalogs have begun to be
recognized and they must be corrected. So how do we go about it? Do we
recreate the original ideas from the 1840s as FRBR envisions? While that
would satisfy my historical sensibility, does it make sense to create
something like that for our users? It does only *if* you claim that our
users want the FRBR user tasks. If you claim otherwise, it makes no
sense. Creating a tool *for the public* is of primary importance to the
future of the catalog, and I believe, to the future of the library
itself. Therefore, such a vital question should be researched and
answered very seriously whether people really want the FRBR user tasks
so badly, and such a statement should *not* be taken as a sacred
commandment handed down from our forefathers that can not be questioned.
The future of the profession is at stake.
Additionally, it has been demonstrated that we could make the FRBR user
tasks operable in today's environment *right now* by systems people who
can create the correct queries and views, and is *not* a matter of
reworking our rules and formats. I personally think it would be a highly
positive achievement to "claim victory" and then move on.
I will skip to a major point in your message:
<snip>
That's an awfully self-centered way of looking at the bibliographic
universe. So the only information that should be in there is the
information you want to have in this one particular instance? How in the
world is a cataloger right now in Library X going to know what exactly
it is (and nothing more, apparently) that you want to know five years
from now when you do a search? *ALL* metadata has meaning depending on
the context. The FRBR report acknowledges this, and that's the whole
point of the tables in chapters 6 and 7 of FRBR. The elements are
analyzed in terms of their general value (high, moderate, low) in
meeting the user tasks. If you're interested in research on FRBR, an
excellent first step is the FRBR Bibliography at
http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881
</snip>
That is *precisely the point* of the new information environment: it is
a personal one. This must be understood and accepted, whether we like it
or not, and it is an environment where the library has sharply
decreasing control over anything at all. I personally do not care for
this environment and explain why in my podcast on search, but I
realize--and say as much--that my feelings are 100% irrelevant. This is
where many say that the "one size fits all" library catalog cannot work
in this new environment, and even that human-created metadata is obsolete.
This can be shown in the excellent question you ask: "How in the world
is a cataloger right now in Library X going to know what exactly it is
(and nothing more, apparently) that you want to know five years from now
when you do a search?" The answer is: the human cataloger can't. But in
a semantic web, with full-text content at its disposal, constantly
gathering all kinds of information about *you*, from what you, and
people similar to you, are searching for on the web, what you look at
for 3 seconds as opposed to 5 minutes, the pages and sites you return
to, reads your messages on facebook or wherever, always analysing and
comparing them in incredible ways that boggle the imagination--then many
people say that that kind of system actually *can* do what you say. In
that future, searching disappears almost entirely, or becomes almost
irrelevant. This very well may come to pass, and may happen rather soon.
Lots of very big players are preparing for it. In any case, it is
beginning to happen now. I don't like such a scenario but accept that it
is coming. That's why some people conclude that catalogers are obsolete.
You've made the case for them! Anyway, if this happens, everything in
FRBR obviously disintegrates. "Find" changes its very meaning and
becomes an app you download, "select" becomes crowd-driven page ranks,
while "item" becomes different types of mashups. It's something that
could not have been imagined not that long ago.
I do not accept the pronouncement about catalogers being obsolete and
maintain that even in such an environment, human expert-generated
metadata is important, but how? Not because I believe that people want
the FRBR user tasks because who knows what they want today and will want
tomorrow? What do libraries *really and genuinely* provide that others
do not? Librarians--all of them--need to consider and debate this
seriously and at length.
One thing I have decided: there needs to be some kind of--I'll call
it--objective view of the information (please read on before throwing
tomatoes!)--in the sense of providing standardized and equal access to
information (which follows library ethics).
Of course there is much more, but this is enough...
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
