On Apr 24, 2007, at 12:47 PM, K.G. Schneider wrote:
> I wonder how many of us are conceptually on board with the concept
> of a
> national catalog, and yet hesitate to endorse this concept (or even
> argue
> for a functional model we realize is not working for us now, if it
> ever did)
> because the only functional model remotely available to us (and not
> that
> remote any more, either) would place us under the control of the
> Big O.
I've been waiting for somebody to say something like this. "Thank
you, Karen."
Much of the issue revolves around our definition of a library catalog
and the goals we are trying to achieve in our libraries. On one hand,
if the definition and purpose of a catalog is to provide an inventory
list of the things a library owns (or licenses), then OCLC could
provide such a service rather easily. Increasingly I hear people say,
"I use WorldCat and Google Scholar." Fine. No problem.
On the other hand, if, in the case of an academic library, a
library's purpose is to foster learning, teaching, and scholarship,
then a mere "catalog" is not going to cut it. Each library's
clientele are going to have a different set of needs and
perspectives. Here at Notre Dame we focus on the humanities,
philosophy, and theology. At a land grant institution the focus will
be on technology. Libraries collect materials and provide service in
an effort to meet these needs.
IMHO, the "next generation" library catalog is not really a catalog
at all. It is a network-accessible tool embodying the collections and
services of a library. Because Google (nor OCLC) has a handle on the
mission and scope of all our library patrons, there will be the need
for library-centric implementations. Let Google and OCLC do the bread
and butter. The value-added services will be implemented locally.
--
Eric Lease Morgan
University Libraries of Notre Dame
Received on Tue Apr 24 2007 - 11:15:56 EDT