At Georgia Tech, we, like basically everybody else at this point, are
building our Next Generation "catalog". We call it the "Communicat".
We are building it on top of the Daisy CMS. We've chosen Daisy
because it allows you to define schemas for document types and each
document can contain many parts, fields or include other documents.
Right now we've got two general types of documents: Pages and Components.
Pages are the display layer and combine zero or many components. They
include editable regions and the ability to include syndicated feeds
(TOC, say). We can grab descriptions, link to Wikipedia or reviews in
Revish or OpenWorldcat at the Page level.
Components are generally non-(directly)-displaying and generally
include metadata derived from authoritative metadata records. Here we
include MARC records, EAD, DC, ONIX, etc. These records inform the
Page record on basically how it should display.
There are three 'realms' in which Page records can reside: core,
community and world. The Communicat is intended to allow users and
groups to be able to build their own collections (via social
bookmarking) and then scope their searches based on items in their
groups.
"Core" items are records that viewed as "official Georgia Tech
assets": most likely seeded from the library's collections, but there
are other repositories to draw from across campus.
"Community" items are added by students, faculty and staff of Georgia
Tech, either through courseware, registered social bookmarking sites
(such as Connotea or del.icio.us), or by using GaTher, which is the
Communicat's citation manager/social bookmarker.
"World" items are those added by people that aren't associated with
Georgia Tech (it doesn't discriminate to facilitate cross
institutional scholarship).
The components don't belong to a realm since they can only be modified
by whoever added them and are intended to be used in pages. Most
people won't realize they even exist.
We had hoped to roll out the core collection to coincide with our site
redesign last week, but some snags related to processing the MARC
records to go into it will probably push that back into June sometime.
I guess my point with all this is, we aren't implementing this so that
our users can tag our government documents and conferences (although,
that will be a side-effect), but so that anyone, mainly reference
librarians or faculty most likely, can make relationships between
novels and film adaptions or links to critical reviews or, yes, the
IMdb record. It's an attempt to make the collection organic, rather
than a tightly controlled silo.
-Ross.
On 5/15/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> Ross,
> Of course Mann is not the only authority on library science. He isn't
> always right. Not in details, but I think in broad concepts he has been,
> as far as I've seen. But I'm not refusing to listen to others.
>
> Actually, I don't believe there are any authorities in any subject.
> There are just people we get insight from to varying degrees. I have to
> admit I've gotten a lot from Thomas Mann and not much from a lot of
> others.
>
> Now, when you say it's cheap to allow users to make the relationship
> between De list and The shaft, I would say it depends on what the impact
> of that will be. It's not cheap if it's something a cataloger has to
> intervene in, in some way. If it's "tagging" or "folksonomies" of some
> sort that are not put on the MARC record, are just part of some user's
> "my catalog," then it's cheap as soon as the system for linking it to
> titles has been set up. In that way, "controlled, authoritative metadata
> lives in harmony with community contributed data" (or maybe more
> correctly, "personally contributed data").
>
> But there has to be a realm where the "community" can't contribute data.
> They shouldn't contribute data to the MARC record, at least not
> directly. That has to be a realm that is controlled and follows strict
> standards. Those standards exist partly to keep costs down, and partly
> to make the information as useful to as many people as possible. That's
> because libraries are public institutions.
> --Ted Gemberling
>
>
> Not an official statement of the UAB Lister Hill Library
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Libraries & the Web--was Down and The Shaft
>
> But I think the point is is that it's "cheap" to allow our users to
> make relationships between "De Lift" and "The Shaft" if they find it
> valuable.
>
> There is no reason that controlled, authoritative metadata can't live
> in harmony with community contributed data.
>
> Thomas Mann is not the sole voice or opinion on the theories of
> information science.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On 5/15/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> > Thomas,
> >
> > Thanks. I don't want to irritate people by saying anything more in
> > detail about that movie, but I'd like to comment briefly on this
> > question you raised. I'll get philosophical later, and of course no
> one
> > has to read that if they're not interested.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "This information about "De Lift" came from the review attached to
> > the IMDb record--a plus for user-supplied social networking data. An
> > interesting question arises. Say that the cataloguers would always
> miss
> > that data, but a user found this relationship and supplied it. Would
> > someone then make a more formal link (a 730 field or equivalent) in a
> > catalogue record in some sort of global next gen catalogue? Or is that
> > title information just loose data that other end-users could make use
> of
> > if necessary? I would say that information from the end-user should be
> a
> > trigger for more formal use of data fields with the final decision
> made
> > by librarians ..."
> >
> > It strikes me that we can get into trouble trying to tie the entire
> > information world together. I'd opt for the "just loose data" answer
> to
> > the question. I appreciate the fact that IMDb gives us this
> information
> > about the relation to De lift. But I doubt that it's worth the time,
> > money, and effort of libraries (or the "library world") to show what
> > this rather obscure 2001 film is a remake of.
> >
> > Now, if "The shaft" came to be regarded as some sort of classic of
> > cinema art, and scholars around the world were studying it as such,
> > interest in De lift and its relation to The shaft would increase. I
> > think there are pairs of films like that, though I can't remember any
> > examples right now. It might then make sense to add the title added
> > entry to cataloging records.
> >
> > My philosophical point:
> >
> > What I said above relates to a perspective I came to after reading
> > Thomas Mann. I think we need to recognize that the Web and library
> > catalogs have different purposes. They are both valuable, but we
> > shouldn't think their values are the same. We shouldn't have to
> catalog
> > the whole Web or show relationships between all kinds of information.
> > And I think the reason some people (not Thomas Brenndorfer) want to
> > discontinue things we've been doing is that they want to catalog
> almost
> > everything, which means they can't catalog anything in much detail.
> >
> > Here's a stab at how we might distinguish the purposes of libraries
> and
> > the Web. I think libraries, as public institutions, are in the
> business
> > of preserving information that the public (or maybe better, the "body
> > politic") has decided is important. The things which are necessary for
> > education, research, public safety, and other concerns. That isn't
> > really contradicted by public libraries' fiction sections, because
> they
> > just show that the "body politic" has decided it's important to
> provide
> > entertainment, too. Nor is it contradicted by some libraries being
> > privately owned, because even if they're private--unless they're just
> > "libraries" in people's homes--they have to reflect "public" concerns
> to
> > some extent. Otherwise no one will use them.
> >
> > In contrast, the Web is centered on the interests of individuals. It
> is
> > often, in Thomas Brenndorfer's terms, "loose data." It is the realm of
> > freedom and personal preference, and somewhat of chaos. Great sites
> like
> > IMDb or Google exist because people want to look for things outside
> what
> > is provided by the public institution of libraries. If you're a film
> > buff like me, you won't be satisfied by what libraries can give you.
> And
> > we wouldn't want to make libraries tell us everything about movies. At
> > least not most libraries.
> >
> > This isn't to say you can't publish things, even "serious" things like
> > electronic journals, on the Web. Though the "serious" ones are more
> > likely to come with a price. Maybe I should say the Web is a realm
> that
> > contains both "raw" and "controlled" data, and librarians select
> > strictly from the things they've decided are important.
> >
> > On the Web, it's questionable that one really has an inalienable right
> > to anything. I'm sympathetic to "Net Neutrality," but I wonder if we
> > might have to realize that as an entity that exists for individuals'
> > whims and interests, the Internet may not be able to provide equal
> > access to everybody. That may be another important purpose of
> libraries,
> > to provide a place where individuals who can't afford fast access to
> it
> > at home can get it. But capitalism may hold sway on the Web, as in
> most
> > forms of publishing.
> >
> > Here's an example of the value of "loose data." I catalog 19th century
> > books, and many of them have signatures that are pretty illegible.
> > Sometimes I can only guess at how to read people's handwriting. Google
> > is a terrific source for deciphering the signatures at times. LC's
> Name
> > Authority File can help somewhat, but it's a lot farther from
> containing
> > every personal name that has ever existed than Google. On Google, I
> can
> > try different possible readings of the names and see which ones have
> > matches. After I do that, I may go to the NAF to see if there's a
> > corresponding heading.
> >
> > As a library cataloger, my job is to translate that "loose data" into
> > something that isn't "loose." Of course established headings exemplify
> > "non-looseness." When something goes from the realm of the private to
> > the public, looseness has to stop for the most part. Transcriptional
> > fields like the 246 are looser, but even they are governed by some
> > strict rules.
> > --Ted Gemberling
> >
> > Not an official statement of the UAB Lister Hill Library
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> > [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:31 PM
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: [NGC4LIB] Down and The Shaft
> >
> > I found a record for "The shaft" DVD at Vancouver Public Library. The
> > catalogue record had also
> >
> >
> >
> > 246 $iOriginal title:$aDown
> >
> >
> >
> > I suppose as a remake, "De Lift" should be a related work heading on
> any
> > record for Down/The shaft. A work-to-work relationship in FRBR
> terms-not
> > one work issued under two different titles.
> >
> >
> >
> > This information about "De Lift" came out from the review attached to
> > the IMDb record-a plus for user-supplied social networking data. An
> > interesting question arises. Say that the cataloguers would always
> miss
> > that data, but a user found this relationship and supplied it. Would
> > someone then make a more formal link (a 730 field or equivalent) in a
> > catalogue record in some sort of global next gen catalogue? Or is that
> > title information just loose data that other end-users could make use
> of
> > if necessary? I would say that information from the end-user should be
> a
> > trigger for more formal use of data fields with the final decision
> made
> > by librarians. If the fields exist and these are the FRBR entities and
> > relationships of concern for bibliographic control, then the data
> should
> > be filled in correctly in the next gen catalogue.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Thomas, where did you get the information that "Down" was the
> original
> > title? Maybe that's buried somewhere on IMDb, but it's not something
> an
> > average moviegoer would know, I think. IMDb says it's a remake of a
> 1983
> > Dutch film, De lift.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thomas Brenndorfer, B.A, M.L.I.S.
> >
> > Guelph Public Library
> >
> > 100 Norfolk St.
> >
> > Guelph, ON
> >
> > N1H 4J6
> >
> > (519) 824-6220 ext. 276
> >
> > tbrenndorfer_at_library.guelph.on.ca
> >
>
Received on Tue May 15 2007 - 18:13:02 EDT