I'd like to suggest that, in order to clarify what has become an
increasingly abstract discussion, that people with a point to make, good
or bad, suggest at least three deployed, working examples of whatever it
is they'd like us to see.
The fact that, in most cases, there are no working systems to praise or
damn is in itself instructive. In that case, people who can actually
write code should write more, and people (like me) who can't code should
learn how.
We rightfully damn the vendors for not delivering working code on time,
whether they actually committed to a deliver date. Heaven forbid
librarians should do the same thing. Making a concerted effort to
design, code and deliver a working example of NGC's ourselves, and
reporting on the results for good or ill, would be highly instructive to
the coder and the larger "library geek" community.
Just a thought.
Mark Andrews
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:41 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Jon,
I think I misunderstood your initial proposal to some extent and then
responded in a way that could be misunderstood, too. Is this what you
were proposing: that there be author browse screens that allow you to
click for more information on individual authors, and when you do,
there's a sort of "drop-down" display of titles by that person or
subjects she's written on, without leaving the index screen? I can see
how something like that would be an enhancement of what we currently
have. And in agreement with some of your comments and things I've seen
by others, "undifferentiated" headings would be excluded from that.
There might be a message when you click that this is an undifferentiated
name, so a list of titles or subjects would not be helpful. Is that
roughly what you were proposing?
I wasn't sure what you meant below: "In the current systems, using
connections made in authority files force a user to jump through many
hoops." While I agree that your proposal seems helpful, I don't see why
our current systems are that difficult for users. Maybe it's just
because I'm a cataloger and am used to "jumping through the hoops" all
the time myself. Ordinarily, if you search on a "see reference," you
only have to click, and it takes you to the established form. And if
you're browsing an author index screen, it doesn't seem that tough to
click on an individual name, go to the screen listing his works, find no
match to what you were looking for, and go back to the author index
(except in Horizon, where it annoyingly takes you back to the top of the
list instead of the place where you clicked, so you have to remember
where you were).
But at any rate, I think I see your proposal as a helpful idea, if I
understand it correctly now.
The way undifferentiated authorities like "Smith, John" were explained
to me is as places to store information about authors we don't know much
about. They identify various people who are distinct and give examples
of their work. Of course that means they're strictly for catalogers.
They don't do anything for users. But that's okay, because cataloging is
complex, and catalogers need help figuring authors out.
--Ted Gemberling
Received on Wed May 16 2007 - 13:06:19 EDT