I think what I wrote could be interpreted either way. There's a
central hub but decentralized, collaborative editing of records and
local instances. Is that "third order"? I dunno... I haven't read the
book yet either. But your point is taken.
So, here's another scenario. Swap out central hub and insert
peer-to-peer. Each catalog records its own local updates and posts
those changes (automatically as part of the local update) onto their
local server. The peer-to-peer network detects the changed record and
seeds the change out to all the other libraries that have a record for
that (er, trying to use the FRBR term) manifestation. Again, libraries
have local control to lock records or portions of records to prevent
local changes from acting as seeds and from receiving updates, but
that should be exceptional rather than routine.
On 5/20/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> Tom,
> You wrote:
> "Perhaps the third order way might be to mash things up, pushing updates
> to subscribers from a central authority."
>
> My understanding, which may be imperfect, is that the Third Order is
> just the opposite: it's total decentralization. Weinberger's book is
> called "Everything is miscellaneous." As near as I can understand from
> Karen's review, that means information control is thrown out the window
> completely. Full texts are apparently thought to replace that.
--
Tom
Received on Mon May 21 2007 - 06:59:53 EDT