There are 31 messages totalling 1778 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Next Gen Catalog and FRBR (8)
2. Author Identification/Disambiguation [was:Next Gen Catalog and FRBR]
3. Libraries & the Web--was Down and The Shaft
4. Library Camp NYC, August 14, 2007
5. Abstraction vs. reality (was "[NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR")
6. "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web (16)
7. "Third Order" (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:23:07 +0200
From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Ted P Gemberling schrieb:
>
> One tricky thing about authority work is that sometimes you don't know
> for quite awhile what the bibliographical identities are. Sometimes you
> have to look at lists of works published by people with identical names
> and try to find patterns.
And this means we need alphabetical browsing indexes as part of catalog
interfaces. I mean a phonebook-like index of the names in which you
can go up and down and see all the spellings that occur in all the
records of the system. It is not enough to show an alphabetical
arrangement of all those names that somehow match a name that you input,
because your input may be faulty. This way you also miss spelling errors
in the data, for example.
We also need title string indexes for browsing, as well as subject
headings and others. That many existing systems don't have anything
remotely like a browsing index is a curious fact.
IOW, the hit-and-miss concept of the single-slot searching interface is
not enough for catalogs.
B. Eversberg
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:47:25 +0200
From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
Subject: Re: Author Identification/Disambiguation [was:Next Gen Catalog
and FRBR]
Jonathan Rochkind schrieb:
>
> Two of my posts can be seen on my blog:
>
> http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/two-meanings-of-identifier/
Well done, that paper really makes the issue crystal clear.
That those two identifiers still get convoluted so frequently
can only be rooted in the fact that current MARC practice does
not allow for the identifier(1) concept to be used in bib
records. This therefore misdirects the views of those who
can only think in MARC because it is their language of cataloging.
Language does determine the world view more often than the other way.
It is an unfortunate fact of MARC that it has some very important
elements do double duties, the title being another example. FRBR and
FRAD will have to rectify that.
As an aside, in our now being phased out format MAB and also in
our rules RAK, we've long since had the concepts, the language and
the practice of distinguishing the dual aspects of names and titles.
Only now it this becoming mainstream, hopefully.
B.Eversberg
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:10:57 +0100
From: Dan Mullineux <Dan.Mullineux_at_TALIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
This screams "authoritywiki" an idea we talked about (in Talis) a
couple of years ago. Two levels of access, librarians and everyone else.
With LOC Author data as the seed. Librarian level access to edit core
MARC21 cross walkable RDF, and user entered enhancements, links to
articles, wiki blah blah, open API's, good for disambiguation from an
opac, or for just the xreferencing potential, all moderatable
from..urm... moderators (i.e. librarians)
In fact you don't have to be famous to uniquely define yourself,
register a surname, forname, dates. Not dissimilar to a TBL's idea
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/71
Explanatory references - shouts RDF.
Dan.
Dan Mullineux.
LMS Programme Manager.
Talis Information Limited
Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB, UK
Tel: +44(0)870 400 5000
Fax: +44(0)870 400 5001
www.talis.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: 15 May 2007 15:49
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Further to the issue of authority data and presentation...
There has always been one key example in AACR2 that has bothered me
greatly about the way the automation of catalogue records has
progressed, and that is rule 26.2D "Explanatory references".
Raw SEE and SEE ALSO references provide great functionality, but what's
missing is the ability to display clarifying data such as:
Brutus, Marcus Junius
For the Greek letters erroneously attributed to this person, see
Pseudo-Brutus
Catalogue cards had some free-form potential, and I think web pages, as
the presentation mechanism for authority information, can recover what
has been lost. The bonus in thinking of authorities displayed as web
pages is that we can add additional structure to authority records to
draw in more data to help users identify what they are after. Where the
user encounters that data is important as well. Presenting users with a
browseable list of headings or a set of bibliographic records with only
headings visible limits what data can be presented. Presenting users
with a web page with more options to integrate explanatory data strikes
me as a very good starting point in discussing ways of improving
catalogues.
As with explanatory references easily accomplished with catalogue cards,
I do believe the form of presentation influences the choices of what
data is included and what underlying structures are used.
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
Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
Shared InnovationTM
Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
those of Talis Information Ltd. The content of this email message and
any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:30:52 +0200
From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Dan Mullineux wrote:
> This screams "authoritywiki" an idea we talked about (in Talis) a
> couple of years ago.
Or maybe authorityGoogle, because some very good search technology will
have to be part of it. From a found entity (person, body, or work)
links would have to extend to supporting catalogs worldwide, using
their appropriate preferred forms. But different from Google, there
should be browsable alphabetic listings, phonebook type, for
browsing up and down all the names there are.
OCLC's WorldCat Identities beta might be a step into that direction.
> Explanatory references - shouts RDF.
>
Not really.
B. Eversberg.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:26:20 +0100
From: Dan Mullineux <Dan.Mullineux_at_TALIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Ah yes my mistake I was actually thinking about 670's - This name is
related to this name because of this thing
I cant get onto the OCLCS identities page.
http://serviceunavailable.oclc.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: 16 May 2007 09:31
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Dan Mullineux wrote:
> This screams "authoritywiki" an idea we talked about (in Talis) a
> couple of years ago.
Or maybe authorityGoogle, because some very good search technology will
have to be part of it. From a found entity (person, body, or work) links
would have to extend to supporting catalogs worldwide, using their
appropriate preferred forms. But different from Google, there should be
browsable alphabetic listings, phonebook type, for browsing up and down
all the names there are.
OCLC's WorldCat Identities beta might be a step into that direction.
> Explanatory references - shouts RDF.
>
Not really.
B. Eversberg.
Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
Shared InnovationTM
Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
those of Talis Information Ltd. The content of this email message and
any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:44:01 -0400
From: Ross Singer <ross.singer_at_LIBRARY.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
On 5/16/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Dan Mullineux wrote:
> > Explanatory references - shouts RDF.
> >
> Not really.
>
Why do you say this? Some explanation of why RDF wouldn't be up for
the task would be helpful, rather than curt dismissal.
Personally, I think everything that's being discussed on this list,
linking discrete data, shouts RDF.
-Ross.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:53:00 -0500
From: "Andrews, Mark J." <MarkAndrews_at_CREIGHTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
I'd find a brief review of the German library automation market,
including local software development work by and in libraries, and by
commercial and open-source vendors active in the German & European
market, helpful in understanding Bernhard's comments.
Mark Andrews
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:44 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
On 5/16/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Dan Mullineux wrote:
> > Explanatory references - shouts RDF.
> >
> Not really.
>
Why do you say this? Some explanation of why RDF wouldn't be up for
the task would be helpful, rather than curt dismissal.
Personally, I think everything that's being discussed on this list,
linking discrete data, shouts RDF.
-Ross.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:51:54 -0400
From: "K.G. Schneider" <kgs_at_BLUEHIGHWAYS.COM>
Subject: Re: Libraries & the Web--was Down and The Shaft
> 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,"
No, the point of tagging and folksonomies (something that "mylibrary"-style
applications of the 1990s weren't quite savvy about) is that they are part
of the collective zeitgeist. The "aboutness" of a bibliographic resource
swirls out much farther than the fields we work with. This is why the
LibraryThing recommendations for Danbury Library's catalog are so profound:
they are a dynamic "aboutness" related to what people think about a
resource.
> standards. Those standards exist partly to keep costs down...
How we do things may add significant value-though we need to improve our
tools, and by that I mean not software but our intellectual framework for
metadata-but it's not cost-saving.
My first take, a quick one, suggested that LibraryThing's added value for
Danbury lies in social information-something our library data is poor at (if
you like A, you will like B, C, and D). Where LT did poorly (editions) was
on the kind of predictive information we do well at (resource A has a
relationship to B, C, and D). This is just a coarse layman's take.
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
http://freerangelibrarian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:40:35 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: Re: 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
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:12 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
On 5/15/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> Jonathan,
> I realize that the undifferentiated practice is not exactly what Jon
was
> proposing. I was only saying there's a certain similarity between the
> two things, based on a stress on works and subjects associated with
> names.
>
I guess I'm just completely missing your point. I suggested a way to
improve the current author browse. I'm not suggesting any great
silver bullet or modification to current authorities practice. So
what about the problems you listed (mistakes, not knowing the proper
author is, etc) could be solved by any interface? In the current
systems, using connections made in authority files force a user to
jump through many hoops. So....if there's essential flaws in the
underlying authority records that are so bad any attempt to "hook" the
rest of our cataloging data to them, I see that as more an argument
not to do any authority work at all. What I'm proposing is to at
least help give more information from what work we already have. If
an author is in a author browse/listing and we have an authority
record for them, it seems to make sense to connect this to
bibliographic information that uses this authority form.
I consider authority work an excellent part of cataloging and
libraries. Given that, I have to go with "we'll assume what we have
is good, and authority records are correct as we can know.". In fact,
this system might be a good tool for others to quickly scan and see
possible mistakes as well. Similar techniques in combination with
data-mining could also yield some interesting results. As more
resources of knowledge are electronic, the more we can create tools
that might help researches identify possible problem records, etc.
I'm not hugely familiar with authority practice, it's possible that
some institutions create authority records where they purposely lump
together various "Smith, John"'s that they can't distinguish into a
single authority record. That would seem to me to defeat the point of
having authority records. I would hope they do something to indicate
that this authority record is actually a "I don't know" record.
Like I said, I'm still learning some of the authority practices
myself. Still, I'm not a complete stranger to cataloging. I can't
see how my suggestion is any worse the typical author browse that I've
seen in several online catalogs as they currently exist. Some
examples comparing it to a current system and how it would be worse
might help me understand what you're getting at.
Jon Gorman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:50:54 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Oh, I should have said near the end, "they identify various people who
APPEAR to be distinct." Without more information, you can't be 100% sure
they're distinct. I found out once that a man who'd written technical
works on medicine also wrote a novel about a doctor. So sometimes people
do unusual combinations of things.
--Ted G.
-----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
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:12 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
On 5/15/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
> Jonathan,
> I realize that the undifferentiated practice is not exactly what Jon
was
> proposing. I was only saying there's a certain similarity between the
> two things, based on a stress on works and subjects associated with
> names.
>
I guess I'm just completely missing your point. I suggested a way to
improve the current author browse. I'm not suggesting any great
silver bullet or modification to current authorities practice. So
what about the problems you listed (mistakes, not knowing the proper
author is, etc) could be solved by any interface? In the current
systems, using connections made in authority files force a user to
jump through many hoops. So....if there's essential flaws in the
underlying authority records that are so bad any attempt to "hook" the
rest of our cataloging data to them, I see that as more an argument
not to do any authority work at all. What I'm proposing is to at
least help give more information from what work we already have. If
an author is in a author browse/listing and we have an authority
record for them, it seems to make sense to connect this to
bibliographic information that uses this authority form.
I consider authority work an excellent part of cataloging and
libraries. Given that, I have to go with "we'll assume what we have
is good, and authority records are correct as we can know.". In fact,
this system might be a good tool for others to quickly scan and see
possible mistakes as well. Similar techniques in combination with
data-mining could also yield some interesting results. As more
resources of knowledge are electronic, the more we can create tools
that might help researches identify possible problem records, etc.
I'm not hugely familiar with authority practice, it's possible that
some institutions create authority records where they purposely lump
together various "Smith, John"'s that they can't distinguish into a
single authority record. That would seem to me to defeat the point of
having authority records. I would hope they do something to indicate
that this authority record is actually a "I don't know" record.
Like I said, I'm still learning some of the authority practices
myself. Still, I'm not a complete stranger to cataloging. I can't
see how my suggestion is any worse the typical author browse that I've
seen in several online catalogs as they currently exist. Some
examples comparing it to a current system and how it would be worse
might help me understand what you're getting at.
Jon Gorman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:13:52 -0400
From: Stephen Francoeur <frogheart_at_GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Library Camp NYC, August 14, 2007
Baruch College will be hosting Library Camp NYC on August 14, 2007 (9 am to
4 pm). This event is being run as an unconference and will be free of
charge. If you are interested in attending, please sign up on the event
wiki:
http://librarycampnyc.wikispaces.com/
Stephen Francoeur
Info. Services Librarian
Baruch College
New York, NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:16:13 -0500
From: "Andrews, Mark J." <MarkAndrews_at_CREIGHTON.EDU>
Subject: Abstraction vs. reality (was "[NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR")
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:35:57 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Karen,
I haven't studied folksonomies or LibraryThing much (I have been to a
couple of ALA programs that talked about folksonomies), but I would have
to say that non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be
something catalogers or other library staff have to deal with on a daily
basis.
I'll get into those postings on LibraryThing.
I just read your article on Weinberger's "Everything is miscellaneous":
http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2007/05/weinbergers-well-ordered-misc
ellany.html
on the coming of the Third Order, where "all the old rules are blown out
of the water. Parcels of knowledge are no longer bound by 'either-or
decisions," and can be in many places at once; knowledge does not fit
into finite boxes or even have a shape; and--most disturbingly, though
in Weinberger's hands, also most entertainingly--messiness is a virtue.
He explains this point repeatedly but no better than in a section
discussing Flickr, where automated and human-supplied metadata create "a
mess than gets richer in potential and more useful every day. ...
Third-order messes reverse entropy, becoming more meaningful as they
become messier, with more relationships built in.'"
While the book sounds interesting, I'd have to stay I'll stick with the
Second Order until I see strong evidence we have to give it up. You say
near the end:
"This is, I repeat, a dangerous book. Ban it, burn it, or take it to
heart."
I don't think those are our only choices. We can still disagree with it,
too. Based on your description, I do for the reasons I gave before: it's
a serious confusion between the roles of libraries and the Web.
It's interesting how book banning and burning are the big "hot button"
issues discussed again and again in American Libraries and other
publications. We librarians love to posture ourselves as people who
oppose such threats to freedom. I'm as opposed to that as anyone else,
but to me, it's striking how little attention is given to the sort of
threat ideas like Weinberger's pose to libraries. You pointed out
yourself that he appears not to have even stepped into one any time
recently. And yet you're ready to see him as a guiding light as to what
libraries have to accept?
--Ted Gemberling
Not an official statement of the UAB Lister Hill Library (you probably
know that by now! Nothing I post would be.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:52 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Libraries & the Web--was Down and The Shaft
> 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,"
No, the point of tagging and folksonomies (something that
"mylibrary"-style
applications of the 1990s weren't quite savvy about) is that they are
part
of the collective zeitgeist. The "aboutness" of a bibliographic resource
swirls out much farther than the fields we work with. This is why the
LibraryThing recommendations for Danbury Library's catalog are so
profound:
they are a dynamic "aboutness" related to what people think about a
resource.
> standards. Those standards exist partly to keep costs down...
How we do things may add significant value-though we need to improve our
tools, and by that I mean not software but our intellectual framework
for
metadata-but it's not cost-saving.
My first take, a quick one, suggested that LibraryThing's added value
for
Danbury lies in social information-something our library data is poor at
(if
you like A, you will like B, C, and D). Where LT did poorly (editions)
was
on the kind of predictive information we do well at (resource A has a
relationship to B, C, and D). This is just a coarse layman's take.
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
http://freerangelibrarian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:41:50 -0400
From: "K.G. Schneider" <kgs_at_BLUEHIGHWAYS.COM>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
> While the book sounds interesting
The book *is* interesting, and I recommend everyone read it... and *then*
discuss its ideas.
Cheers
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
http://freerangelibrarian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:57:27 -0700
From: MULLEN Allen <Allen.MULLEN_at_CI.EUGENE.OR.US>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Ted Gemberling writes:
"non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be something
catalogers or other library staff have to deal with on a daily basis"
I'm curious about this statement - why not?
Allen Mullen
Eugene Public Library
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:07:25 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Allen, basically just because we've got enough work handling the
controlled vocabulary and our other tasks. But I'll look at those
LibraryThing posts. Maybe that will change my mind somehow.
Of course there is non-controlled vocabulary on cataloging records
(transcriptional fields), too, and I wasn't implying giving that up.
--Ted G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Ted Gemberling writes:
"non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be something
catalogers or other library staff have to deal with on a daily basis"
I'm curious about this statement - why not?
Allen Mullen
Eugene Public Library
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:11:10 -0500
From: "Andrews, Mark J." <MarkAndrews_at_CREIGHTON.EDU>
Subject: "Third Order"
I was getting tired of all the "2.0" talk anyway. Proceeding ordinally,
what comes after "Third Order?" Fourth Estate and Fifth Column are
already taken.
Mark Andrews
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:42 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
> While the book sounds interesting
The book *is* interesting, and I recommend everyone read it... and
*then*
discuss its ideas.
Cheers
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
http://freerangelibrarian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:13:19 -0400
From: "Sheehan, Kate" <ksheehan_at_DANBURYLIBRARY.ORG>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
I was curious about that too. I'm not a cataloger, but on the reference
desk we deal with plenty of patron-generated "non-controlled vocabulary"
on a daily basis.
Of course, I'm totally biased towards LibraryThing and using tags in the
catalog. Having LT data in our cataloger doesn't make our cataloger's
job any harder and it helps quite a bit at the reference desk!
kate
---------------------------------
Kate Sheehan
Coordinator of Library Automation
Danbury Library
170 Main St.
Danbury, CT 06810
203.796.1607
ksheehan_at_danburylibrary.org
http://www.danburylibrary.org
http://www.myspace.com/danburylibrary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:57 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
> Ted Gemberling writes:
>
> "non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be something
> catalogers or other library staff have to deal with on a daily basis"
>
> I'm curious about this statement - why not?
>
> Allen Mullen
> Eugene Public Library
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:22:59 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"
Mark, to tell you the truth, from Karen's description, I'm not too
interested in the transition from the Second to Third Orders. I've heard
so much about it in library circles that it's kind of boring to me. But
as a person with a history background, what he says about the transition
from the First to the Second looks pretty interesting.
--Ted G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrews, Mark J.
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:11 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"
I was getting tired of all the "2.0" talk anyway. Proceeding ordinally,
what comes after "Third Order?" Fourth Estate and Fifth Column are
already taken.
Mark Andrews
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:42 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
> While the book sounds interesting
The book *is* interesting, and I recommend everyone read it... and
*then*
discuss its ideas.
Cheers
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
http://freerangelibrarian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:27:19 -0400
From: "K.G. Schneider" <kgs_at_BLUEHIGHWAYS.COM>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"
> I was getting tired of all the "2.0" talk anyway. Proceeding ordinally,
> what comes after "Third Order?" Fourth Estate and Fifth Column are
> already taken.
>
> Mark Andrews
The Sixth Sense; it does double-duty as a bovine manure detector.
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:28:02 -0700
From: MULLEN Allen <Allen.MULLEN_at_CI.EUGENE.OR.US>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Yes, I agree most catalogers have our hands full with the tasks at hand.
Two points though:
1. You included "other library staff" in your remark. Would this mean
that reference staff should not allowed to add tags that they or users
(researchers and others) might bring up to them that are not represented
in a cataloging record?
2. Much (not all, of course) of the work of copy catalogers, including
authority work, is repetitive of work that other copy catalogers are
doing in countless other libraries. If this paradigm shifts, it might
be possible for people with the skills that catalogers bring to
information analysis could be used to help manage and refine cataloging
and other information discovery tools, including social tagging. Would
you be open to catalogers being involved in tagging, not to mention many
other possibilities that are presently not possible because of work
loads such as authority record development and enhancements, cooperative
enhancement of existing bib records so that they are more fully able to
be used in FRBR capable systems, and so on. If we weren't doing so
involved in the present paradigm of doing the same authority work for
the same records in our individual catalogs, there are a lot of
possibilities that exist for cataloging skills.
Allen Mullen
Eugene Public Library
>-----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 1:07 PM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
>Allen, basically just because we've got enough work handling
>the controlled vocabulary and our other tasks. But I'll look
>at those LibraryThing posts. Maybe that will change my mind somehow.
>
>Of course there is non-controlled vocabulary on cataloging
>records (transcriptional fields), too, and I wasn't implying
>giving that up.
> --Ted G.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
>Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57 PM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
>Ted Gemberling writes:
>
>"non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be
>something catalogers or other library staff have to deal with
>on a daily basis"
>
>I'm curious about this statement - why not?
>
>Allen Mullen
>Eugene Public Library
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:49:06 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Allen,
I'll get into LibraryThing. If that is something that reference
librarians and patrons find helpful, great. Maybe I shouldn't have said
"other library staff."
As for point 2., I don't think copy cataloging has really reduced our
workload as much as some people think. I remember a coworker at my last
job saying, "but that's only copy cataloging you've been doing." I wish
I'd told him that copy cataloging is often harder than original
cataloging. Especially if the original cataloger did a "minimal-level"
record. So I don't see our workload going down that much for the
foreseeable future. And if it did, I would think that would mean we're
not doing a good job anymore.
--Ted G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:28 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Yes, I agree most catalogers have our hands full with the tasks at hand.
Two points though:
1. You included "other library staff" in your remark. Would this mean
that reference staff should not allowed to add tags that they or users
(researchers and others) might bring up to them that are not represented
in a cataloging record?
2. Much (not all, of course) of the work of copy catalogers, including
authority work, is repetitive of work that other copy catalogers are
doing in countless other libraries. If this paradigm shifts, it might
be possible for people with the skills that catalogers bring to
information analysis could be used to help manage and refine cataloging
and other information discovery tools, including social tagging. Would
you be open to catalogers being involved in tagging, not to mention many
other possibilities that are presently not possible because of work
loads such as authority record development and enhancements, cooperative
enhancement of existing bib records so that they are more fully able to
be used in FRBR capable systems, and so on. If we weren't doing so
involved in the present paradigm of doing the same authority work for
the same records in our individual catalogs, there are a lot of
possibilities that exist for cataloging skills.
Allen Mullen
Eugene Public Library
>-----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 1:07 PM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
>Allen, basically just because we've got enough work handling
>the controlled vocabulary and our other tasks. But I'll look
>at those LibraryThing posts. Maybe that will change my mind somehow.
>
>Of course there is non-controlled vocabulary on cataloging
>records (transcriptional fields), too, and I wasn't implying
>giving that up.
> --Ted G.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
>Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57 PM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
>Ted Gemberling writes:
>
>"non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be
>something catalogers or other library staff have to deal with
>on a daily basis"
>
>I'm curious about this statement - why not?
>
>Allen Mullen
>Eugene Public Library
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:04:31 -0400
From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
The question is, how much work of catalogers is being done pretty much
exactly the same, redundantly, by catalogers at different institutions?
Copy cataloging was _supposed_ to eliminate this, but indeed it hasn't.
If you download an unacceptable record and spend time bringing it up to
standards (which of course isn't exactly copy cataloging at all anymore;
you cant' do that without the item in hand, can you?)--I wonder how many
other catalogers at other institutions are doing the same thing with the
same record.
That's just an example. I am not a cataloger, I am not intimately
familiar with how catalogers spend their days. But my general sense is,
the copy cataloging infrastructure notwithstanding, many catalogers
spend much of their time duplicating work also being done by other
catalogers at other organizations.
Do you think this is so, Ted?
Jonathan
Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Allen,
> I'll get into LibraryThing. If that is something that reference
> librarians and patrons find helpful, great. Maybe I shouldn't have said
> "other library staff."
>
> As for point 2., I don't think copy cataloging has really reduced our
> workload as much as some people think. I remember a coworker at my last
> job saying, "but that's only copy cataloging you've been doing." I wish
> I'd told him that copy cataloging is often harder than original
> cataloging. Especially if the original cataloger did a "minimal-level"
> record. So I don't see our workload going down that much for the
> foreseeable future. And if it did, I would think that would mean we're
> not doing a good job anymore.
> --Ted G.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:28 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
> Yes, I agree most catalogers have our hands full with the tasks at hand.
> Two points though:
>
> 1. You included "other library staff" in your remark. Would this mean
> that reference staff should not allowed to add tags that they or users
> (researchers and others) might bring up to them that are not represented
> in a cataloging record?
>
> 2. Much (not all, of course) of the work of copy catalogers, including
> authority work, is repetitive of work that other copy catalogers are
> doing in countless other libraries. If this paradigm shifts, it might
> be possible for people with the skills that catalogers bring to
> information analysis could be used to help manage and refine cataloging
> and other information discovery tools, including social tagging. Would
> you be open to catalogers being involved in tagging, not to mention many
> other possibilities that are presently not possible because of work
> loads such as authority record development and enhancements, cooperative
> enhancement of existing bib records so that they are more fully able to
> be used in FRBR capable systems, and so on. If we weren't doing so
> involved in the present paradigm of doing the same authority work for
> the same records in our individual catalogs, there are a lot of
> possibilities that exist for cataloging skills.
>
> Allen Mullen
> Eugene Public Library
>
>
>> -----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 1:07 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>>
>> Allen, basically just because we've got enough work handling
>> the controlled vocabulary and our other tasks. But I'll look
>> at those LibraryThing posts. Maybe that will change my mind somehow.
>>
>> Of course there is non-controlled vocabulary on cataloging
>> records (transcriptional fields), too, and I wasn't implying
>> giving that up.
>> --Ted G.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>>
>> Ted Gemberling writes:
>>
>> "non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be
>> something catalogers or other library staff have to deal with
>> on a daily basis"
>>
>> I'm curious about this statement - why not?
>>
>> Allen Mullen
>> Eugene Public Library
>>
>>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:17:01 -0700
From: MULLEN Allen <Allen.MULLEN_at_CI.EUGENE.OR.US>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Ted Gemberling writes:
"copy cataloging is often harder than original cataloging. Especially if
the original cataloger did a "minimal-level"
record."
I agree. But once you update that minimal level record, I and 654 other
copy catalogers should not have to do so in our own systems as well
(assuming by way of example that 656 libraries with their own ILS
acquire the book). That's my point. There is the space for changing the
paradigms we operate under without discarding the intellectual effort
that catalogers produce.
Allen Mullen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:39:38 -0400
From: "K.G. Schneider" <kgs_at_BLUEHIGHWAYS.COM>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
> Ted Gemberling writes:
>
> "copy cataloging is often harder than original cataloging. Especially if
> the original cataloger did a "minimal-level"
> record."
>
> I agree. But once you update that minimal level record, I and 654 other
> copy catalogers should not have to do so in our own systems as well
> (assuming by way of example that 656 libraries with their own ILS
> acquire the book). That's my point. There is the space for changing the
> paradigms we operate under without discarding the intellectual effort
> that catalogers produce.
>
> Allen Mullen
Not only that, but leveraging the intellectual output of the cataloging
community as a "hive mind" is not even a new concept; it's a lost practice.
The only reason we had local cards in the olden days is because we needed
the physical items on hand. The concept was about centralization. It wasn't
perfect and it had a lot of hiccups, but it was on the right track.
Unfortunately, there was no way to flip a switch and have us all go online
at once in a grand national online catalog, so in the transition from cards
to online systems, we lost that collective-ness, and we began to justify
local practice as if it were based on sound theory and not the accident of
how we moved from paper to online systems.
How we do things not only makes no sense, but it makes it that much harder
to have a kind of centralized intelligence for cataloging.
The hard part is letting go... which is also about turf, egos, and force of
habit.
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
http://freerangelibrarian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:28:52 -0500
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_UAB.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Jonathan,
Yes, that's right to a certain extent. I always try to upgrade Level K
(minimal) records if I can, so others at other places don't have to do
the work again. However, since mine is a medical library, the only
subject headings or call numbers I put on are medical. So any library
that uses a different classification or subject heading scheme will
still have to add those.
It is possible, I think, for them to upgrade the record even after I'm
finished with it, adding other kinds of headings and numbers (OCLC
allows one call number of each "type," for example. A record can have a
Dewey number, an LCC number, a National Library of Canada number, and
others.) But not everyone does that. And some catalogers' bosses might
even prohibit them from doing so, since it takes a little extra time.
Also, different libraries sometimes focus on different things. A
classification that fits in one library might be considered
inappropriate in another. A second library might want to add extra notes
that aren't in the master record, related to local interests. So there
tends to be quite a bit of adjustment that happens in copy cataloging.
--Ted G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:05 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
The question is, how much work of catalogers is being done pretty much
exactly the same, redundantly, by catalogers at different institutions?
Copy cataloging was _supposed_ to eliminate this, but indeed it hasn't.
If you download an unacceptable record and spend time bringing it up to
standards (which of course isn't exactly copy cataloging at all anymore;
you cant' do that without the item in hand, can you?)--I wonder how many
other catalogers at other institutions are doing the same thing with the
same record.
That's just an example. I am not a cataloger, I am not intimately
familiar with how catalogers spend their days. But my general sense is,
the copy cataloging infrastructure notwithstanding, many catalogers
spend much of their time duplicating work also being done by other
catalogers at other organizations.
Do you think this is so, Ted?
Jonathan
Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Allen,
> I'll get into LibraryThing. If that is something that reference
> librarians and patrons find helpful, great. Maybe I shouldn't have
said
> "other library staff."
>
> As for point 2., I don't think copy cataloging has really reduced our
> workload as much as some people think. I remember a coworker at my
last
> job saying, "but that's only copy cataloging you've been doing." I
wish
> I'd told him that copy cataloging is often harder than original
> cataloging. Especially if the original cataloger did a "minimal-level"
> record. So I don't see our workload going down that much for the
> foreseeable future. And if it did, I would think that would mean we're
> not doing a good job anymore.
> --Ted G.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:28 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>
> Yes, I agree most catalogers have our hands full with the tasks at
hand.
> Two points though:
>
> 1. You included "other library staff" in your remark. Would this
mean
> that reference staff should not allowed to add tags that they or users
> (researchers and others) might bring up to them that are not
represented
> in a cataloging record?
>
> 2. Much (not all, of course) of the work of copy catalogers,
including
> authority work, is repetitive of work that other copy catalogers are
> doing in countless other libraries. If this paradigm shifts, it might
> be possible for people with the skills that catalogers bring to
> information analysis could be used to help manage and refine
cataloging
> and other information discovery tools, including social tagging.
Would
> you be open to catalogers being involved in tagging, not to mention
many
> other possibilities that are presently not possible because of work
> loads such as authority record development and enhancements,
cooperative
> enhancement of existing bib records so that they are more fully able
to
> be used in FRBR capable systems, and so on. If we weren't doing so
> involved in the present paradigm of doing the same authority work for
> the same records in our individual catalogs, there are a lot of
> possibilities that exist for cataloging skills.
>
> Allen Mullen
> Eugene Public Library
>
>
>> -----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 1:07 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>>
>> Allen, basically just because we've got enough work handling
>> the controlled vocabulary and our other tasks. But I'll look
>> at those LibraryThing posts. Maybe that will change my mind somehow.
>>
>> Of course there is non-controlled vocabulary on cataloging
>> records (transcriptional fields), too, and I wasn't implying
>> giving that up.
>> --Ted G.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
>>
>> Ted Gemberling writes:
>>
>> "non-controlled vocabulary shouldn't, at the very least, be
>> something catalogers or other library staff have to deal with
>> on a daily basis"
>>
>> I'm curious about this statement - why not?
>>
>> Allen Mullen
>> Eugene Public Library
>>
>>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:07:11 -0400
From: Tim Spalding <tim_at_LIBRARYTHING.COM>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
> to online systems, we lost that collective-ness, and we began to justify
> local practice as if it were based on sound theory and not the accident of
> how we moved from paper to online systems.
So, I agree with this in the main, but I also worry that a really
complete copy-cataloging regime irons out interesting differences.
There's noise, but also signal in the noise.
For example, the Boston Athenaeum and North Hampton's Forbes Library
both have large collections in the original Cutter Classification.
They used different versions of Cutter, and didn't coordinate either
the data or updates to the classification itself. (Over time the
changes to the classification became so major that they amount to
different systems.) They made different choices along the way, choices
that took time and are messy. But, today, this mess of data has value.
I'm anxious to turn a clustering algorithm loose on it, as I've done
with the intersections of DDC, LCC and LCSH. If everyone had the same
data, the noise vanishes, but also some signal.
To take an example closer to me, LibraryThing doesn't centralize.
Members choose their record's source, and then edit it personally to
their heart's content, creating 200,000 private MARC repositories!
Ideally, copy cataloging would be deeply atomic and versioned?each
record a fielded, forked Wiki. So not "get the MARC record for X" but
"use me the MARC record for a small public library, and make sure to
include any LCSHs assigned by Doug; he's a good guy."
Speaking of which, I really want to build this?a fielded wiki for
bibliographic data. Anyone want to help me?
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:56:16 -0400
From: Corey A Harper <corey.harper_at_NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
> Tim said:
> Ideally, copy cataloging would be deeply atomic and versioned?each
> record a fielded, forked Wiki. So not "get the MARC record for X" but
> "use me the MARC record for a small public library, and make sure to
> include any LCSHs assigned by Doug; he's a good guy."
To bring this back to Dan Mullineux's earlier statement about RDF, this
is an example of *exactly* what RDF is designed to do. It has the
potential to reduce the granularity of bibliographic information,
and all sorts of other metadata, to the statement level. It could allow
making other assertions about those statements, such as who contributed
them. The framework for a system that allows algorithmically selecting
which bits of MARC data is already coming together. I'd argue this
should be even more atomic than Tim suggests: down to the specificity of
data currently found in a subfield or a leader byte.
Additionally, it could be used to more effectively integrate data from
outside our walls into the library data corpus, and vice-versa.
Imagine if OCLC's database were built around this principle, and a
nightly SPARQL query could retrieve any statement Doug made about a
resource when he added a field or subfield, and add it to the data-pool
of a local catalog. Imagine then that another query could pull in the
tags that Bob added to Library Thing and the reviews Sarah posted on Amazon.
-Corey
>
> Speaking of which, I really want to build this?a fielded wiki for
> bibliographic data. Anyone want to help me?
>
> Tim
--
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
Bobst Library
New York University
70 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
212.998.2479
corey.harper_at_nyu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:10:06 -0400
From: Ross Singer <ross.singer_at_LIBRARY.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
On 5/16/07, Corey A Harper <corey.harper_at_nyu.edu> wrote:
> Imagine if OCLC's database were built around this principle, and a
> nightly SPARQL query could retrieve any statement Doug made about a
> resource when he added a field or subfield, and add it to the data-pool
> of a local catalog. Imagine then that another query could pull in the
> tags that Bob added to Library Thing and the reviews Sarah posted on Amazon.
>
This is what I'm screaming over here...
-Ross.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:12:03 -0400
From: Casey Bisson <cbisson_at_PLYMOUTH.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Don't take the following as suggesting I'm against such an idea, just
a few thoughts about how I'd like it to work.
Most of our systems require significant pre-coordination and absolute
relationships, but the web (and much of its success) stands in
contrast to that.
Google could have been built by requiring all websites to register
their content and report their links, but it wasn't. And I think we'd
all agree that it wouldn't work as well if it was.
The library world is smaller, so it's somewhat less fantastic to
expect that type of relationship here, but still I think there's
something to be learned from the loose relationships found on the web.
It's harder to describe how such systems might work, but the web
teaches us that it's easier to implement and build on systems that
allow loose relationships than those that demand strict compliance.
What I'm really arguing for is leveraging what we've already got:
we're publishing our catalogs to the web, so let's make sure we're
putting them out there with good semantic markup so it's easy to
parse the data out of them. That way we could build spiders that
harvest that data from all those decentralized catalogs.
What we do with it from there is another matter, but here's the big
win: the architecture allows us to try lots of things in parallel,
each making our own decisions about how to use it. That's important,
because it will take us a while to make sense of our theories of how
this does or should work, and it'll allow us to evolve more
organically than with a centralized database.
--Casey
On May 16, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Corey A Harper wrote:
> Imagine if OCLC's database were built around this principle, and a
> nightly SPARQL query could retrieve any statement Doug made about a
> resource when he added a field or subfield, and add it to the data-
> pool
> of a local catalog. Imagine then that another query could pull in the
> tags that Bob added to Library Thing and the reviews Sarah posted
> on Amazon.
Casey Bisson
__________________________________________
Information Architect
Plymouth State University
Plymouth, New Hampshire
http://MaisonBisson.com/blog/
ph: 603-535-2256
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:52:45 -0400
From: Corey A Harper <corey.harper_at_NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Third Order"--was Libraries & the Web
Absolutely, Casey.
My OCLC reference was only an example. Probably a poorly chosen one, at
that. I agree that the idea is to decentralize this stuff. Part of the
point of RDF is that it provides a common model for disparate,
distributed data systems, while providing some of the precise tools
we've come to expect of homogeneous XML and database environments.
I think I agree that trying to demand strict compliance to a particular
data model or markup system is counterproductive. I think the real
value lies in mapping or binding existing data, which, while loose, is
at least consistently formatted, to models that are starting to get
critical mass. Unfortunately, that also takes huge amounts of work.
That's why I see so much promise and significance in the RDA / DCMI /
IEEE-LOM Data Model agreement Karen Coyle posted here and blogged about.
An RDF vocabulary for RDA terms, combined with other work that's
happening on that front, such as the FRBR core concepts expressed as RDF
and Simile's RDF ontology for MODS, moves us closer to having a formal
model for the data in all of our legacy MARC records and our controlled
vocabularies. I think part of the unnecessarily negative reaction some
have to the idea is rooted in the misconception that it further
constrains, simplifies, or otherwise breaks what's valuable about
current cataloging practice. That's simply not true. If anything, it
enriches that already strong tradition.
-Corey
Casey Bisson wrote:
> Don't take the following as suggesting I'm against such an idea, just
> a few thoughts about how I'd like it to work.
>
> Most of our systems require significant pre-coordination and absolute
> relationships, but the web (and much of its success) stands in
> contrast to that.
>
> Google could have been built by requiring all websites to register
> their content and report their links, but it wasn't. And I think we'd
> all agree that it wouldn't work as well if it was.
>
> The library world is smaller, so it's somewhat less fantastic to
> expect that type of relationship here, but still I think there's
> something to be learned from the loose relationships found on the web.
>
> It's harder to describe how such systems might work, but the web
> teaches us that it's easier to implement and build on systems that
> allow loose relationships than those that demand strict compliance.
>
> What I'm really arguing for is leveraging what we've already got:
> we're publishing our catalogs to the web, so let's make sure we're
> putting them out there with good semantic markup so it's easy to
> parse the data out of them. That way we could build spiders that
> harvest that data from all those decentralized catalogs.
>
> What we do with it from there is another matter, but here's the big
> win: the architecture allows us to try lots of things in parallel,
> each making our own decisions about how to use it. That's important,
> because it will take us a while to make sense of our theories of how
> this does or should work, and it'll allow us to evolve more
> organically than with a centralized database.
>
> --Casey
>
>
> On May 16, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Corey A Harper wrote:
>
>> Imagine if OCLC's database were built around this principle, and a
>> nightly SPARQL query could retrieve any statement Doug made about a
>> resource when he added a field or subfield, and add it to the data-
>> pool
>> of a local catalog. Imagine then that another query could pull in the
>> tags that Bob added to Library Thing and the reviews Sarah posted
>> on Amazon.
>
>
>
> Casey Bisson
> __________________________________________
>
> Information Architect
> Plymouth State University
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
> http://MaisonBisson.com/blog/
> ph: 603-535-2256
--
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
Bobst Library
New York University
70 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
212.998.2479
corey.harper_at_nyu.edu
------------------------------
End of NGC4LIB Digest - 15 May 2007 to 16 May 2007 (#2007-98)
*************************************************************
Received on Mon May 21 2007 - 18:13:07 EDT