Ted,
I can tell you what I think is broken. But first, let me say that
technology is not an *answer*, it's a tool. What is broken is that
librarians today are not using the best tool for the job. Upgrading to
the appropriate modern tool will serve to integrate libraries with the
rest of modern information services and sources. It's the old buggy-whip
analogy -- we're insisting on making buggy whips while the world
switches over to the horseless carriage. We could claim that horse-drawn
carriages are better, but we're going to be ignored by everyone who
drives an automobile.
*If* libraries are truly in the information business (not the "book
organizing and delivery" business) then we need to re-tool for today.
Part of this re-tooling is for us to begin to structure our data in a
way that can be exploited by a wide variety of web technologies. If we
don't, then we will continue to be marginalized. Re-tooling does not
require us to give up things like controlled vocabularies or cataloging
rules, and it doesn't mean that technology will eliminate user service.
On the contrary, re-tooling should allow us to do all of those things
better AND reach a larger audience than we reach today. It does require
us to look at our practices and determine which of them is appropriate
given the changes in technology. There will undoubtedly be aspects of
library practice that turn out to be buggy whips, and those we will need
to leave behind.
I also think that libraries have already made significant changes in the
right direction. We have embraced digital resources and given our users
access to the library from their desktops. We're increasingly using web
services and are trying very hard to move our catalogs out of the dark
web. This next change, to open up library data to easier exploitation by
non-library applications, is a key one and seems only logical. Beyond
that we also need to embrace incoming data and resources that differ
from library standards so that we can be seen as a source of all
information, not just "library" information.
kc
Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Jonathan,
> Sorry for another delayed response. But I think no one else followed up
> on this particular topic (or at least re line). I appreciate your
> impassioned statement about middle ground in this debate: you believe
> our metadata environment "is seriously and fundamentally broken in
> several ways" while not arguing that we should "get rid of everything
> we've got."
>
> Would you give a quick overview for non-software people like me of which
> ways you think it is "fundamentally broken"? I think that would help
> some of us put these debates in perspective.
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Tue May 29 2007 - 18:11:25 EDT