It's funny that you mention the idea of loosing metadata that assists
in providing expert information on a subject when I was just reading
a Gartner report the other day that cited one of the top reasons to
use semantic technologies is when human expertise in a certain field
is very costly.
People aren't abandoning detailed, expertly created and highly
structured metadata, in fact I would say that right now semantic
metadata is becoming more and more in demand (especially in the
healthcare industry, and biotechnology areas). I was at a conference
a few months back, put on by a publisher in the biological sciences,
and it was suggested by someone that strong, detailed, semantic
metadata was so valuable to researchers that publishers could give
away articles at no cost and simply charge for the metadata.
More people than ever are "working together (to some extent) to
cooperatively build amazingly devised systems to help people who
suspected they needed expert human help" They just aren't all working
in libraries.
RDF, Topic Maps and other similar systems have many features that go
above and beyond the type of information that simple marc records and
LCSH can provide. And by working to make machine AND human readable
formats they strive to create systems that are both easy to use and
extremely complex in regards to the types of information and the
relationships to other types of information they contain.
The currently library catalog isn't just not easy enough to use; it
doesn't come anywhere close to cutting edge regarding the quality and
functionality of its metadata.
A future we should be more concerned about is one where somebody else
comes up with a better way to handle bibliographic metadata before we do.
--Will
At 11:01 AM 7/26/2007, you wrote:
>Michael: " However, doing so will require that we resist the temptation
>to create the ideal OPAC for *librarians*, but instead focus on creating
>on OPAC that meets our *users'* search needs."
>
>Insofar as librarians ought to do everything possible to help users do a
>lot themselves, *I agree with all of this*. But at the same time, in
>the midst of it all, I bemoan the reference librarian's potential loss
>of specialized tools devised to treat the increasingly "rare condition"
>of the truly questioning, curious, "leather-foot journalist" researcher,
>scholar in this process.
>
>Years in the future, perhaps when people are even less curious about the
>past and the history of ideas then they are now, some thoughtful
>examiner of the world will read Thomas Mann and say, "Oh, the days when
>there were experts who actually could listen to one another - and work
>together (to some extent) to cooperatively build amazingly devised
>systems to help people who suspected they needed expert human help...
>it's a shame people did not realize their value... realize what they
>had" I think this is likely.
>
>In my mind, Karen Schneider's questions are still interesting... (and
>worth doing some major soul-searching about and taking action), but
>perhaps also reveal a certain shortsightedness.
>
>Regards,
>Nathan Rinne
>Media Cataloging Technician
>ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
>11200 93rd Ave. North
>Maple Grove, MN. 55369
>Work phone: 763-391-7183
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Doran, Michael D
>Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:32 AM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: [NGC4LIB] The problem with OPACs [was: New subject keyword
>search]
>
> > Selden Deemer wrote:
> >
> > Whatever the considerable benefits of browse displays (I
> > read, and took to heart Thomas Mann's comments), the fact
> > remains that, when I look at our search log stats, users (as
> > opposed to librarians) simply do NOT browse (and it's not for
> > lack of instruction).
>
>I'm convinced that the underlying "problem" with our OPACs (from a
>usability perspective) is that they are sold once to librarians, rather
>than many times to end users. If each user was making an individual
>purchase decision, OPACs would have quickly evolved to meet their needs.
>I believe ILS vendors (who we often unfairly blame) are quite capable of
>producing an awesome OPAC. But the vendors are building OPACs to meet
>our (i.e. librarians) perceived needs, because vendors are smart and are
>in business to make money and they understand that *we* are the ones
>writing that big check every 10-15 years or so. As Selden points out,
>OPAC features that are important/essential to us, are often ones that
>our users could care less about, despite all our well-meaning
>instruction.
>
>And that is assuming that OPAC functionality/usability is even a prime
>consideration in the purchase decision of an ILS. Very often that's not
>the case, as acquisitions, cataloging, or circulation module features
>drive the decision and the OPAC is an afterthought. If we want to find
>out who's responsible for sucky OPACs, the first place we need to look
>is in the mirror [1].
>
>On the bright side, products like VUFind, Primo, AquaBrowser, and Endeca
>unbundle the OPAC from the ILS, giving us a chance to atone for past ILS
>purchase decisions (which can't easily be undone). One of the problems
>inherent in an ILS-bundled OPAC is that the 10-15 year (give or take)
>ILS replacement cycle does not allow for significant changes to what
>quickly becomes a calcified code base. I'm particularly excited about
>Andrew Nagy's recently released open-source OPAC; with VUFind, the
>library-land development community has a golden opportunity to craft an
>OPAC that genuinely meets our users needs. However, doing so will
>require that we resist the temptation to create the ideal OPAC for
>*librarians*, but instead focus on creating on OPAC that meets our
>*users'* search needs. I think that would be an OPAC that doesn't
>require instruction (however well-meaning) or require an initial search
>page that is 80% search tips.
>
>Just my opinion...
>
>-- Michael
>
>[1] Karen Schneider asks: "But the interesting questions are: Why don't
>online catalog vendors offer true search in the first place? and Why
>[don't we] demand it? Save the time of the reader!" I would answer that
>vendors don't offer it, and we don't demand it, because the ILS (OPAC)
>check-writers have other priorities.
>See: Karen Schneider, How OPACs Suck, Part 1
>http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevan
>ce-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html
>
># Michael Doran, Systems Librarian
># University of Texas at Arlington
># 817-272-5326 office
># 817-688-1926 mobile
># doran_at_uta.edu
># http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/
Received on Thu Jul 26 2007 - 09:46:06 EDT