Ross,
I'm a cataloger, working at a time when there's a lot of discussion
about the future of cataloging. So I am qualified to say "caution is
reasonable."
I have never said I knew as much about computer programming as others.
But I'm very conscious of the quality of the product I produce for
users. Often when I enter a cataloging record in our database, I test it
out for myself from the OPAC side to see if the various search elements
are retrievable. I also showed last week that I was willing to try
detailed searches of others' catalogs. So I know something about what
works in catalogs and what doesn't.
This is a "NextGen" list. That means that people like me are qualified
to express opinions. But I do think we should, perhaps, defer to some
extent to those who are more involved in the "leading edge" of catalog
development. So I will make an effort not to impede that. However, I
think reporting on Martha Yee's new subject browse interface last week
was a good contribution to the list. And then of course when people
criticized it, it was reasonable to respond.
On my qualifications, I think it's also important to distinguish
somewhat between cataloging as a language of description and catalogs as
access systems. It's possible to know a lot about one without knowing a
lot about the other. They're both important.
I realize the Space Shuttle wasn't designed for interplanetary travel.
But it does show a case where people have run up against technological
limits. You suggest that those problems wouldn't have happened if the
development had been done by the private sector:
"If there was some sort of value in it, I think you would see more
technological achievements because some enterprising soul would look to
increase efficiency and effectiveness. Government agencies don't
necessarily operate under these conditions."
But there was some competition. The Soviet Union developed a space
shuttle, and I understand that after its fall, the Russians haven't been
able to use the shuttle. It's too expensive for them.
The main threat to libraries today is not the limitations of our
catalogs, but the general tendency to starve libraries and other
institutions of public education of the funding we need to do our jobs
well. That's why caution is important now, because there's a danger
we'll give up important tools out of a false faith that "technology will
fix everything." Faith in the private sector can contribute to that
temptation.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:00 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Hot (MARC) metadata!
On 8/9/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll agree to that. But you're not suggesting we have to trust
you
> that those systems are better than our current ones, are you? Caution
is
> reasonable in this area.
Actually, I would argue that you're not qualified to be making the
statement that "caution is reasonable". If you are not an expert on
the technicalities of the status quo and you don't know much about
non-library solutions, why is your opinion on the matter relevant to
the discussion?
I don't say that as any sort of personal attack, but I think part of
our current condition is that statements like this by people that
would claim similar ties to technology as you are affecting the
direction we head in technologically.
>
> I don't think I can believe our failure to get people back to the moon
> in almost 40 years is due simply to "attitudes." NASA has used the
Space
> Shuttle now for 25 years, and they've come to the realization, after
> spending billions of dollars, that they can't make it safe. So they're
> discontinuing it in the next couple of years. They're going back to
the
> 60's technology for manned space travel, the capsule. This isn't a
> matter of attitude, but of technological limits. We're not ready for
> Star Wars yet.
I find a few flaws with the NASA analogy, honestly.
1) There is a monopoly (in the United States) on space travel. It's a
hugely expensive and dangerous and requires a massive infrastructure
to implement. If there was some sort of value in it, I think you
would see more technological acheivements because some enterprising
soul would look to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Government
agencies don't necessarily operate under these conditions.
2) In twenty five years, there have been two major accidents (with
human casualties) with the shuttle design. In 15 years there was one
major accident (with human casualties) in the capsule design (not
counting other countries' space programs). The safety factor isn't as
much of an issue. I mean, it is, but that's not a strong argument to
go back to 'the old way of doing things'.
3) The shuttle was not designed for interplanetary travel. There are
no landing strips on other planets. It would have required some other
sort of spacecraft to establish this. NASA's priorities and funding
changed, again, probably because there was little ROI to be had in
sending a human to another planet.
4) NASA would not be going back to the Apollo design, I think it's
fair to say. The computers onboard will not be less powerful than my
pocket calculator. Technologically they will be /far/ advanced from
the Apollo program even if the actual rockets may resemble them
somewhat superficially. A parallel to this would be BMW's MINI Cooper
vs. the original. While similar in form and function, oceans apart in
technology.
-Ross.
Received on Thu Aug 09 2007 - 13:14:05 EDT