Hi Jim,
You are right and I put my signature under your following statements:
>> today, so the focus should be on expanding our imaginations and not on the
capabilities of current computer systems. The system can be built and we
should insist on it....
And...
...people believe they already have these capabilities in Google and Yahoo,
but they do not. Without evidence that people no longer need or want this
level of access, we should not eliminate what is there now.<<
Ciao,
Blanka
Blanka Bajankova, Librarian
FAO UN, David Lubin M. Library - KCEL
Collection Development & Processing Group
Monographs
Room A-010 Est
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1
00153 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 570 55881
Email: Blanka.Bajankova_at_FAO.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]
On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:40
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Ceci n'est pas un catalogue
Karen Coyle wrote:
> But there are definitely some
> problems with the data in our current environment. As an example, one
> thing that we have all over others is our use of controlled
> vocabularies and authoritative forms of names. But our authority data
> is designed to aid the *creation* of authoritative forms, not the use
> of those forms in a system. The LCSH authority records are virtually
> useless (ok, maybe I
> exaggerate) because they are based on instructions for catalogers and
> don't include the authoritative headings nor the proper references for
> an online catalog. I think that if we were to re-design our data with
> systems in mind, rather than basing our data on the cataloging rules,
> then we could greatly improve the catalog itself.
I'm not sure I understand about the uselessness of authority records. I
certainly won't argue that the way they have been implemented in current
OPACs (that word again!) is very poor indeed, but I can't believe that
matters have changed so fundamentally that someone who is searching for
Léon Nikolaevitch Tolstoi does not want to know that the works by this
person can be found by searching under Tolstoy, Leo, graf, 1828-1910. It
doesn't matter whether they happen to "agree with the heading" or not. This
is how the system works. I think people still want and expect this level of
access. The authority record provides this and many other cross-references,
and no other tool in the world does this, that I am aware of.
In fact, when I have mentioned these sorts of issues to non-specialists, they
are absolutely shocked that Google does not--and cannot--provide similar
access. This should not be surprising since it seems to be common sense that
when someone searches for "wwi" in Google, the result they are looking at is
everything on World War 1. Of course, this is not at all true and when you
point it out to them, it's not that complicated of an issue to grasp and they
begin to see what is happening. I think one of our tasks is to demonstrate
this to people so that they themselves can see precisely how a Google result
differs from the result in a traditional bibliographical tool.
Certainly, this system could be, and should be, improved . Authority records
are some of the most underused tools in the library. They should have many
more cross-references, especially the subject headings. They should be
included with keyword searches. The browse capability is very poorly
implemented in our current catalogs, and I would say, almost useless. One
bright spot is OCLC's Worldcat Identities which experiments with some of this
information.
Another issue is where you say, "I think that if we were to re-design our
data with systems in mind, rather than basing our data on the cataloging
rules, then we could greatly improve the catalog itself." I am not sure I
agree with this. It is my belief that we should look first at the task, then
design the information necessary to achieve that task, and finally to design
the computer system. I have been involved in several projects where we wanted
to include certain information, but it was nixed because "the system can't
utilize it." Of course, in just a year or two, the system was modified or a
new system came along that could do what we wanted. It is my experience that
systems will do what you want today, so the focus should be on expanding our
imaginations and not on the capabilities of current computer systems. The
system can be built and we should insist on it.
In this case, the current cataloging rules are based on the tasks set so long
ago in Cutter's time. I personally believe that all of those tasks ("Objects"
in his terminology) are still just as valid today as ever. It's hard to
believe, but all of the voluminous cataloging rules are based on those few
tasks! The way he suggests to solve those tasks (his "Means") may not be the
way to go in many cases today and should be rethought.
Does anyone object to this? Is there any evidence that people today do not
want to know what a collection has by its authors, titles , and subjects? Do
they not want help in deciding which version (edition) to choose? Of course,
they want more than just this today (for example, what is "a collection"
today?), and that is fine, so this list needs to be expanded. It has been my
experience that people believe they already have these capabilities in Google
and Yahoo, but they do not. Without evidence that people no longer need or
want this level of access, we should not eliminate what is there now.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Wed Aug 22 2007 - 01:42:10 EDT