Alex Johannesen wrote
>> I know several people here have said they don't think AI or smart
>> software is up to the task, and that they represent no real risk to
>> serious cataloging. Well, I can only say, please trust me in this! I
>> worked in professional AI for over 7 years ; this stuff not only can
>> be done, but has been done for some time. Most AI problems have
>> historically been with access to various corpi to make them work, but
>> those things are now changing dramatically. Now that all books are
>> written on computers and available for analysis, even more so.
>
It is not wise to base decisions on trust or belief when one can do
reality checks. Have any such checks been conducted lately?
One might
A) Analyze a not too small number of real-world reference questions
that were not easily answered on the spot. What did it require to
find a satisfactory answer? What means and tools have been used and
how did they perform? What may be the reasons for good or bad
performance? If the catalog is the primary tool that had to be used,
what type of queries had to be done? Would keywords have been
sufficient? Would FRBR have been helpful? ToC data? Full text?
Topic maps?
B) Ask patrons returning books if they were satisfied with them
or why not. Try to find out if what they were after could
probably have been found by different means and in other places, in
the library or elsewhere, on paper or online.
More and better questions can surely be found.
I don't know what the outcome might look like, but I do know a fair
number of people still borrow a decent number of books, and to find
these they need the catalog. Results may indicate why and how it
needs to be improved, also what labor-intensive features of it may be
obsolete.
Results may even interest the people now busying themselves with
finishing RDA. Will a reality check finish it off? Do we really know
enough already?
B.Eversberg
Received on Thu Aug 30 2007 - 09:10:59 EDT