> > Why? What has LIS got that the rest of the world could benefit from?
On 9/4/07, David M Guion DMGUION <dmguion_at_uncg.edu> wrote:
> This is why I find your posts so infuriating.
Because you don't understand the rhetorical question nor its context
in this discussion nor have read my other clarifying mails I've
written since? Sure.
> You have no idea where LIS has come from,
Actually I do. Just because I don't have a library degree doesn't mean
I can't read library history, philosophy or appreciate all that the
library world has done for humanity. In fact, I've been quite vocal
about respecting all of that, so why is it that you haven't read the
parts of this thread that talks about that?
> and as a consequence you have no idea where it is, yet you are so
> impatient because LIS won't follow you where you think it ought to go.
Why attack the questioner instead of answering the question? It's
funny that every single response to this is to get pissed off at the
question instead of answering it, especially after both me and Ross
have clarified the context and the nature of the question. Not a
single person have responded with actual answers (except one off-list,
which I'll get to in another post).
Sure, it's a rhetorical one, but put on its edge, it's a damn serious
one. This whole thread is not about appreciating or understanding what
the library world has done up to now. If I didn't know and *love* that
shit, I wouldn't work for the library world right now! I pursued the
library world out of my utmost deepest respect, and I only ask my
questions here because I'm still in love with it and don't want it to
go away, fade, die, whatever have you.
> Study [library stuff] You might learn something. Of course, you'd have to have
> an open mind to derive any benefit.
You know, I'm sure every field out there have people like you crafting
responses like this to anybody who dare question their doctrine. I'm
sure you're writing in anger, which never is a smart thing to do, so
let's try this again.
> So the whole article moaned
> about how hard it was to reinvent the system of uniform titles LIS figured
> out generations ago.
Really, they did? So if I search for Monteverdi and "vespro della
beata vergine" I'm guaranteed that any medium cataloged with these
vespers have this name? That I can find them as such? All listed under
one? Because I know this to be false, but I'll ask why you're saying
this is figured out? Or do you mean, it's figured out to be a really
difficult problem, although we haven't actually solved it, and
certainly not in our catalogs? Because, frankly, that paraphrased
question sit at the core of this *whole* thread!
> LIS is in the trouble it is in today largely because CS has taken a
> know-it-all attitude and ignored the foundational principles of LIS.
I'd be embarrassed to be a librarian *or* a computer scientist
associated with this sort of nonsense statement. And where did this CS
vs. LIS divide come from? I'm neither.
There is no such divide ; the only divide here is between people who
think the library world needs help to survive (external or internal),
and those who think the status quo is just dandy, thank you very much.
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Tue Sep 04 2007 - 19:02:39 EDT