Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>
> 1. Where are current LIS OPACs actually deficient? Can a
> checklist be drawn up against which to match the specifics
> of actual systems? (And post results to the vendors)
1a. Where is the current data deficient? Can a checklist be drawn up
against which to change practices? (e.g. include uniform titles in
records, most of which lack them; code the role of contributors)
>
> 2. Are there ways to improve the situation significantly without
> a revolution in rules and/or formats? Keeping in mind that
> we can do precious little to improve the quality and content
> of legacy data. Or can we? With what money?
2a1. What could we gain by a revolution in rules and formats? Can we at
least ponder that rather than assuming that it cannot be done?
>
> 2a. Is the current situation so bad we should consider a breach in
> consistency of metadata in beginning something very new?
>
> 3. Will global collaboration and standarization help a lot?
> Keeping in mind that it is the actual documents that readers
> want, not the metadata, and that transborder ILL is a
> costly and time-consuming option. It is the local collections,
> the stuff that readers can at once lay there hands on, that
> matter the most to them. Or is it not?
3a. how about global digitization so that items can be ILL'd instantly?
Would readers accept a digital version (albeit imperfect) over nothing
at all?
>
> 4. Can new partnerships be forged to open up new opportunities?
> I mention here the Google-WorldCat alliance which might be
> extended into more functions on the local level, to enhance
> search options for local collections. Keeping in mind libraries
> have no options to do significant amounts of local digitization
> plus OCR plus full-text indexing themselves.
4a. Consider what it would take to make digitization possible. For
example, the Internet Archive is installing digitization equipment
around the US so that libraries can digitize "on demand." Can we
consider HOW it can be done rather than declaring that it CANNOT be done?
GoogleBooks, on the
> other hand, definitely could profit from inclusion of more
> library catalog metadata. OPACs and G.B. could make great
> complements, neither of them profits from going their way alone.
>
> 5. Can ToC harvesting and indexing be done collaboratively, sharing
> the results, internationally, on a large scale - to provide local
> catalogs with extra fodder for indexing without extra manual input?
> Considering that ToC data are probably the next best thing to
> full-text, and supposedly full of relevant terms for searching.
> Arguably, even better than the full text?
> (In fact, the occurrence of a term in the ToC is likely to
> enhance ranking in GoogleBooks - or if not, it should.)
5a. Of course. It's being done, but not in a way that libraries can get
to it for free (read: Bowker). But there's no reason why it couldn't be
done collaboratively.
>
> 6. What new communication functions should catalogs be able
> to support? Surely they ought to speak XML, but keep in mind
> that XML is no replacement for MARC, only for ISO2709.
> Is there an XML Schema that is likely to advance to standard and
> thus worthwhile to invest in (to make the LIS "speak" and
> "understand" it)?
6a. Since new schemas don't self-spawn, are we willing to put some
energy into developing a new schema? Or will we sit around doing nothing
for years and then complain that no new schema has appeared?
sorry, I just can't go on. I promised myself I wouldn't waste time
posting to this list anymore. If you want to be involved in some
future-oriented thinking, I suggest:
http://futurelib.pbwiki.com
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/FrontPage
The latter is just beginning, but it is the outcome of the meeting in
April where some decisions were made about moving forward:
http://www.bl.uk/services/bibliographic/meeting.html
It's beginning to happen, but it's not happening on this list.
kc
>
> 7. Can AI products help improve legacy data and quality of searching?
>
> 8. Are there AI products that can provide new input for catalogs to
> augment or replace human input (considering results of 1.)?
> Can this input augment or improve or revolutionize authority
> control in the near term? Classification? LCSH? Or something
> new altogether?
>
> 9. Will catalogs of the future need index browsing as an extra
> option? If yes, just for authority data (names, subjects) or also
> for descriptive data (title strings, keywords, series titles)?
>
> 10. Will RDA be a step into the right direction? Will it be more
> than that or less? Or is FRBR rather an academic concept with
> on the whole not too much impact on real-world search situations?
>
> Bernhard Eversberg
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Mon Sep 03 2007 - 10:50:05 EDT