Internet has made the world smaller or more global so up to the nineties
it was OK to have
a local catalog and a national catalog and a lot of paper bibliographies
for the rest of the world.
Today we can still keep the local and the national but we need one
global too. Worldcat could
be that catalog
Today most customers prefer to find what we have locally through the
national catalog. There
they find what we have locally but also what other Swedish libraries
have. When we in the future
create a good global catalog that one will be the first choice. Google
does that today, but Google
is not the ultimate library catalog. We must create that one, Google has
shown the need.
In the Republic of Letters there are no borders.
Jan
Frances Dean McNamara wrote:
> I heard one Google representative at an ALA meeting say something to the
> effect that the libraries weren't that interested in that linking. I
> suspect eventually they might make it happen. Why not, from their point
> of view as it would just drive more use and even might drive some sales
> from their publisher partners? They probably have been working with the
> libraries providing books for scanning and with OCLC. And it may not
> have been that important to those entities. I think it is fine to link
> through Worldcat Google Book to Worldcat to Library. But there's
> also some use going in the other direction, library catalog to Google
> Book and other online versions. I keep asking at meetings and I think
> eventually they might consider it a good idea if they think libraries
> are really interested.
>
> Frances McNamara
> University of Chicago
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:17 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cutter's Rules in full text - a case for
> FRBRization
>
> Frances Dean McNamara wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not understanding why people think separate bib records are useful
>> for this. I can't help thinking that adding these things to
>> knowledgebases for link resolvers may provide a better end result for
>> users.
>>
>>
>>
>
> My thoughts exactly. Because the purpose of google books is not to
> digitize a particular library's copy, but to digitize a book
> (manifestation) for searching. So if Michigan's copy has been digitized,
> every library that has that book should be able to tell its users that
> there is a digital copy available for searching and possibly for viewing
> online. It would also be great to be able to link directly to ToC's
> (although in many cases the link to ToC is inaccurate in the Google
> book). The least logical thing, in my mind, is putting records for these
> into catalogs.
>
> It doesn't look like google is terribly open to facilitating linking
> services, but maybe they will be in the future. I also can't tell
> exactly what identifiers they are keeping in their metadata -- for
> example, it isn't clear to me if they always keep the OCLC number from
> the MARC record submitted by the library. Ideally, there would be the
> possibility of linking using LCCN, ISBN, OCLC #. Those would be *almost*
> one-to-one with a manifestation.
>
> kc
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> 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
> ------------------------------------
>
--
Jan Szczepanski
Förste bibliotekarie
Goteborgs universitetsbibliotek
Box 222
SE 405 30 Goteborg, SWEDEN
Tel: +46 31 773 1164 Fax: +46 31 163797
E-mail: Jan.Szczepanski_at_ub.gu.se
Received on Fri Sep 07 2007 - 01:21:33 EDT