In my mind, the point of libraries is to truly serve people. The point of catalog is to do the same. I even believe that that is the point of language itself. (also meaning all of our "who", "what", "where", "when" language is intricately connected with "hows" and "whys" - purpose)
That said, Alex said:
What we're doing is putting down certain requirements on what "good enough" is, and it will always be different, depending on who, context and when. In that respect, we will *never* ever have one set of requirements that we can all agree on being "good enough." Every time we try, we're setting up a straw man in our favor in the argument.
"Let's pretend I wanted to find X" is not going to make you *not* find it through your example. It's a straw man; you already know you'll find it (or *not* find it, if that's your example).
I think a good analogy for us to keep coming back to is the physician. If I think its "good enough" and "relevant" to the hilt but the prescription kills me, I've got a problem. As James says below, some questions are easy to answer and not so consequential, others are far less so. I think this is the problem with the argumentation above. Alex, I'm quite sure you were the first person on this list to make it very clear that you really didn't like Thomas Mann's recent article (the "Peloponnesian War" one, which even a fairly radical fellow like David Weinberger thought deserved serious engagement: http://tinyurl.com/2x7v7r - he used the words "classic and convincing"). Don't you find it rather exhilarating that Mann can do what he does? I sure do.
Questions about how rapidly things are changing aside (and please, please know, I think if we do ignore this *we are dead* as you say), would you agree that *at the present moment*, Mann's case about the abilities of library's to provide superior scholarship - due to their traditional practices - is superior, i.e. any historian would want to throw in their lot with him? For the moment, leave aside the point that what Mann does is not easy for every even highly educated person to do - for whatever reasons (whether it be the fault of our data, data modeling, OPACs, etc). For the moment, leave aside the point that Mann thinks we can bank on books or proprietary databases having a secure future. The point is that he does what he does - with tools that *despite all of their glaring weaknesses* (in part due to lack of consistency of standards, in part due to lack of funding, yes, even in part due to being slow to change and update for the computer age..., etc.) simply have more!
power than Google to search for concepts ("scope-match" he calls it).
I am quite sure that Mann could replicate this example with most anything dealing with the fields of ancient history, history or literature at the very least. Put Mann in a room with the best "expert Googler" you can find and have them both interact with the same five scholars who have reference questions like the one discussed. Then, have those scholars (and other scholars to) comment on value of the materials that are found. Do you really have any doubts about what will happen?
Yes, things are changing. But what about *now*? I too bemoan the fact that we can't all do what Mann does, but how much are we losing here? I think James is right when he says that "pay-to-play" libraries may pop up - featuring more traditional modes of control and structure - if the rest of us totally give up on it.
I think James' last question seems to me a very good and penetrating one: "should the catalog continue to provide traditional means of access and description while it provides new functionality, or are the traditional means now obsolete? This would probably show the fault lines rather clearly."
I am not eager to show fault lines. I appreciate Eric Lease Morgan's efforts towards getting everyone to work together, respect each other and to find out what we have in common. But, at the same time, perhaps we might be able to save some valuable time here by answering this clearly (if we think we can), while still respecting one another as persons. :)
Perhaps James could delineate as clearly as possible what he means by "traditional means of access and description".
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:17 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "To everything a purpose ..."
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> "Good enough" will always be subjective. I can give any example of
> searching through Google to be good enough for me, and someone will
> come and say "Ah, but it can't find THIS!" "Ah," I would
> respond, "but
> it can find THIS!" And so it goes, on and on.
>
> What we're doing is putting down certain requirements on what "good
> enough" is, and it will always be different, depending on who, context
> and when. In that respect, we will *never* ever have one set of
> requirements that we can all agree on being "good enough." Every time
> we try, we're setting up a straw man in our favor in the argument.
> "Let's pretend I wanted to find X" is not going to make you *not* find
> it through your example. It's a straw man; you already know you'll
> find it (or *not* find it, if that's your example).
>
> Hope that makes it clearer?
The problem with "good enough" is that there is an unspoken assumption that you know what is available. I may think that my doctor is "good enough" until I find out he's a quack; my lawyer may be "good enough" until I discover he's a shyster.
When something is "good enough" it means that I will stop complaining about it. Somebody may think that the information in Wikipedia is "good enough" until they find out that it's completely wrong.
I think that what we should discuss is (in library terms) "ready reference" questions. These are subjects such as "what is the address of my congressman," or "how high is Mt. Everest," as opposed to questions with less clear answers such as, "why did the communist system collapse" or "what should we do in Iraq?" In these cases, "good enough" doesn't really make any sense.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Fri Sep 07 2007 - 08:48:15 EDT