I think quite a bit of the way that the catalog _records_ are structured
(and not structured) is also a legacy of the card catalog error, and
equally needs to be changed just as much as the catalog interface does.
But to be clear, yes, there is a lot of power in catalog records that is
not found in Google. That should not be lost in any changes. There is
also a lot of power that is _intended_ to be in catalog records, but the
nature of the structure of those catalog records makes it too hard to
take advantage of that power. That needs to be fixed.
But we've had this discussion so many times before, we just keep going
round.
Jonathan
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> Janet Hill wrote:
>
>> If you define "catalog" as the discovery tool maintained by a library
>> (or
>> group of libraries) through which information seekers may obtain access
>> through various mechanisms to information resources -- whether owned (or
>> leased) by the particular institution or not -- then its use will certainly
>> be greater than if you define "catalog" as the tool that provides
>> access in
>> a single listing utilizing a single methodology, and only to materials owned
>> (or leased/subscribed to) by the local institution.
>>
>
> Also, there needs to be an understanding, especially on librarian/professional lists, that there is a difference between the catalog *records* and the catalog *interface.* The interface of the catalog is obsolete and based on the card catalog. There have been a few attempts--only recently--to change this, but basically, the ways the catalog works hasn't changed much in the last 100 or so years. The only real change has been in the introduction of the keyword search, but that was achieved with the introduction of the OPAC. The latest "novelty" of the OPAC now is that it works more like a card catalog(!), in that the user can see the lists of headings. Big wow!
>
> But it must be confessed that the traditional library catalog allows types of searching that Google, Yahoo and the like *cannot do* in any way: the traditional catalog allows for the searching of concepts instead of just text. Once I demonstrate this to my students, they begin to want conceptual access over other resources on the web. Everybody needs to understand this, and only then can we make a decision whether the traditional catalog needs to continue.
>
> Certainly, the catalog interface is obsolete and needs to be trashed, but the records that allow for conceptual searching need to be retained and used to much greater effect than they are today. The "local collection" is a fiction that no longer exists with so many high-quality materials available on the web. One of the problems and tragedies is that so few people, including information professionals, seem to understand this today.
>
> James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> Rome, Italy
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Thu Sep 20 2007 - 15:10:07 EDT