Re: As a Library 'decision maker'

My humble opinion is that Libraries have been too reluctant to publish
their authority records in a format that can be used for computer
science research.  Libraries have rich classification schemes and
structured subject vocabularies, semantically rich catalogues; the
problem is that they are too reluctant/slow to make these structures
public, to share them with computer scientists, for example.

Computer science research in information visualization would probably
benefit from an attempt at applying their efforts to LCSH, for example,
but LCSH is not openly available in the same way as, say, DMOZ <
http://rdf.dmoz.org/ >  Similarly, AACR < http://www.aacr2.org/ > is not
available in the same way as the standards published by the W3C <
http://www.w3.org/ >; one has to purchase the former whereas the latter
is openly and freely available online.  There is an analogy here between
the closed world of Microsoft-type software platforms and that of the
open source systems.

Tomasz Neugebauer

Systems Development Librarian
tomasz.neugebauer_at_concordia.ca
Concordia University Libraries


-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:09 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] As a Library 'decision maker'

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