data vs "data structure"

P.S. Since you asked for "super helpful articles," I should have mentioned
that my piece on FRBRization (http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/715/)
demonstrates some of the problems we have in the current shared cataloging
environment due to our current data structure.

Martha M. Yee
myee_at_ucla.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]On Behalf Of Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:26 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] data vs "data structure"


Jonathan:

But we've had this discussion so many times before, we just keep going
round. (end)

Yes, we have - but this is what is so terribly confusing: the difference
between data and data structure... Is there any way to make all of this
more concrete?  If it is not the content (again, loaded with complicated
vocabulary control rules so as to help libs from various locales to work
together) of a typical MARC record that is outdated or has outlived its
usefulness, but rather the "data structure" (container), what exactly
does this mean?  How can we map it to make it easier to understand?

I don't think this is a small matter.  Karen Schneider wrote about this
topic here: http://tinyurl.com/35n4at

At the end of all of the posts she writes the following:

"If you're reading this far, note that in the editing of this piece,
'data structure' changed to 'data.' We have great data. We just don't
have good data structure. Sigh." (end)

So, evidently, here we have a case where the editors of the piece
thought changing "data structure" to "data" would facilitate
understanding - in any case, should I assume that they thought
exchanging one word for the other didn't really make much of a
difference?

But it does make a difference, right?  I'll admit I could use some more
guidance on this if anyone has some super helpful articles.

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 Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:09 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