Re: relationships

From: Tim Spalding <tim_at_nyob>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:25:32 -0500
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
What if we suggest on the LC site that they look outside the LC site? :)

Just posted on open data and the report, here:
http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2007/12/open-data-and-future-of-bibliographic.php

T

On 12/11/07, Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Just a reminder -- for comments to reach the Working Group they must be
> submitted at the LoC web site:
>
>     http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/contact/
>
> Comments made elsewhere (lists, blogs) will not be used as input to the
> working group's deliberations on the final report.
>
> You can paste e-mails like these directly into the form there.
>
> kc
>
> Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
> > On page 7 (page 11 of the PDF document) the draft Report on the
> > Future of Bibliographic Control [1] discusses the definition of
> > bibliographic control and mentions relationships:
> >
> >   ...Bibliographic control is increasingly a matter of
> >   managing relationships—among works, names, concepts,
> >   and object descriptions—across communities. Consistency
> >   of description within any single environment, such as
> >   the library catalog, is becoming less significant than
> >   the ability to make connections between environments:
> >   Amazon to WorldCat to Google to PubMed to Wikipedia,
> >   with library holdings serving as but one node in this
> >   web of connectivity. In today's environment,
> >   bibliographic control cannot continue to be seen as
> >   limited to library catalogs.
> >
> > I think this is a step in the right direction, but not quite far enough.
> >
> > More specifically, I endorse the idea of relationship-creation, but I
> > think it ought to go beyond information resources and include users/
> > people. Using authorities and subject analysis is great for creating
> > relationships between works. "These works are like those works." At
> > the same time, if similar processes where implemented to create
> > relationships between works and people, then those people's jobs
> > (whether they be patrons or librarians) would be easier. "People like
> > me used those resources." "This is my collection." Moreover, if
> > relationships were created between people and resources through
> > "bibliographic control", then questions like the following could be
> > addressed as well: "Who are my patrons", "Who are my librarians", or
> > "Who else is interested in this topic".
> >
> > [1] http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-report-
> > draft-11-30-07-final.pdf
> >
> > --
> > Eric Lease Morgan
> > University Libraries of Notre Dame
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> 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
> ------------------------------------
>


--
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
Received on Tue Dec 11 2007 - 23:28:17 EST