Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>
> 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".
>
That describes a potentially very wide array of information. Some of
which, or quite a lot even, will be of temporary and ephemeral
value only. Either there will have to be indicators for the
retention time of something, or a general policy of removing certain
categories after a set period of time. Wikipedia, on the other hand,
seems bent on retaining immense amounts of clutter and chatter
indefinitely (or until some AI software will become able to detect chaff
and clear it out?)
Seriously, there is of course no need to store those categories of
data inside the library systems as such. That stuff may be managed
separately by appropriate software and linked with the ILS's catalog
records only via suitable identifiers.
B.E.
Received on Wed Dec 12 2007 - 11:30:37 EST