LibraryThing uses it—and would like to continue using it! But we're
almost alone.
LCSH is a typical library issue:
1. Has its passionate defenders.
2. Has its passionate detractors.
3. Broadly useful in theory.
4. Unknown outside of the library world.
5. Implemented poorly by library systems (eg., OPACs)
6. Slow to change.
7. Free and theoretically uncopyrightable, but not publicly available.
8. Potentially valuable.
9. Drifting into irrelevancy.
Tim
On 12/14/07, Riley, Jenn <jenlrile_at_indiana.edu> wrote:
> Everyone's entitled to their own interpretation, of course, but I hardly think that blog post says Google is "chomping at the bit" to use LCSH. And I'm the one who wrote it.
>
> I've been a bit disturbed to see this post used in more than one place as some kind of proof that LCSH is just fine the way it is. I thought I was pretty clear in the post that at this point we can conclude nothing of the sort. Given the constantly-evolving nature of Google systems and services, just because one record on one day displays some terms that look suspiciously like they came from a MARC record for a book doesn't mean Google considers those headings valuable, either as they are or as fodder for providing any interesting higher-level services. Only time will tell that. I was simply noting what I saw and wondering what it meant. I think it would be fantastic if the work libraries do could be used as a basis for services like Google offers. And that we could learn from those more advanced services and provide data that can push them even farther. But just because I think it's a good idea doesn't mean it's going to happen.
>
> Oh, and then there's the pesky little detail that opening up LCSH isn't necessary for what Google has done already. It would help with those hypothetical more advanced services, but I start to repeat myself...
>
> Jenn
>
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> > [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Loomis, Dawn
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:46 PM
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Responses to LC Working Group report?
> >
> > Google
> > http://inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/10/google-book-search-and-
> > lc
> > sh.html
> >
> > Dawn Loomis
> > Pasadena Public Library
> > Local Metadata Cataloger
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> > [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:40 PM
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> > Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Responses to LC Working Group report?
> >
> > And then there is this recommendation:
> >
> > 4.3.1.2 LC: Provide LCSH openly for use by library and non-library
> > stakeholders.
> >
> > I'm trying to think of a non-library stakeholder chomping at the bit
> > to use LCSH??
>
--
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
Received on Fri Dec 14 2007 - 18:44:57 EST