Hi,
James Weinheimer wrote:
"I really believe that web resources must be handled cooperatively if we are to have the slightest chance of success".
I fully agree!
There is OAIster (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?c=oaister;page=simple) for institutional repositories and in general, any 'OAI compatible catalogue' of e-documents from any institution who likes to participate.
I can't find it back but there is a huge (which tries to be comprehensive) "open access e-journals" database maintained somewhere in Germany. I remember the owner was looking for any volunteers to take over the responsibility of one list of e-journals (for instance someone responsible for DOAJ, someone else for Biomed / Pubmed central, someone else for Hindawi, etc.).
What about a shared (at least OAI) catalogue of "more general web resources"? And the same for "e-books"?
Best regards
Cécile Gass
Bibliothèques
Université Libre de Bruxelles CP180
1050 Bruxelles
32-2-650-47-39
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] De la part de James Weinheimer
Envoyé : mercredi 30 juillet 2008 10:09
À : NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Objet : Re: [NGC4LIB] Cataloging Web Resources - policies
Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> The catalog is quite good at what it does, so the trick is to figure
> out how to adapt it so that it makes sense in an environment where
> information is distributed and patrons are in whatever environment
> they are in.
>
> We should avoid using it for things it is poorly suited for such as
> keeping track of Web resources. Otherwise, we detract from the value
> it contributes and relegate it more quickly to irrelevance.
If this is accepted, then we run into the problem that as more and more
materials wind up as web resources, fewer and fewer people will use the
library catalog and as a result, use the library less and less.
I think the problem is, and from the comments I have seen in this string,
that libraries want to believe that web resources are essentially the same
as physical items, and therefore, we can fit web resources into our
traditional processes. I think this is absolutely wrong. So long as each
separate library insists on doing its own selection, cataloging, and
maintenance--as it is done with books, etc.--I don't think there is the
slightest chance of success since this is essentially an impossible task.
Doing it all separately with physical materials has been bad enough, but at
least we have a certain amount of help: book dealers help a lot with
selection, there is copy cataloging available and such like.
For selection of web resources, there is precious little help out there. And
certainly nothing as organized as the book publishers/book dealers and so
on. Also, when it comes to cataloging web resources, while they aren't any
harder to catalog than anything else: certainly no more difficult than any
serial, movie, or book, the problems lie much more in examining the item
(try to find the latest date of update; it's hard to know where a site even
begins and ends), and the fact that any part of it can change at any time.
Of course, any serial or loose-leaf publication can change just as much as a
web resource, but in the case of the web resource, it changes without any
notification. At least with a serial or loose-leaf publication, you get the
"notification" of the change when the new issue or update arrives in the
mail. As these materials work their way through the library work flow, the
necessary record maintenance can be performed in an orderly manner. So, if
there were notifications of changes (a possibility for rss feeds?) at least
one part of the problem could be solved.
But these are subsidiary concerns. The main issue is something a little
different. More and more people are questioning whether each library should
be redoing the cataloging of the same book over and over and over again.
I've written about this issue myself. The only real argument for editing the
record for a book that was cataloged elsewhere is that the item received
locally may be different in some subtle but important ways. (The records may
be subquality as well, but we'll bypass this for now) Therefore, I may have
a slightly different edition; perhaps I must bring out some subjects that my
users need, and so on. Although these arguments can be debated--and rejected
or accepted--we must admit that they really do not hold true for web
resources.
With a web resource, we are all looking at precisely the same thing. Perhaps
my "image" of it may be slightly different if I am looking at it with
Firefox and someome else with Opera and someone else with Explorer, but we
are still looking at the same things. With web resources, it really doesn't
make any sense, especially economic sense, to redo selection and cataloging
in each institution. If someone wants to "upgrade" a metadata record with
better subjects, that's fine--just let everybody benefit.
Maintenance is the worst part of it all, and shows the fundamental
difference with physical items. A selector can have worked miracles to find
an item, selected it, the cataloger can make one of the best records in the
entire database, and .... the site changes tomorrow! It changes so much that
you can't even tell it's the same thing. With physical items this is not so
depressing since the original item is still around, so the selection and
cataloging are still valid. In the world of the web, this is not so.
Somewhere Dostoevsky (I think in "House of the Dead") was describing his
incarceration in Siberia, and mentioned that they were worked almost to
death in various building projects. He mentioned that there was a bright
side: at least the laborers could take some pride in their work as they
watched the buildings grow. A much worse torture, in his opinion, would be
incredibly hard work that had no meaning or use at all, such as pouring
water back and forth into glasses for hours on end, or digging holes only to
fill them up immediately.
I think that doing record maintenance for web resources, where all your work
goes down the tubes, would perhaps qualify for such a torment. And pity the
poor selector who can't even know if he or she has already selected a
specific web resource! And finally, imagine this happening in thousands of
libraries every single day with people agonizing over exactly the same
materials.
For all of these reasons, and probably some more I could come up with!, I
really believe that web resources must be handled cooperatively if we are to
have the slightest chance of success. I think it might work, since we are
all literally looking at the same things, not at separate physical copies of
this "manifestation" of a book that may differ in a few crucial ways, but
exactly the same files. In a correctly configured system (I am thinking of
something along the Intute or Infomine type), cataloging needs to be done
one--and only one--time. Maintenance can be done on this one record, and
everyone could benefit. With some tweaking of the metadata record, an
"audience"-type code could be made, handled by the selectors, to create
filters for the general public, undergraduates, graduates, or researchers,
and in this way, selectors could cooperate among themselves. Perhaps the
users could also get involved with Web2.0 possibilities. I am sure the web
resource creators could be involved as well for updates, and other
possibilities.
The relationship of the local OPAC to this database could be done through an
extend search mechanism, such as in my own catalog, or automatic harvesting,
or it could be in other, innovative ways that creative sorts could invent.
I guess that's what I think the "next generation catalog" will be: something
that allows true and deep cooperation with all kinds of groups we have never
cooperated with before. Of course, that means that there would be a lot of
trust, but that is another topic and I've gone on long enough.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 327
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Received on Mon Aug 04 2008 - 02:58:11 EDT