Re: Search/retrieve access is to library data what Gopher was to the web?

Please forgive my ignorance, but how is keyword searching in a library
catalog different from keyword searching on the web?  Are you saying
that keyword searching has different varieties?  And how does OCLC World
Cat on the web fit into all of this?  Doesn't it provide access to
individual libraries through a web interface?

Sorry.  I need to understand this problem better!

Thanks,
Sally


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Sally Wambold
Law School Library
University of Richmond
swambold_at_richmond.edu
804-289-8226
FAX: 804-287-1845



-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:04 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Search/retrieve access is to library data what
Gopher was to the web?

Allowing a search engine to index the data shouldn't be a legal problem,

I wouldn't think. The problem is that the data isn't available in a 
crawlable way -- it's stuck in databases that only speak Z39.50. Where 
the legal problem comes in is that people feel they can't put their data

out on the open web, right?

I was thinking that one of the barriers is that what we have is this 
highly formalized metadata. The first problem with that is that we have 
it in MARC, which no one other than libraries understands. The second is

that metadata is highly concentrated -- and web search tends to be on 
full text and takes a shotgun approach rather than the precise approach 
of library catalogs. Because the data is concentrated, keyword searching

is often unsatisfactory -- and the web thrives on keyword searching.

If we COULD surface all of the library metadata to the web, then I think

that we'd need to do something other than just treat each record as a 
web page. I think we'd need to create a layer of merged data so that 
each book (manifestation) is represented as few times as possible 
(ideally once, but we know how hard that is), and we'd need a work layer

as well. And we'd need ways to navigate, not just search. Linking books 
that cite each other (like following urls). I guess that's the other 
problem with our metadata -- no interaction between records, few links 
(I'm thinking of the 'related works' fields). So much to do!

kc

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Sadly, I think much of the barrier is legal/business :  OCLC members 
> are not allowed (or believe they are not allowed) to share their 
> complete records with all and sundry.  Being able to share their 
> complete corpus with all and sundry is what would set the ground for 
> innovation. You never know who is going to provide this, but once you 
> make it possible, somebody will.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Martin Malmsten wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am simply going to throw down the gauntlet and say that 
>> search/retrieve access to library data is not good enough. For too 
>> long have library data been trapped within data-silos only accessible

>> through obscure protocols. Why is access to library data still an 
>> issue? This was solved in a matter of months on the web, when Excite 
>> (or whichever search engine was first) was introduced. Why are there 
>> not at least ten search engines containing the majority of the worlds

>> bibliographic data?
>>
>> Yes, I am stating/asking the obvious.
>>
>> So, Linked Data for libraries, anyone?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>   Martin, who really wants a discussion about Linked Data
>>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------