Emerita Cuesta <ecuesta_at_LAW.MIAMI.EDU> wrote:
A lot of good questions.
My own attempt toward the beginnings of a fundamental answer is this: librarians/catalogers need to understand exactly where their fields of expertise lie. It is *not* coding. Maybe 40 years or so ago, librarians were leading the field of coding with the development of MARC format (or maybe not). In any case, once librarians managed to achieve their goals of: a) creating catalog cards more efficiently and b) transfering these records from database to database, they pretty much stopped there. While USMARC changed its name to MARC21 to take in other Anglo-American countries, the basics never changed. Even when relational databases came, it was all about creating a MARC21/ISO2709 record so that it could be displayed locally (no printing of cards anymore) and uploaded to OCLC or RLIN, and downloaded again. I think this proves that coding is not our strength.
One of our areas of strength lies in the intellectual organization of information sources. Whether our catalogs happen to be clay tablets, slips of paper, or XML databases, the basic tasks of organizing the information has not changed in its fundamentals. New tools however, allow for new possibilities. So, users should be able to find resources by their authors, titles and basic subjects. Users still want to be able to do this and are often almost screaming for it. In fact, when I demonstrate the various tools to my users, they *think* they are doing reliable author/title/subject searches with Google or Yahoo or other full-text searches, but they are not. They are really surprised when I show them otherwise.
The way we achieve these goals today (our basic tools) hasn't really changed from what they were in the 19th century, but those tools are completely obsolete today. For example, the "heading" no longer needs to be a text string, but a relational number. The display of this relational number can vary from database to database, and even vary from user to user. Once we have these "headings" in certain formats and shared among different databases, we can use them in ways never thought of before. So, my own ideas are: how can we make systems relevant to our users today, which will allow them to search materials *reliably* by authors, titles, and subjects?
I fully realize that there there are many other needs of our users, and I have argued very strongly about this, but we must take this one step at a time. If just Google Book Search and the Internet Archive (for example) were searchable reliably by their authors, titles, and subjects, we would have taken a large step in the right direction. It would also be a lot of work, involving the cooperation of Google, multiple libraries working in unison, OCLC, Amazon and probably some other agencies as well. To sum up all of this: librarians today need--more than ever--imagination.
When it comes to how to implement this scenario in the most efficient, "coolest" ways, and allowing for some other of the real user needs that go far beyond the limitations of FRBR (which people want), then these are some of the parts that could be left up to the coders. And here is where experimentation comes in. You ask about cloud computing for example, and what good is it. To be honest, it may be good or bad, just like the Web2.0 stuff. It may be a flash in the pan; it might be the "next big thing" or it might be abandoned immediately when another new technology comes along. But the only way to find out is to experiment, and experiments *must* be allowed to fail. This is very difficult to get through the heads of many administrators today.
In any case, these are the strengths of people like Tim and Alex. I honestly believe that working in tandem, experienced catalogers *with imagination!* and people like Tim and Alex, and some funding, could build something that would blow Google and Yahoo out of the water.
And yes, it takes time when we have lots of other duties.
Jim Weinheimer
> Hello all. First time poster, long time lurker in this listserv. Two
> observations, if I may.
>
> The first thing that seems to be forgotten in these discussions is time. Most
> of us wear several hats, each one of which once represented a full-time job.
> These are duties and responsibilities which my director, the law school, and
> the University consider my priority. If you are lucky, as I am, and have a
> director who understands the importance of keeping up with new technologies,
> you get professional development options, but they are subordinate to my job -
> I am more likely to get time and funds for something that will impact my
> department immediately or in the near future, and there is plenty of that
> currently available!
>
>
>
> The second thing is, what is this all for? Talking about cloud computing,
> clustering, digital identity management, or data modeling is all fantastic, but
> how would they benefit library users? What serves our patrons best today and
> next month and a year from now? The users coming up to the reference desk or
> the catalog station or logging in remotely want help in the here and now and
> it's our responsibility to provide it. Becoming experts in every new technology
> and riding it until the next best thing comes along and then moving on to that
> seems to me to be counterproductive. I understand the need to grow and adapt -
> and G-d, in twenty-odd years in this profession I have adapted plenty! - but
> picking which new technologies will have long-term implications and which are
> short-term shiny new toys and convincing institutions to invest in them is... I
> don't even think "complicated" of "difficult" are the right
> words.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there are two kinds of librarianship being created by
> technology: a theoretical one dealing with technical developments in the
> creation and management of information, and a practical one dealing with
> providing such information to the user. A bit like medical researchers and
> general practitioners? Maybe this is a good and proper step, and we should
> start considering the implications in that, and how it can be used to further
> our own interests.
>
>
>
>
>
> Emerita M. Cuesta
>
> Asst. Director for Technical Services and Acquisitions Librarian
>
> University of Miami Law Library
>
> Coral Gables, FL 33124
>
> (305)284-6330 (phone)
>
> (305)284-3554 (fax)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:43 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Library Technologies and Library School (was Commercial
> Vendors and Open Source Software)
>
>
>
> Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
>
>
> >Â Where are the experts in cloud computing, in clustering, in
>
> >Â large-scale meta data management, in reducio indexing, in smart
>
> >Â spidering? Where are the geeks who enjoy semantic data modelling
>
> >Â across silos? Or the ones who knows all there is to know about digital
>
> >Â identity management? Things that's actually damn, seriouslly
>
> >Â you'll-all-go-down-in-flames-without-it technologies? Where is it?
>
> >Â Where's the direction you need to make to get to it? Where's your
>
> >Â passionate people who understands all this and wants to see it
>
> >Â through?
>
>
>
> While this is all very good, I would like to point out that it is still all
> experimental. We still don't know which way to go, and it may turn out that the
> solution will be some method discovered six months from now. There is nothing
> surprising about this since we are in a time of major changes and attempts must
> be made to decide what works and what does not work. Library administrators
> facing tight budgets can find it very difficult to justify experimentation
> which automatically means that there can be failure and resultant
> "waste" (at least in a strictly budgetary sense). I would also like
> to point out that individual libraries have normally left these affairs up to
> the vendors since open-source solutions are relatively new.
>
> Â
>
> >Â I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you need to come up with
>
> >Â something radically different here. You can't beat this with smart,
>
> >Â long-term and slowly adapting techniques you've mastered so well. You
>
> >Â need radical, and radical is *not* library thinking.
>
>
>
> Well said. We need radical changes and I see very few radical proposals coming
> from libraries. One of the main things--and easiest to implement--would be for
> libraries to open up their catalog records for general experimentation. I'm
> still not sure exactly why libraries are so reluctant to do this.
>
>
>
> Jim Weinheimer
> Hello all. First time poster, long time lurker in this listserv. Two
> observations, if I may.
>
>
>
> The first thing that seems to be forgotten in these discussions is time. Most
> of us wear several hats, each one of which once represented a full-time job.
> These are duties and responsibilities which my director, the law school, and
> the University consider my priority. If you are lucky, as I am, and have a
> director who understands the importance of keeping up with new technologies,
> you get professional development options, but they are subordinate to my job -
> I am more likely to get time and funds for something that will impact my
> department immediately or in the near future, and there is plenty of that
> currently available!
>
>
>
> The second thing is, what is this all for? Talking about cloud computing,
> clustering, digital identity management, or data modeling is all fantastic, but
> how would they benefit library users? What serves our patrons best today and
> next month and a year from now? The users coming up to the reference desk or
> the catalog station or logging in remotely want help in the here and now and
> it's our responsibility to provide it. Becoming experts in every new technology
> and riding it until the next best thing comes along and then moving on to that
> seems to me to be counterproductive. I understand the need to grow and adapt -
> and G-d, in twenty-odd years in this profession I have adapted plenty! - but
> picking which new technologies will have long-term implications and which are
> short-term shiny new toys and convincing institutions to invest in them is... I
> don't even think "complicated" of "difficult" are the right
> words.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there are two kinds of librarianship being created by
> technology: a theoretical one dealing with technical developments in the
> creation and management of information, and a practical one dealing with
> providing such information to the user. A bit like medical researchers and
> general practitioners? Maybe this is a good and proper step, and we should
> start considering the implications in that, and how it can be used to further
> our own interests.
>
>
>
>
>
> Emerita M. Cuesta
>
> Asst. Director for Technical Services and Acquisitions Librarian
>
> University of Miami Law Library
>
> Coral Gables, FL 33124
>
> (305)284-6330 (phone)
>
> (305)284-3554 (fax)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:43 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Library Technologies and Library School (was Commercial
> Vendors and Open Source Software)
>
>
>
> Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
>
>
> >� Where are the experts in cloud computing, in clustering, in
>
> >� large-scale meta data management, in reducio indexing, in smart
>
> >� spidering? Where are the geeks who enjoy semantic data modelling
>
> >� across silos? Or the ones who knows all there is to know about digital
>
> >� identity management? Things that's actually damn, seriouslly
>
> >� you'll-all-go-down-in-flames-without-it technologies? Where is it?
>
> >� Where's the direction you need to make to get to it? Where's your
>
> >� passionate people who understands all this and wants to see it
>
> >� through?
>
>
>
> While this is all very good, I would like to point out that it is still all
> experimental. We still don't know which way to go, and it may turn out that the
> solution will be some method discovered six months from now. There is nothing
> surprising about this since we are in a time of major changes and attempts must
> be made to decide what works and what does not work. Library administrators
> facing tight budgets can find it very difficult to justify experimentation
> which automatically means that there can be failure and resultant
> "waste" (at least in a strictly budgetary sense). I would also like
> to point out that individual libraries have normally left these affairs up to
> the vendors since open-source solutions are relatively new.
>
> �
>
> >� I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you need to come up with
>
> >� something radically different here. You can't beat this with smart,
>
> >� long-term and slowly adapting techniques you've mastered so well. You
>
> >� need radical, and radical is *not* library thinking.
>
>
>
> Well said. We need radical changes and I see very few radical proposals coming
> from libraries. One of the main things--and easiest to implement--would be for
> libraries to open up their catalog records for general experimentation. I'm
> still not sure exactly why libraries are so reluctant to do this.
>
>
>
> Jim Weinheimer
Received on Tue Sep 30 2008 - 02:01:24 EDT