B.G. Sloan wrote:
>
> Library catalogs have an obvious limitation that doesn't seem to be discussed very often.
>
I agree that library catalogs are limiting, but whose fault is that? It
is the people working for libraries who accept limiting catalogs for
what ever reason. The question I have is why do we, as a profession,
accept such obvious limitations? I think blaming the systems such as
library catalogs is akin to putting the cart before the horse.
>
> By and large, library catalogs are limited to searching for physical resources held by the user's library. This makes sense because online catalogs evolved from card catalogs, which were used to describe local holdings.
>
> I know that there are exceptions to this. Many libraries participate in resource sharing consortia, and many libraries make an effort to include records for e-resources in their catalogs. But, generally, most default catalog searches are looking for physical items held by the library.
>
> Why would a knowledgeable user want to use the local library catalog when there is a vast array of resources accessible by other means? (Note: that's not a rhetorical question).
>
Well, these really depends on many things. Certainly timelessness is one
reason. Even though we have a great ILL department here, I might need
something now. Also, in other cases, I might not really not be too
picky. Why should I make the library spend the money and time to get a
book through ILL if they have other almost-as-good books right here.
This really depends on what the purpose any particular user has at a
particular point in time. This is one reason why I think many librarians
are interested in products such as OCLC's Local Worldcat where users can
expand there searching if they so choose.
Edward
>
> Bernie Sloan
> Sora Associates
> Bloomington, IN
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 12 2009 - 16:28:46 EST