Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> > the user expectations are changing, the need is changing,
> they are diversifying, of course, and there are new expectations made
> realistic by new technology. This does not mean that everything that
> used to be expected in catalogs is no longer valid or no longer needed.
> Expectations are certainly higher, but legacy metadata cannot possibly
> serve them all.
I agree with this, but there are some additional nuances. While legacy metadata cannot serve all the modern user needs (and another of the many reasons why I say that the FRBR tasks need to be completely updated), many users that I have spoken with believe one of two things:
1) that they are getting the same access to materials as they did with a traditional catalog, e.g. when they search for Leo Tolstoy on Google, they think they are getting the same access as they did in the traditional library catalog, and they do not realize that they are getting completely different types of results. I am not saying that the results are worse, but without controls, this access is different and many people, some very distinguished researchers, do not realize this.
2) younger people often don't even have the concept of any kind of access except through Googlish-type keyword results. The idea of controlled vocabulary is alien to them, and they both like and *trust* Google. Remember, they grew up with Google.
Finally, when you ask people if they are good searchers, the vast majority reply that they are. So, many never seek out help or ask questions. When you mention the problems of Google results, many even become hostile, thinking that it is dinosaur thinking getting in the way of improved, modern methods.
When you put all of this together, it makes it much more difficult to build something that people will use or even pay attention to. This is one reason why, regretfully, I think we need to do away with words such as "catalogs," "cataloging" and "catalog records" because so many think that they are passe. When you speak of "metadata," "ontologies" and the "Semantic Web" you get people's attention.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 10:59:59 EST