Many of us use the term "library catalog" to indicate the mechanism (which
is owned/sponsored/used/made available by the library) through which users
may search for information that is EITHER owned/leased OR made accessible
by/through the library.
That is, we are using "catalog" to indicate an interface that provides
intellectual access to the world's resources, not just our own.
Janet Swan Hill, Professor
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:16 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Does cataloging have value?
Library catalogs have an obvious limitation that doesn't seem to be
discussed very often.
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).
Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN
Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 11:26:07 EST