Re: FRBRization in LT, was: Personal perspectives on catalog use

I've posted some thoughts that are around this area at http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/2009/02/the-future-is-analog.html and http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/2009/02/a-plethora-of-library-systems.html - although this is the ongoing construction of a view/argument about where we should go, and I have some more posts brewing to develop this view.

Essentially I think that we work in a world that is full of inconsistency and duplication, and that the direction we need to head in is that one that embraces this. I also think that this means using linked networks of information - essentially this is what the web is, and we need to exploit this rather than using it as a means of point-to-point communication.

LibraryThing has some definite strengths, and I'm convinced that it takes the right approach in allowing individuals to link together (seemingly disparate) things. I'm not sure (and it is something I keep meaning to find time to explore) how well this might work if I want to interact with LibraryThing from the outside - there is definitely some potential here, as I can link to items in LibraryThing, so I can say 'this is linked to this' - which is definitely a start, and somewhat ahead of many OPACs. If there are any examples of people exploiting LibraryThing 'from the outside' I'd be very interested in looking at them (I'm not just thinking of LibraryThing for Libraries, but perhaps more general exploitation - although LT for L is perhaps an example)

Owen 

Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
Central Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington Campus
London
SW7 2AZ
 
t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
e: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: 17 February 2009 10:38
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FRBRization in LT, was: Personal perspectives on
> catalog use
> 
> Stephens, Owen wrote:
> >> There may even be wide consensus on both the
> >> concept and the invented titles, but this "method" would be hard
> >> to formulate into a rule that could be incorporated into RDA or
> >> any catalog code at all.
> >>
> > Maybe there is a lesson in this?!
> >
> Yes: cataloging should rather be looked upon as less of a science than
> RDA or even AACR seems to be aspiring to.
> The downside would be a deterioration of predictability and
> reproducibility  of its results since it would have to allow for more
> individual judgement. IOW, less standardized results, with all that
> might mean for interoperability. More duplicates, to mention one thing.
> (With whom does LT interoperate, and how, other than via ISBN? Which is
> not good enough for libraries in general.)
> 
> 
> B.Eversberg