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

I am still considering Owen's posts, but there is a part of me that resists
the reasoning that since the world is inconsistent and duplicated (correct),
then we as catalogers/metadata creators/kagooglizers (I love that last one!)
must therefore embrace inconsistency and duplication in our tools. I don't
think I agree with this. To me, that road seems to lie toward the area of
chaos, and our primary task should be to try to create order and meaning out
of the chaos that already exists.

Before resigning ourselves to such a course of action, I would hope we could
try to build new tools that could help us create consistency and determine
duplication of records, and duplication of effort. Doing this would be of
immense help for efficiency and clarity. 

I think there's a lot that could be done, especially when some of these
creative types started really thinking about it.

Jim Weinheimer


On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:41:31 -0800, Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET> wrote:

>I agree greatly with Owen. I also think that in reality we are already
>in a world of inconsistency and duplication, but our approach is to see
>that as wrong rather than as something to work with.
>
>I think many librarians resist the 'ambiguous linking' capability
>because in past experience statements of 'these two are the same thing'
>caused one of them to disappear from view. Instead, links can be just
>more information about the item, which you can choose to make use of or
>not. One set of links shouldn't preclude other links, or ignoring links
>altogether. What we need, desperately, is meaningful links -- that is,
>links with semantics, not just 'this links to that, who knows why?'
>
>kc
>
>Stephens, Owen wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>-----------------------------------
>Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
>ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
>fx.: 510-848-3913
>mo.: 510-435-8234
>------------------------------------