I'm not quite proposing we deliberately do things in a chaotic manner (I don't think!). I think we can expect communities of practice to exist, and within them we might expect some degree of consistency - we might regard libraries as one community of practice (although remember, not all libraries by any stretch use MARC or AACR2 - so we are really talking about specific types of libraries even at this level). I would say that any level of consistency is actually very hard to achieve - as I suspect anyone who has worked to bring together disparate library collections into a physical union would be willing to testify (any takers?). However, that said, I think that communities of practice are in general a 'good thing'.
I believe that linked networks of information would generally tend to reduce duplication (why duplicate when you can link?), and what tends to happen is that certain nodes form. Even if there is duplication, in a linked information world you can explicitly say 'this is a duplicate' and not have to worry about it again.
However, if we allow linking in the right way it could allow enrichment of whatever one community has said about a resource by linking it to what another community has said about it. That 'community' might in some cases be a single individual as in the case of LibraryThing where members can assert "This is part of my personal collection"
Thinking about the other end, we (libraries) would have to build clever indexes that serve our users needs - maybe we are interested in some types of links (libraries asserting that a resource is part of their collection) but not others (individuals asserting the same). In a world of open, linked, data, anyone can put this stuff together in a way that suits them - but libraries could be really, really focussed on their community, and be very very good at putting this stuff together.
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 James Weinheimer
> Sent: 17 February 2009 15:20
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] 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
> >------------------------------------
Received on Tue Feb 17 2009 - 12:03:38 EST