Re: Does cataloging have value?

Well, it seems to me that some of the people who have been involved in this
discussion (who are surely among the "we") appear to think that the term
"catalog" has a static meaning (that is, that it has the same meaning it had
100, or 50, or 20 years ago).  And so, they accuse others of a sin (the sin
of viewing a catalog in an extremely narrow way) that those other haven't,
in fact, committed.  It's a straw man.  (Or is that a red herring?)

I submit that we are -- or ought to be -- supple enough of mind to be able
to use the word "catalog" to describe the evolving thing that started out
(once upon a time) as an inventory and finding aid to physical items that a
particular library owned.  After all, we don't seem to have trouble using
"library" to describe many things beyond a collection of books.  

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: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:45 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Does cataloging have value?

Janet Hill said:

"That is, we are using 'catalog' to indicate an interface that provides
intellectual access to the world's resources, not just our own."

Sure, WE know that...but how many users see it that way?

Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN


--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Janet Hill <Janet.Hill_at_COLORADO.EDU> wrote:

> From: Janet Hill <Janet.Hill_at_COLORADO.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Does cataloging have value?
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 11:24 AM
> 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