> The problem is that the envisioned system isn't going to be able to
> handle a case where you call something a work and I call it an expression,
> or I want to put the music arranger at a different FRBR level than you do --
> instead, everything breaks.
Right. Like other binary systems, it presupposes the one-true-answer.
Now, this could be achieved. In five years time, OCLC's data monopoly
could be total, and bit-by-bit libraries would stop maintaining local
records entirely, doing everything in common. Although some fields
could be made library-specific, and kept in a separate data store,
keyed to the library, the overall structure would be one answer, with
local records being just pointers to those records.
In many ways, this is an easy model, and an obvious one to a system
designer. Notably, LibraryThing's competitors, Shelfari, Anobii and
Goodreads use this model—with one global record to which individual
library records point. Goodreads maintains this by deputizing a class
of "Librarians" who can change records—and whose changes by definition
apply to all. Like AUTOCAT to WorldCat, a fair amount of Goodreads
member communication amounts to "I'm not authorized; can you change
this for me?"
The alternative is a system that attempts to keep what's special about
individual records, while leveraging the power of the aggregate. This
is how LibraryThing works. The LibraryThing model privileges the
individual records, every one of which is editable. Cross-item data is
created by "bubbling up" from these records to a global level that is
essentially contingent and calculated. Instead of local items being
pointers to the "real" global items, local items are the real things,
with the global level derivative of them.
Of course, the systems get mixed. LT's competitors allow members to
keep their tags separate, of course. And LibraryThing attaches our
fielded wiki "Common Knowledge" system to the global level—creating
some uncertainty when something on the global level shifts.
My vision of the future is simple. Local and global inform each other.
You benefit from others work, but aren't bound by it. I imagine the
cataloger of the future arriving at his desk in the morning to
messages like:
*"So and so died last night. Update authority records?"
*"The Library of Congress approved a new LCSH, X. Update all relevant records?"
*"The archivist at Yale has determined that 30 of its photos are of
your town's first mayor. Download photos and make them findable?"
*"Your subscription to LibraryThing for Libraries Holodeck is nearly up. Renew?"
Tim
Received on Tue Feb 17 2009 - 21:54:58 EST