On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:09:09AM -0500, James Weinheimer wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:46:48 +0100, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE> wrote:
> >"A new name for the catalog" has been clamored for not just in this
> >forum for years. When this happens, there is invariably some skirmishing
> >and dispute, but up until now no result and no semblance of consensus.
> >But then, what exactly would a new name actually change?
>
> It may focus some people's attention. Unfortunately, these things really do
> seem to make a difference in how people relate to you. Also, as Owen points
> out, it also can make us feel differently about ourselves. The "catalog" has
> always been insular and separated from many other related tools.
Has anyone suggested "linked catalog"? That clearly ties
into the Linked Data paradigm (or so I hope) and corrects the
"insular" image while rooting it in a noble tradition.
> This "insularity" has already changed in reality because of the world wide
> web, but the attitudes of many catalogers/metadata creators has yet to
> change. The idea that we must fit ourselves into the work of others is quite
> different from the old idea of being in 100% control of our local catalogs.
> Perhaps giving it a new name would help in this regard.
"Linked" nicely implies "fitting in".
Tom
--
Tom Baker <tbaker_at_tbaker.de>
Received on Wed Feb 18 2009 - 06:25:59 EST