> While I agree that huge changes are happening, it seems to me that "metadata" is here to stay and will only grow in the future. The question is: will libraries and catalogers be a part of it? They have a very important place in that future *IF* they reconsider what their work really is, and if they can find it in their hearts to (shudder!) change. That is, *really* change.
I agree. I don't think *everything* needs to change, but lots does. My
model is that librarians need to "move up the stack" in the sense that
phrase is used in the computer world. Librarians need to be engaged in
the creation of higher-order metadata—things that call upon and
stretch their professional education. The lower-level stuff should be
automated or done exactly once. (If that means fewer, higher paid
librarians, I think that's okay and indeed the only way to move
librarianship forward.)
> The Semantic Web is a case in point. If we would focus on that, learn some terminology and some basic concepts, I think we could even take one of the leading roles in its development. Building the Semantic Web with our current tools, methods and procedures would be a total joke, but there are other possibilities.
I fundamentally disagree. I really need to write something about this
some day--how and why many librarians love the "semantic web."
Fundamentally, and with respect, I think librarian interest in the
semantic web, is effectively about learning as *little* as
possible—learning nothing from Google, particularly. The semantic web
feels familiar because it is or seems authoritative, controlled,
top-down, binary/certain, standards-driven, committee-based, highly
ordered and in opposition to the "mess" that proven so amazingly
useful. The semantic web is a sort of "web do-over," the web as
envisioned by librarians. As a matter of development, the idea keeps
getting smaller and smaller—from a sort of AI utopia to "linked data"
and "microformats."
> 1. Quality collection building and metadata production is becoming unsustainable.
This I wonder about. Librarians aren't getting more expensive. If the
data is good, it's good. How does it become unsustainable?
> If we can figure out new ways to make ourselves far more productive (and I think there are many, many ways), then there is still a large chance of success.
Very much agreed. More productive means more time spent doing the real
value-ads—high-quality cataloging, particularly of the things that
other methods are not good at doing.
I hope that librarianship and Google-ship are like television and
radio. More is better, and so is different. But radio survived in part
by changing. Narrative drama, for example, moved from the radio to TV.
I hope that librarianship can change fast enough.
Tim
Received on Fri Feb 27 2009 - 20:42:58 EST