On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 22:57, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> Naturally, there are many mistakes in what human beings do, but it
> doesn't follow that if a computer does it, there are no mistakes either.
No, but with a computer there should be more consistency in the
mistakes, and certainly be easier to fix and build upon the doohdahs.
But then, we're mostly talking about interaction with data, not
creation of it, and as such the computer will always improve while the
human will keep on being fallible.
> More to the point though, we should keep in mind that Google very well may
> have 100% access very soon to everything in our catalogs through the Google
> Book Search. Already it is changing the way people find materials in our
> collection.
Absolutely, and as Google becomes more aware that it's books the users
want, the better they will become at catering to their needs. Google
ain't going to stop improving, so for *most* library cataloging
exercises, I'd say you should work harder at giving Google access
rather than trying to create a lesser Google wannabe (with Lucene and
whatsnot which seems to be the trend these days). Create one page pr.
book on your website, and search Google with "site:mylibrary.gov", and
if nothing comes up, you ain't got it. It's definitely cheaper and
might end up being heaps better as Google improves (and you can't keep
up).
Of course, I'm a geek and inventor, and I would love nothing more than
to create whizz-bang cool software for the libraries to use, but no
matter how hard they try they all seem to be scattered in their
thinking, implementation, ideas and content, making it very hard for
themselves to do that one thing they done so well in the physical
world; create a context around information to create knowledge.
Every time I hear about catalogs, I get sick to my stomach! Librarians
have a weird sense that a catalog is "database of what we've got on
our shelves", but only librarians want that. Users want that context
you deliver so well in the physical world, and I have never, ever in
any OPAC or catalog software *ever* seen this context promoted. And
that is very, very sad.
> But it still needs to be proven that Google can do a reliable
> search for something by Tolstoy or Confucius.
What's the criteria? Let's put together a number of cases, and see how we go.
> This is child's play in a catalog, but that is because so much work
> has gone into it behind the scenes.
That's simply not true. *Some* authors have great support, others have
little to none. Like Alexander Kielland, I can't get any good results
searching for "Kjelland", but I can in Google. Besides, are these
things overly important? Author files are good for newbies, but for
professionals? Are those author files there because catalogers maybe
can't spell? *grin*
> Yet, this type of search is simple compared to finding U.S. soldiers' memoirs
> of WWI.
I'm sure we can further the discussion into the mammoth world of
subject headings ...
>> And with that I think the word "Exactly!" shall close my emailing for
>> the day. If it isn't clear enough, I think this is the worst possible
>> reason ever! Exactly! :)
>
> I wouldn't dismiss this so quickly.
Well, dismissed so I could go to bed, at least. :) But seriously,
changing library work processes? Changing the way librarians regard
electronic resources? Changing the way catalogs are built, handled,
maintained and presented?
When, exactly? :)
Regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Mon Mar 02 2009 - 18:35:37 EST