Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>
> And this is why I think librarians get so defensive about their tools
> and their concept of authority. I think there's value to the kind of
> authority they try to provide (especially name authority), but what is
> weird is that they won't let the actual scholars play a direct role.
> ...
> And getting at these relationships is why it would be interesting to put
> our data out on the Web for linking and data mining.
There have been some, even large scale, attempts at doing that: exposing
bib records in millions of HTML files to the search engines. Results,
AFAIK, have not been encouraging - the files have no links or stuff for
Google to chew on - are too poor of content.
Firstly, isn't it about time for some larger scale evaluation of the
usefulness of devices available for searching? Librarians are perhaps
not the (only) ones that should conduct such evaluations.
Secondly, in a better world than the one we find ourselves thrown into,
one might have scholars and librarians, and others, contribute to the
quality of the Google database: add controlled subject vocabulary and
established name forms, link items that belong together (volumes of
multiparts, editions, serials, and periodicals). The sort of things
happening right now in LibraryThing...
As we've come to know, GB *is* using library metadata, but they don't
disclose what and how, and obviously not to an optimum of possible
effects. Behind this, there *may* be restrictions imposed by OCLC on
the use of "their" data - what do we know? More tranparency should be
possible even in this world.
B.Eversberg
Received on Wed Mar 04 2009 - 02:43:34 EST