Ed,
> ...I had hoped to find out about others' experiences in this regard
> and what they thought it might mean in terms of the future shape of
> the catalog and cataloging, and why.
I think what you're doing makes complete sense, and is the natural
result of libraries no longer being sole gatekeepers of knowledge or
access to it -- but having a very useful role in facilitating access.
This is why when we revamped our ILL-process, we decided to start folk
at WorldCat instead of our catalog. After finding the item, a click on
the prominent 'Request this item' link takes our users to the catalog
record if we have it -- *and* if it's available -- otherwise, after a
log-in, the request is automatically routed to one of our consortial
borrowing partners or ILLiad, and the book arrives a few days later,
with amazon-like confirmation emails along the way. It's so easy, most
co-workers whose habits I'm aware of now use this method of getting a
book.
I don't see this as in any way implying that we shouldn't make our
catalog as useful as it can be; there are naturally some use-cases
that would lead one to first use the catalog, and an increasing number
that would lead one to first use amazon/google/worldcat/etc.
-Birkin
---
Birkin James Diana
Programmer, Integrated Technology Services
Brown University Library
birkin_diana_at_brown.edu
On May 7, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Ed Jones wrote:
> I hadn't meant to stir up a hornet's nest. My original post was
> simply to report how I typically do research. As someone who has
> cataloged all my professional life, I'm a bit alarmed at how little
> I use the library catalog to get what I need for my research. I'm
> also embarrassed to say I'm not sure what it all means. Perhaps I'm
> an outlier and my experience isn't that relevant to the discussion.
> By posting, I had hoped to find out about others' experiences in
> this regard and what they thought it might mean in terms of the
> future shape of the catalog and cataloging, and why.
Received on Fri May 08 2009 - 09:40:18 EDT