One area where I see problems for catalogs as targets--where one comes
to a catalog record [or set of records] for a given work via a
mouse-click from an external Web page mentioning that work--is that this
sort of action is best facilitated by universal identifiers in the
source page (ISBN, DOI, etc.), and many bibliographic
objects--especially older ones--lack universal identifiers. While the
library community has been merrily assigning ISSNs to long-dead
periodicals, the publishing community has had no reason to do something
similar with ISBNs (even with the recent doubling of the potential
universe of ISBNs), mainly because older books belong to everybody (and
so to nobody) and ISBNs are assigned by distinct somebodies, mainly for
inventory control. To paraphrase Ranganathan, identifiers are for use,
which to me means there must be some self-interest involved for the
agency assigning the identifier; conversely, there must be some
disincentive to agencies preferring (and promoting) their own
proprietary identifiers such as ASINs, LCCNs, and OCLC control numbers.
I'm not aware of any movement on this front, though it has had some
prominent backing (e.g., Jimmy Wales).
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Birkin James Diana
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:38 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Searching
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 - 11:34:03 EDT