A very common question at the reference desk is "What's the next book
in this series?" I have not seen a PAC that can do that. I don't know
if the capability isn't there, or if it's there but the cataloger
didn't use it, or if I don't understand how to find the function. I do
know that Amazon can do it, and that's where I usually go first to
answer the question. Often, of course, the author's website or
Wikipedia will answer it.
Sharon M. Foster, JD, MLS
Librarians bring order out of chaos.
http://www.vsa-software.com/mlsportfolio/
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Jonathan Rochkind<rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
> John Hardy wrote:
>>
>> Surely though the core difference between the flat text that Google
>> searches and catalog(ue) records is that the latter (however imperfectly
>> implemented) have a structure which allows grouping/subsetting:
>
> How ironic then that our current interfaces do a VERY poor job of supporting
> grouping/subsetting. That's not entirely unrelated to the fact that our
> data, despite being very expensive to produce because it's intended to
> support those kind of actions -- isn't actually very well designed to
> support those actions.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> so for example Google can only make educated guesses if you say to it
>> "find me more books like this one". Compare for example a search in Google
>> Squared using "Books on Fish"
>> (http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=books+on+fish) with a catalogue
>> search for Dewey = 597.2 It is like the difference between today's web and
>> the Semantic web.
>>
>>
>> John Hardy
>> Senior Analyst,
>> Talis Information Ltd
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
>> Sent: 10 July 2009 11:35
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
>>
>> Nathan Rinne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I firmly believe that Google could never make something approximating a
>>> dependable, quality catalog without the records that libraries have
>>> worked so hard to make. Should libraries (and by extension OCLC) look
>>> forward to the day where they can just give everything away to Google...
>>> giving into the added powers that Google's alluring algorithms can
>>> provide? (after all, if they cease to be concerned about protecting
>>> their records, may that not, in effect, be what they are doing?)
>>>
>>
>> While I agree with these sentiments completely, the problem is that I am
>> not sure that the general public does and since our profession exists
>> because the public (i.e. our users) decide to fund us, or not, their
>> perceptions are vital, and especially so today. Before the web, libraries
>> had an almost monopoly on information (or at least that was the way it
>> seemed in the popular imagination) but now that we are facing real, and
>> stiff, competition, problems have arisen that before were hidden, or at
>> least, could be safely ignored.
>>
>> For example, when I try to instruct students in how to search a catalog,
>> they look at you like you are teaching them how to make a fire with two
>> sticks, so you have to (at least I feel that I have to) interject phrases
>> such as, "this is the way that it has traditionally been done" "both methods
>> have their strengths" "someday some clever person will bring it all together
>> and something really powerful will be made."
>>
>> What I am saying is: I don't know if our users see the value in a
>> "dependable, quality catalog" as librarians understand it. This is one of
>> the major criticisms I have of RDA, which is rooted very firmly in the
>> library world and not in their world. While to me it is elementary to
>> suspect that if a tool can't even bring the separate volumes of a bookset
>> together, we should then be very skeptical that it can bring an author's
>> works together, or bring together a collection of resources on the same
>> topic (that is "reliably" in a librarian's definition of the word). This
>> turns out to be very difficult for a layman to grasp however.
>>
>> This should be one of the major focuses of user education, so that our
>> users can begin to appreciate some of the work that we do. That is *very
>> difficult* to do however, when people are so "happy" with Google.
>>
>> Jim Weinheimer
>>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>
>> Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
>>
>> shared innovationTM
>>
>> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
>> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email
>> message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the
>> usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
>> e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>>
>> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
>> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
>> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>>
>>
>
Received on Mon Jul 13 2009 - 11:09:15 EDT